Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of real property known as Lot 6, Block 10, Angler's Park, in Key Largo, Florida. He purchased that property in November of 1986. Petitioner's property is contiguous to sovereign submerged lands in Largo Sound, a sound of the Atlantic Ocean. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida holds title to submerged lands waterward of the mean high water line contiguous to Petitioner's property. The submerged lands contiguous to Petitioner's property lie within the boundaries of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. The Board of Trustees dedicated the submerged lands contiguous to what is now Petitioner's property to the Florida Board of Parks and Historical Memorials, now the Division of Recreation and Parks of the Department of Natural Resources, on September 21, 1967. A dock existed on the submerged lands contiguous to Petitioner's property prior to 1967. The entire dock existed at least by 1938. The historic dock was probably one of the oldest docks in Largo Sound. Due to the passage of time and hurricanes, only the pilings and a concrete pad near shore still existed as of 1967. The dock was not rebuilt until 1988. Throughout the years, boats were moored at the dock. After the planking on the dock no longer existed, people still moored their boats to individual pilings. The dock was considered an excellent location for fishing, and people travelled by boat to the location, tying their boats to the pilings to fish. When Petitioner purchased his property, the only structures left on the contiguous submerged lands were thirteen concrete pilings and the concrete pad near shore. Only four of the pilings were sticking up out of the water. The remaining pilings were submerged. The original configuration of the historic dock was easily ascertained by the pilings and concrete pad. After Petitioner purchased his property, he began constructing a residence. He would travel from elsewhere in the Key Largo area by boat, would tie his boat to one of the pilings, and would wade ashore. Petitioner applied to Monroe County for a permit to rebuild portions of the dock. Although Monroe County accepted and retained his permit application fee, he was not issued a permit. Instead, he was told that he should contact the people at Pennekamp State Park. Petitioner then contacted Respondent's employees at Pennekamp State Park about reconstructing portions of the dock. In response to that inquiry Petitioner received a letter dated June 10, 1987, advising him that Respondent was not a permitting agency. That letter further recited two of Respondent's rules prohibiting the removal or destruction of natural features and marine life and construction activities in that state park. Having been frustrated by his attempts to obtain a permit to rebuild the dock from both Monroe County and from Respondent's employees at Pennekamp State Park, Petitioner made no further effort to obtain a permit or authorization from any other state, local, or federal government agency to reconstruct his dock. One day he backed a pickup truck to the edge of the water, hooked up, and raised the closest piling up in the air. Utilizing the existing pilings and adding additional ones, Petitioner rebuilt the dock "going a step at a time." In the course of his rebuilding the dock, Petitioner replaced the wooden decking and fasteners, replaced the wooden stringers and fasteners, added seven new concrete pilings, raised and repositioned several existing concrete pilings, and poured concrete footings for the new pilings. He completed rebuilding the dock in 1989. During the almost one year that he was rebuilding the dock, he worked in plain view of employees of local and state agencies. He was easily observed by the Coast Guard, the Marine Patrol, and the Park Service boats travelling to and through the Marvin D. Adams Waterway located approximately seventy-five feet from his property. No one told Petitioner to stop his construction activities. When it was completed, his dock was 12 feet wide and 84 feet long, 28 feet shorter than the historic dock. Petitioner's entire dock consists of 1018 square feet. Petitioner's dock is in the same location as the historic dock. Petitioner's dock is a private dock, used only by him when he moors his boat there occasionally. In re-building his dock, Petitioner extended it to a distance so that the water depth at the end of Petitioner's dock is four feet mean low water. Additionally, Petitioner left an open space of one to two inches between each plank on the deck so that sunlight could penetrate between the deck planking the entire distance of the dock. Pilings are an integral part of a dock. In 1988 Respondent began conducting a survey of private docks, commercial marinas, and fills, both authorized and unauthorized, within the boundaries of Pennekamp State Park as those boundaries were extended in 1967 to Key Largo. The survey was to be utilized in developing a policy regarding structures within the extended park boundaries. Petitioner's dock was included in that survey. The information which Respondent transmitted to the Governor and Cabinet regarding Petitioner's dock was that it was not authorized, that it was built in 1990, and that the water depth at the mooring area, considered by Respondent to be the terminal end of the dock, was two feet. Respondent did not advise the Governor and Cabinet that a dock had been in existence at Petitioner's property prior to 1967 and as far back as at least 1938, that the concrete pad and thirteen pilings from the historic dock still existed, or that Petitioner had rebuilt the dock in the same location, but shorter, than the historic dock. Further, Respondent did not advise the Governor and Cabinet that its water depth measurement of two feet was not taken at the waterward end of the dock, the way such a measurement is normally done. Respondent did advise the Governor and Cabinet that the access channel to the dock was four feet deep. On April 12, 1990, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the head of Respondent, approved a policy regarding development encroachments in Pennekamp State Park. The portion of that policy which relates to private docks provides as follows: Private docks must (1) be in existence prior to 1967 within state park waters to receive authorized structure status; (2) all docks within state park waters legally authorized by the Department of Natural Resources or the Board of Trustees during or after 1967 receive status as authorized structures; (3) that all other private docks in existence since 1967 within state park waters that are not legally authorized by Department of Natural Resources or the Board of Trustees have been evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration any authorization issued by state and federal environmental agencies and, using the Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria - 18-21.0041 Florida Administrative Code, as a guideline for reviewing environmental impact on marine communities, designate the structure as either authorized or require removal or modification; and (4) that no future authorizations will be issued for the construction of new private docks in state park waters. Respondent subsequently notified Petitioner that his dock fell into category (3), that it had been evaluated on an individual basis using the Florida Keys Marina and Dock Siting Policies and Criteria, that his dock had an impact on marine communities because it exceeded the size and dimension requirements and did not meet the water depth requirements, and that Petitioner's dock needed to be "modified." Respondent further advised Petitioner that the modifications required included reconstructing his dock to a T-shaped structure rather than Petitioner's rectangular-shaped structure. The new structure would be required to have a four-foot wide walkway with a terminal platform of no more than 160 square feet. Further, Respondent's proposed dock would also extend an additional 28 feet further into Largo Sound than Petitioner's dock. Respondent also required that Petitioner install permanent handrails along the dock in order to convert it to only a swimming/fishing pier, and the mooring of any water craft to the structure would be prohibited. Petitioner has not so modified his dock. There are algae, sea grasses, sponges, coral, and other vegetation and marine life beneath and adjacent to Petitioner's dock, constituting a marine community. Shading has an adverse impact on the growth of sea grasses and marine vegetation. Where shading exists under Petitioner's dock, the submerged land under the dock is nearly barren. However, Petitioner rebuilt the dock in a manner so as to reduce the effect of shading. The dock is 41 inches above water at high tide. The spacing between planks on the deck also allows sunlight to penetrate the water below Petitioner's dock. An underwater videotape of the area beneath and around Petitioner's dock reveals an extensive marine life habitat and nursery. The pilings which have been under water for such a long time have an extensive buildup of sponges and coral which, in turn, provide a habitat for an enormous number of fish. Spiny Florida lobsters live under Petitioner's dock, as do mangrove snapper, barracuda, porkfish, damselfish, reef fish, sea cucumbers, and urchins. In effect, Petitioner has created an artificial reef. Some of the barren areas beneath Petitioner's dock are a result of the halo effect, i.e., the crustaceans and fish living under the dock and in the sponges and soft corals on the pilings only graze so far from their homes in order to avoid predators. This halo effect can also be seen around the free-standing pilings outside of Petitioner's dock area. Even if the planking on Petitioner's dock were removed, the sea grasses would not grow back around the pilings since the grazing organisms would still be present. Although there may be less shading beneath Respondent's proposed dock than exists underneath Petitioner's dock, substantial damage to the marine community beneath Petitioner's dock would be caused by the removal of Petitioner's dock and the building of a new one. It is not clear that the long- term effect of Respondent's proposed dock would have less adverse impact than Petitioner's dock. It is likely, however, that the removal of the present dock, with or without the subsequent construction of Respondent's proposed dock, would have a substantial adverse effect on the healthy marine community now existing beneath and around Petitioner's dock.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered giving Petitioner's dock authorized structure status. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 10th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 5-7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 9 have been rejected as unnecessary for determination of the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8 and 10-19 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-7, 9-13, 16-18, 20, 21, 26-31, 33, 36, and 37 have adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 8, 14, 15, 25, 35, 40, and 41 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 22-24 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 32, 34, 38, 39, and 42-44 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this case. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Burgess, Jr., Esquire Syprett, Meshad, Resnick & Lieb, P.A. Post Office Box 1238 Sarasota, Florida 34230-1238 Suzanne B. Brantley, Esquire Department of Natural Resources Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Don E. Duden Acting Executive Director Department of Natural Resources Mail Station 10 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Ken Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources Mail Station 10 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
The Issue Issues presented here concerned the entitlement of Respondent, Russell D. Horn, Sr., to be granted an environmental permit by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to build a boat stall on an existing dock in Putnam County, Florida. The boat stall's dimensions are ten feet wide by twenty feet deep and the construction would be on the St. Johns River.
Findings Of Fact On July 13, 1981, Russell D. Horn, Sr., who has a residence in Putnam County, Florida, bade application to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, for the necessary permits to construct a boat stall ten feet wide by twenty feet deep at the site of an existing dock. A copy of the application may be found as Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The dock where Horn applied to build the boat slip is found in the St. Johns River, a navigable water body and waters of the State of Florida in Putnam County, Florida. The application form which was executed by Horn required him to indicate the name of adjacent property owners to the property at which the dock site was located, both upland and adjacent to the uplands. See Rule 17- 4.28(11)(c), Florida Administrative Code. To accomplish this task, the applicant utilized a sketch which he had been provided when he purchased his homesite in the area and indicated to the Department that the adjoining landowners were Milton Kilis and Robert Michal. In fact, Robert Michal was not an adjacent landowner. The adjacent landowner, Milton G. Kilis, wrote to advise the Department that he had no objection to the construction of the boat slip. This correspondence was dated September 11, 1981. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. After reviewing the initial application, additional information was requested by a document entitled "Completeness Summary" which was addressed from the Department to the Applicant Horn. A copy of this "Completeness Summary" requesting additional information may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Through this summary, Horn was requested to provide written authorization from the dock owners. It was also requested that Respondent provide an affidavit of ownership of the upland property adjacent to the dock site. Horn received permission to construct from Frank Scussell and William A. Reaves, persons he understood to be the dock owners. See Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. Horn misunderstood the question related to ownership of upland property and provided a mortgage deed with its attendant description of his home site property in Putnam County, which is at a different location from that of the upland property adjacent to the dock. A copy of that deed and other matters may be found as Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. Department of Environmental Regulation reviewing authorities wrote on the "Completeness Summary" form, Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 1, indicating that the task of seeking written authorization from the dock owners had been achieved and that the affidavit of ownership of upland property owners was satisfactory. In fact, all adjacent property owners had not been notified of the pendency of the application request through the process of Horn's advising the Respondent agency of the names of all adjacent property owners to the uplands and the affidavit of ownership of the upland property owner at the dock site was not filed. During the review process, permission was given by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the construction of the boat slip. A copy of this permission, by letter dated August 31, 1981, is Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the permit application and prepared an application appraisal, which may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. The findings made by that application appraisal related to application review are found to be accurate. In particular the permit application appraisal indicated that the boat slip would be located at the waterward end of the existing dock structure, which existing dock structure accommodated four boats. The appraisal found that the project was located in South Putnam County in the town of Georgetown on the St. Johns River. The permit appraisal found that the project site would be located in the littoral zone of the river about one hundred feet waterward of the mean high water line. No littoral growth was seen at the depth of the proposed construction. Tapegrass, Mexican waterlily and cattail were present near the shore. Several large hardwood swamp trees were present at the shoreline. The project was found to be located in a Water Class III and adjacent waters were Class III according to the appraisal, no significant immediate or long-term adverse environmental impacts were to be expected to occur due to the completion of the boat slip. Horn was subsequently given a construction permit to add the boat stall to the existing dock. A copy of that permit may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. The only specific conditions related to that matter pertain to the necessity for the utilization of turbidity curtains throughout the project for purposes of containing the turbidity that might exceed State water quality standards, The permit was issued on September 22, 1981. After receiving the permit, sometime around October 20, 1981, Horn purchased the necessary lumber to construct the stall and on October 24, 1981, went to the dock site to begin the installation of pilings related to the construction of the boat stall. While placing the pilings on October 24, 1981, an adjoining property owner and Petitioner in this cause, Marshall Wolfe, stood on his dock, that is, Wolfe's dock, and hailed to Horn to stop building. Horn did not know Wolfe before that time and did not know that Wolfe, not Michal, was the adjacent property owner on that side of the dock. On October 28, 1981, Marshall Wolfe and his wife, Ann Wolfe, wrote to the Department in the person of G. Doug Dutton, Subdistrict Manager, and indicated that they were opposed to the issuance of the permit, which is under the number of the permit issued to Respondent, and requested a hearing on the question of the issuance. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On the same date, October 28, 1981, Horn was contacted by the Department of Environmental Regulation and advised of the Wolfe complaint and Horn was told that he would receive a cease and desist order from the Department of Environmental Regulation. On October 30, 1981, Horn returned to the construction site and found four of his neighbors finishing the construction of the stall. In fact, the neighbors did conclude the construction and the boat slip remains in place. A cease and desist letter was mailed on November 2, 1981; however, this letter was not received by Horn immediately. Horn did subsequently learn of the contents of the letter some time in November or December, 1981. A copy of the cease and desist letter may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. On December 13, 1981, an attempt was made at the instigation of Department officials for the Petitioners and Respondent Horn to resolve the controversy. This effort was unsuccessful. As a consequence, a formal hearing was necessary in keeping with the request of the Department that the Division of Administrative Hearings conduct a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, formal hearing. This request had been made on November 12, 1981, and an initial hearings had been scheduled for February 11, 1982, following consultation between the various parties and the Hearing Officer. At the initial hearing session on February 11, 1982, which was to be held in Palatka, Florida, counsel for Department indicated that the upland property was not owned by Horn and that easement rights to that property were unclear. In view of this fact the hearing was continued until the ostensible upland property owner could be notified of the pendency of the issuance of an environmental permit and be allowed to participate. Notification was subsequently provided by an Intent to Issue Statement, a copy of which may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence. This notification was through the Department at the instigation of the Hearing Officer. The date of notification was February 12, 1982. An order was entered on March 17, 1982, which allowed the intervention of St. Johns Crescent Lakesites, Inc. into the proceedings and that party, in the person of its counsel, Lauren E. Merriam, III, Esquire, participated in the April 15, 1982 hearing. St. Johns Crescent Lakesites, Inc. is the owner of the upland property adjacent to the dock in which Horn had constructed the boat slip. No indication was given that any easement rights were ever granted by that corporation to grant access to the boat slip from the adjacent property. The overall dock area, in terms of square feet, is between 500 and 1000 square feet. Other than the permit application made by Horn, no other permission has been received by the Department to construct the other features of the dock. A further appraisal of the project site subsequent to the September 18, 1981, appraisal has been made. That appraisal was made by the field inspector for the Department. This appraisal by Melvin Rechtor agrees with the project appraisal made by the first field inspector, John Hendricks. The testimony of Melvin Rechtor on environmental impacts of the project are accepted as accurate. Rechtor's testimony established that the project would have an insignificant impact on water quality considerations and would not adversely affect the species or the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources. Rechtor's testimony established that there would be no unreasonable interference with waterward access of adjacent property owners. Rechtor's testimony also established that there would be no navigational hazard nor interference with fishing and swimming by persons using the river.
Findings Of Fact Patco proposes to build a dock offshore of a condominium it is now constructing on Anna Maria Key in Manatee County, Florida. At the proposed dock, condominium residents could moor 22 boats in Watson's Bayou, which opens onto Sarasota Pass (also known as Anna Maria Sound). A house owned by Mildred S. Mansfield, petitioner Peter's mother, sits on a waterfront lot on the north shore of Watson's Bayou. The main part of the proposed dock would parallel the edge of the bayou, running 248 feet in a north-south direction, 30 to 45 feet offshore. Some 47 marine pilings six inches in diameter would support the decking on the main part, which would be elevated four feet above mean sea level. At its mid- point, the main part of the dock would be joined to the land by a perpendicular- access walkway with the same open substructure and at the same height as the main part of the dock. Of the ten pilings planned as the foundation for the access walkway, six would be seaward of the mean high water line. Eleven catwalks or finger piers are planned to extend perpendicularly into the bayou from the main part of the dock, at intervals of 24 to 28 feet. Two six inch marine pilings would support each catwalk or finger pier at a height of slightly more than three feet above mean sea level. Between every pair of finger piers, two boat slips are planned; and slips are planned on either side of every finger pier. Between every pair of slips not separated by a finger pier, Patco proposes to place a mooring piling, equidistant from the two finger piers nearest it. These ten mooring pilings would stand seaward of the finger piers, but no more than 70 feet seaward of the mean high water line. Patco also plans to put in two pilings along each of two imaginary lines, running shoreward from either end of the main part of the dock, and perpendicular to the main part of the dock. The purpose of these pilings, which would be about eight feet apart, would be to discourage boat traffic between the main part of the dock and the shore. Two boulders would be placed in shallow water for the same purpose. A water system and electrical service are planned for the dock, but neither fuel nor lubricants are to be dispensed and no waste or sewage system is planned. Patco plans to operate the facility, including emptying containers it intends to provide for trash, until it sells the dock to an association of slip owners, who will take over its management. Patco will not allow people to live aboard boats moored at the dock and a condition of any sale to an association will be that the association not allow live-aboards. With occasional breaks, there is a fringe of black, white and red mangroves along the shore opposite the main part of the proposed dock. Louise Robertson testified without contradiction that mangroves bordering Patco's property have been trimmed and in some cases cut down. The access walkway is planned for one of the natural breaks in the mangrove fringe, however, a spot where there are no mangroves. Applicant's Exhibit No. 6. The waters of Watson's Bayou are Class III waters. Experience with a similar dock built by Patco near the proposed site some 15 months before the hearing indicates that the proposed dock would not violate DER's water quality standards. Shortly before the hearing, a biologist's superficial examination of waters in the vicinity of the dock that has been built revealed no water quality problems as a result of the dock. Increased boat traffic in the vicinity would result in additional oils and greases in the water but, after reasonable opportunity for mixture with the waters of Watson's Bayou, oils and greases would probably not exceed 15 milligrams per liter, or otherwise violate the criteria set forth in Rule 17-3.05(2)(r) Florida Administrative Code. Patco plans to engage a subcontractor to put the pilings in. The subcontractor would "jet" the pilings by using a pump mounted on a barge to force water down to the bottom through a hose. This process would result in sand being temporarily suspended in the water. Patco proposes to curtain off or "diaper" the area where pilings are to be jetted in, so as to contain the turbidity, and so as to keep silt out of an oyster bed nearby. The parties stipulated that the project would not violate turbidity standards, if such precautions are taken. The parties also stipulated that the proposed dock would not violate DER's dissolved oxygen or biochemical oxygen demand standards. The evidence established that DER has reasonable assurance that none of its water quality standards would be violated by the dock Patco proposes to build. At mean sea level, there is ample water at the site of the proposed slips to float any vessel capable of entering Watson's Bayou from the waters outside. The channel into Watson's Bayou from Sarasota Pass is only three feet deep at low tide. This shallow channel prevents boats drawing more than a few feet from entering the Bayou through the channel, but a 46 foot ketch once came in on a high tide. In the proposed slips, mean sea level depths would range from six or seven feet at the seaward end of the finger piers to three or four feet at the landward end of the slips. Mean low water depths are about seven/tenths of a foot lower. With a spring tide, the water may fall six inches below mean low water levels. There is virtually no danger that boats would run aground in the proposed slips. The bottom underneath the proposed dock is sandy and wholly devoid of grasses or other marine vegetation. Between the shore and the main part of the dock however, there is an oyster bed whose northern edge is approximately five or ten feet south of the site proposed for the access walkway. This oyster bed extends about 280 feet in a southerly direction, but does not extend as far west as the site proposed for the main part of the dock. Jetting in the proposed pilings would not result in the death of a single oyster. As long as boats stay on the seaward side of the main part of the proposed dock, the oysters would not be harmed by boat traffic. Other fauna at the site include some benthic polychaetes, tunicates and other arthropods. The jetting in of pilings would injure and displace any of these creatures who were in the immediate vicinity, but their mobility is comparable to that of fishes and they would soon reestablish themselves. Once in place, the pilings would afford a habitat for barnacles and related marine life. A public boat launching ramp is situated 150 to 200 feet from the southern end of the proposed dock. The ramp is far enough away from the proposed dock that construction of the dock would not interfere with launching boats. The water in this part of Watson's Bayou is deep enough that the proposed dock would not create a serious impediment to navigation. Under certain wind conditions, however, a sailboat beating into the main part of Watson's Bayou from the ramp might have to make an additional tack or two if the proposed dock is built. Conversely, with southerly winds, a boat under sail making for the ramp from the main part of Watson's Bayou might have to tack more often if Patco builds the dock it proposes. The dock Patco plans to build would not create a navigational hazard nor cause erosion of the shoreline. The parties stipulated that the dock would not substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters. The State of Florida owns the bottom into which Patco plans to jet pilings. Respondent DER contacted Florida's Department of Natural Resources about the proposed dock in October, 1978. By letter dated November 21, 1978, the Department of Natural Resources advised the DER that the project would "not require a lease . . . as this application is considered a private dock." DER's Exhibit No. 1. On the strength of biological and ecological surveys and repeated visits to the site by Linda Allen, an environmental specialist in DER's employ, the DER gave notice of its intent do issue the permit Patco seeks. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant Patco's application for permit on the following conditions: That no submerged or transitional vegetation be destroyed in constructing the dock. That the construction area be diapered so as to restrict siltation to the smallest practicable space and, in any event, so as to separate the work area from the oyster bed. That no dredging by any method be used to gain access to the dock. That the owner of the dock allow no docking except in slips seaward of the main part of the dock. That the owner of the dock maintain lines and floats between the ends of the main part of the dock and the landward pilings; and take other appropriate steps to discourage boat traffic between the main part of the dock and the shore. That the owner of the dock forbid living on board boats moored at the dock; forbid the discharge of sewage and garbage into the water; and furnish trash receptacles for the dock. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraphs one through eleven, thirteen through seventeen and nineteen through twenty-two of respondent Patco's proposed findings of fact, have been adopted, in substance. Paragraph twelve of respondent Patco's proposed findings of fact has been adopted insofar as the plan for pilings and boulders. The evidence did not establish that this, without more, would suffice to protect marine life on the bottom between the shore and the main part of the dock. Paragraph eighteen of respondent Patco's proposed findings of fact reflects the evidence in that it was shown that the proposed dock would not degrade water quality below minimum standards for Class III waters; but degradation of water quality as a result of oils and greases can be expected, within lawful limits. COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey A. Dye, Jr., Esquire Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire Post Office Box 9480 Bradenton, Florida 33506 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Peter W. Mansfield 1861 Meadow Court West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
The Issue Bluewater raises four issues on appeal: (1) whether the Commission erred in failing to recognize that the three disputed recreational vehicle lots were auxiliary “worker camper” sites that were not subject to individual permitting under the land development code; (2) whether the Commission failed to apply an applicable statute of limitations; (3) whether the Commission is estopped from denying approval for the three disputed recreational vehicle spaces under the 2003 “McGarry letter”; and whether the Commission erred in retroactively applying the 1992 Monroe County Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO), to activities approved by the 1989 plat approval. For the reasons expressed below, the Commission did not depart from the essential requirements of the law when it rendered Resolution No. P07-13.
The Issue Whether Sam Patterson’s proposed dock project is exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mr. Scully resides at 941 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 16, adjacent to and south-southeast of Mr. Patterson's residential property. The northern or rear portion of Mr. Scully's lot borders on an artificial canal that is designated a Class III water by Department rule. He does not have a dock per se; he moors his boat against and parallel to a narrow concrete area (and his lot line), separated by buffering material. Mr. Patterson, the applicant, owns the property at 930 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 15. Lot 15 is north-northwest and adjacent to Mr. Scully’s property. This residential property is currently leased to others. The residential property (Lot 14) adjacent to and north-northeast of Mr. Patterson's lot is apparently owned by an individual named Meloche. The Department has the jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed project is exempt from ERP requirements. The Proposed Project On or about September 13, 2004, Mr. Patterson filed an application requesting an exemption to replace an existing five- foot by 21-foot (105-square feet) marginal dock in the same location, configuration, and dimensions as the existing dock. He also requested an exemption to install a five-foot by 16-foot (80-square feet) wooden finger pier extending perpendicular to and from the middle of the existing marginal dock. As of the final hearing, the project has been revised such that the wooden finger pier will extend 11.8 feet (rather than 16 feet) and perpendicular from the middle of the marginal dock. Mr. Patterson changed the length of the finger pier to comply with City regulations, which are not at issue in this case. The “Site Plan” is attached to the Department’s Notice of Determination of Exemption. (JE 1). The “Site Plan” shows a one-story residence on Mr. Patterson's Lot 15. The front of the lot measures 100 feet, whereas the rear of the lot (that abuts the canal on the easternmost portion of the lot) is 50 feet in length from south to north. The seawall is one-and-one-half feet in width. The existing marginal dock abuts the seawall running south to north and is 21 feet long and five feet wide. Small concrete platforms abut the marginal dock on the south and north. The Department reviewed the original application and on October 13, 2004, advised Mr. Patterson, in part, that his project was exempt from the need to obtain an ERP under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d). The Department had not reviewed the change to the project prior to the final hearing. See Finding of Fact 5. Lots 16, 15, and 14 are situated as a cul-de-sac (semi- circle) with the canal north of Lot 16, east of Lot 15, and south of Lot 14. Lot 14 is across the canal from Mr. Scully's Lot 16. There are five properties on each side of the canal, running west to east. The artificial canal runs directly east from Mr. Patterson’s property for an uncertain distance to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Mr. Patterson’s property (Lot 15) is the western end-point for this canal. Mr. Patterson’s eastern property line (fronting the canal) is 50 feet in width. However, the precise width of the canal between Lots 14 and 16 is unclear. Ms. Smith reports (in her site inspection report of March 3, 2005 (JE 3)) that the canal is approximately 50 feet wide. Mr. Patterson testified that Karen Main with the City of Boynton Beach advised him that the consensus opinion of City employees reviewing the issue was that the canal measured 66 feet in width. There appears to be some widening of the canal east of Mr. Patterson’s property line and then the canal appears to straighten-out as it proceeds to the east to the ICW and past the easterly property lines for Lots 14 and 16. See (JEs 1-site plan; 5-aerial). The weight of the evidence indicates that the canal, between Lots 14 and 16, is approximately 60 to 66 feet wide. See, e.g., id. In the past, the prior owner of Lot 15 (Mr. Patterson's property) moored a boat at and parallel to the marginal dock, which means that the bow, for example, faced Lot 14 and the stern faced Lot 16. Mr. Patterson currently owns a 16-foot boat that he wants to moor at the marginal dock. However, he feels that it is unsafe to do so, particularly if Mr. Scully’s boat drifts. Meloche (Lot 14 to the north) has a fixed boatlift, which allows for the elevation of a boat out of the water, with the bow facing west toward and in front of the northern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. (JE 4). Mr. Scully moors his boat parallel to the shoreline of Lot 16 and perpendicular to Mr. Patterson’s 50-foot eastern seawall and property line. (JEs 4 and 6). Mr. Scully’s seawall intersects Mr. Patterson’s seawall such that when Mr. Scully’s 22-foot boat is moored at his seawall, it is also in front of the southern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. Id. When Mr. Scully’s boat is tightly moored at his seawall, it does not interfere with or block Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 6). However, when Mr. Scully’s boat is loosely moored, it drifts toward the center of the canal in front of Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 4). With no boat moored at the marginal dock, Mr. Scully is able to freely maneuver his boat to his seawall with limited “backing” of his boat required (stern first). With a boat consistently moored at Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock, Mr. Scully would have to back into his area beside his seawall in order to avoid colliding with that boat. Mr. Patterson’s finger pier would enable him to safely moor a boat perpendicular to the marginal dock. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock is likely to make it easier for Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully to navigate to their respective mooring areas, depending on the size of the boats moored by Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully. (The Department, in reviewing similar exemption requests, does not consider the type and size of the boat(s) to be moored at the proposed dock or adjacent mooring site.) It is preferable for the boats to be moored, in this location, stern first, with the bow facing down the canal from the wake of the boats traveling in the ICW. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock and mooring Mr. Patterson’s boat on the north side of the finger pier is likely to enable Meloche, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Scully to moor their boats parallel to each other and avoid collisions.1 Placement of the finger pier at the northern end of the finger pier, while favored over the proposed location by Mr. Scully, is likely to interfere with Meloche’s use of his property and boatlift. With the finger pier centered on the marginal dock and a boat moored to the north, Mr. Scully can maneuver his boat to his seawall by “backing in” stern first. An experienced boater can accomplish this task in two to three maneuvers. Mr. Scully is an experienced boater and has lived on the canal for approximately eight years. Shortening the finger pier from 16 feet to 11.8 feet will not affect Mr. Patterson’s ability to safely moor a boat on the northern side of the finger pier. The Challenge Mr. Scully contends that the placement of the wooden finger pier and the mooring of a sizable boat on the proposed finger pier will interfere with his ability to navigate in and out of the canal in or around his property, and necessarily interfere with his ability to moor his boat adjacent to his property. He also contends that the marginal dock and the finger pier are two docks, not one. Resolution of the Controversy Replacement of the existing marginal dock will consist of replacing the decking and using the existing pilings. The existing marginal dock is currently functional. Reconstruction of the marginal dock and construction of the finger pier will be done by a licensed marine contractor. The licensed marine contractor will use best management practices to avoid water quality problems in the canal during construction. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect flood control or violate water quality standards. The proposed project will not impede navigation. But see Endnote 1.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order concluding that Mr. Patterson’s proposed dock project, as revised, is exempt from the need to obtain an ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 14th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Application On or about November 8, 1994, Raymond and Nancy Swart, Trustees, applied for a permit to construct a private multislip dock facility at their property on Little Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, DEP File No. 5826007043. As proposed, the dock would consist of: 237' of five foot wide access pier; a terminal dock 45' long and 5.5' wide; and eight finger piers 20' long and three feet wide. All of the structures were proposed to be three feet above mean high water (MHW). Normal construction procedures would be used to "jet" pilings into place, including the use of turbidity screens. As proposed, the dock would provide nine slips for the use of the owners of the nine lots in the Swarts' subdivided property, known as Sunset Place. There would be no live-aboards allowed, and there would be no fueling facilities, sewage pump-out facilities or any other boating supplies or services provided on or at the dock. Under the proposal, verti-lifts would be constructed for all of the slips at a later date. (When boat owners use verti- lifts, there is less need to paint boat bottoms with toxic anti-fouling paint.) As part of the application, the Swarts offered to grant a conservation easement encumbering approximately 400' of shoreline. The Intent to Issue Because Little Sarasota Bay is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), and because of concerns regarding the maintenance of its environmental quality, the DEP required that the Swarts submit additional information for review in connection with their application. Specifically, the DEP wanted them to perform a hydrographic study to assure adequate flushing at the site and a bathymetric survey to assure adequate water depths and minimal impacts on seagrasses. After review of the additional information, the DEP gave notice of its Intent to Issue the permit, with certain modifications and conditions. The Intent to Issue would require that the "most landward access pier . . . be extended an additional 15 feet to avoid the mooring of watercraft within seagrasses." It also would require the decking of the main access pier (155' long), which would cross seagrass beds, be elevated to a minimum of five feet above mean high water (MHW). (This would reduce shading and minimize impacts on the seagrasses.) The Intent to Issue included specific measures for the protection of manatees during and after construction. The Intent to Issue specifically prohibited hull cleaning, painting or other external maintenance at the facility. The Intent to Issue specified the width of the 400' long conservation easement (30', for an area of approximately 0.27 acres) and required the Swarts to "plant a minimum of 50 planting units of Spartina patens and 50 planting units of Spartina alterniflora at appropriate elevations imediately waterward of the revetment along the northern portion of the property . . . concurrrent with the construction of the permitted structure." It specified planting procedures and included success criteria for the plantings (an 85 percent survival rate). The Objection On or about March 30, 1995, Raymond and Norma Komarek, the owners of property next to the Swart property, objected in writing to the "magnitude" of the proposed dock facility. They complained that the proposed dock facility "will not enhance anyone's view, but it will create disturbance with noise, night lights, wash and erosion on shore, even possible pollution from up to 35 foot boats." They continued: "We prefer not to live next to a Marina. This appears to be a commercial venture tied to the sale of real estate and/or houses . . .." They conceded that their concerns for manatees had been addressed, but they raised questions regarding the impact on commercial fishermen running crab trap lines, scullers, jet skis, and water skiers. They objected to restrictions on "one's personal rights to use the water by obstruction of navigable waters." They also alleged that the proposed dock facility would be a navigation hazard, especially in fog. The Komareks suggest that the three exempt 125' docks to which the Swarts are entitled under Sarasota County regulations, with the two boats allegedly allowed at each, should be adequate and are all the Swarts should be allowed. The Komareks' objections conclude by questioning the alleged results of alleged "turbidity tests" showing that there is "good action" (apparently on the ground that they believe Little Sarasota Bay has "declined") and by expressing concern about the cumulative impact of future dock facilities if granting the Swart application sets a precedent. The Komareks' Evidence The Komareks were able to present little admissible evidence at the final hearing in support of their objections. Much of the environmental evidence they attempted to introduce was hearsay. Moreover, at best, most of it concerned Little Sarasota Bay in general, as opposed to the specific location of the proposed docking facility. The alleged "turbidity tests" called into question in the Komareks' objection apparently refer to the hydrographic study done at the request of the DEP. The evidence the Komareks attempted to utilize on this issue apparently were the kind of general information about Little Sarasota Bay on which the DEP had relied in requesting the hydrographic study. There was no other evidence presented to contradict the results of the Swart study. While the proposed dock facility would project into the view from the Komarek property looking towards the north (and from the property of the neighbors to the north looking towards the south), there was no other evidence that the proposed dock facility "will create disturbance with noise, night lights, wash and erosion on shore . . .." "[P]ollution from up to 35 foot boats" is "possible," but there was no evidence that pollution is probable or, if it occurred, that the kind and amount of pollution would be environmentally significant. The application clearly is a "commercial venture tied to the sale of real estate and/or houses . . .." But the use of the dock facility would be personal to the owners of lots in Sunset Place; the use would not be public. The Komareks presented no evidence "regarding the impact of the dock facility on commercial fishermen running crab trap lines, scullers, jet skis, and water skiers." Clearly, the dock facility would extend approximately 250' into Little Sarasota Bay. But there was no other evidence either that it would restrict "one's personal rights to use the water by obstruction of navigable waters" or that it would be a navigation hazard. (There was no evidence to support the suggestion made at final hearing that an access dock built five feet above MHW would be a dangerous "attractive nuisance" or that it would be more hazardous than one built three feet above MHW.) Evidence Supporting DEP Intent to Issue Very little pollution can be expected from the actual construction of the dock facility. Primarily, there is the potential for temporary turbidity during construction; but the use of turbidity screens will help minimize this temporary impact. The conditions volunteered in the Swart application, together with modification and additional conditions imposed by the DEP Intent to Issue, limit other potential pollutant sources to oil and gas spillage from the boats using the dock facility. The Swarts' hydrographic study demonstrates that, notwithstanding relatively poor circulation in the general area of Little Sarasota Bay in which the proposed dock facility is located, there is adequate flushing at and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility, at least to the limited extent to which pollutants may be expected to be introduced into Little Sarasota Bay from construction activities and use of the facility with the conditions volunteered in the Swart application and imposed by the DEP Intent to Issue. A primary goal of the Komareks' objection is to "downsize" their neighbors' proposed dock facility. They object to its length and its height above MHW. Presumably, they believe that "downsizing" the Swart dock facility would improve their view. If it could not be "downsized," they would prefer that the Swart application be denied in its entirety and that three exempt docks, accommodating two boats each, be built in place of the proposed facility. Ironically, the evidence was that if the Komareks' primary goal is realized, more environmental harm would result. The evidence was that a shorter, lower dock would do more harm to seagrasses, and three exempt docks (even if limited to two boats each) would have approximately three times the environmental impact. Indeed, based on environmental considerations, the DEP Intent to Issue required the Swarts to lengthen the access dock proposed in their application by 15 feet and elevate it by two feet. Lengthening the access dock would move the part of the facility where boats would be moored to deeper water with fewer seagrasses. In that way, fewer seagrasses would be impacted by construction, fewer would be shaded by the mooring of boats, and fewer would be subject to the risk of prop scarring. In addition, the risk of scarring would be reduced to the extent that the water was deeper in the mooring area. Finally, DEP studies have shown that elevating the access dock would reduce shading impact on seagrasses under and adjacent to the dock. Besides having more than three times the environmental impact, exempt docks would have none of the conditions included in the DEP Intent to Issue. Verti-lifts would not be required. Methods of construction would not be regulated by the DEP. Measures for the protection of manatees, before and after construction, would not have to be taken. Hull cleaning, painting or other external maintenance would not be prohibited. Live-aboards, fueling facilities, sewage pump-out facilities and other boating supplies and services would not be prohibited (although County regulation may prohibit some of these activities). Finally, there would be no conservation easement and no planting of seagrasses. The Komareks suggest that County regulation may prohibit construction in accordance with the DEP Intent to Issue. But that would be a question for the County to determine in its own proceedings. All things considered, the DEP Intent to Issue is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting the application of Raymond and Nancy Swart, Trustees, (the Swarts) for a permit to construct a private multislip dock facility at their property on Little Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, DEP File No. 5826007043, with the modifications and conditions set out in the Notice of Intent. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 29th day of September, 1995.
The Issue The issue in Case No. 89-1706 is whether the Stearns violated provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, in the construction of a dock on the Indian River. The issue in Case No. 89-1707 is whether Mr. Stearns is entitled to a dredge and fill permit for the construction of the above-described dock.
Findings Of Fact The Stearns reside at Sunrise Landing Condominium in Cocoa, Florida. The condominium complex lies on the western shore of the Indian River in north Brevard County. At this location, the Indian River is classified as a Class III water and is conditionally approved by the Department of Natural Resources for shellfish harvesting. By Purchase Agreement dated February 18, 1987, the Stearns agreed to purchase a unit at Sunrise Landings Condominiums from the developer. By subsequent Purchase Agreement Modification, the parties agreed that the Stearns had "permission to build a private boat dock providing buyer obtains all proper permits from the Army Corps of engineers and all other proper authorities." By Warranty Deed dated April 16, 1987, the developer conveyed the unit to the Stearns. The deed, which conveys a 1/72nd interest in the common elements, does not convey any right to build a dock. The deed states that the conveyance is subject to the Declaration of Condominium of Sunrise Landing II. The declaration, which was recorded prior to the deed to the Stearns, defines as Common Element the land lying adjacent and upland to the dock that the Stearns constructed. The declaration states that each unit owner owns an undivided share of the Common Element. Article III, Section 7 states: The Owner of a Unit . . . shall be entitled to use the Common Elements in accordance with the purposes for which they are intended, but no such use shall hinder or encroach upon the lawful rights of Owners of other Units. There shall be a joint use of the Common Elements . . . and a joint mutual easement for that purpose is hereby created. In February, 1987, prior to closing on their unit, the Stearns arranged with an individual named Kurt Ramseyer to construct the dock. Mr. Ramseyer completed construction of the dock on or about July 3, 1987. On or about February 22, 1987, Mr. Stearns executed an application for permit for activities in the waters of the State of Florida. The application warned the applicant that he must obtain all applicable authorizations before commencing work. The application, as well as all others completed by Mr. Stearns, was the joint Department of the Army/Department of Environmental Regulation form, effective November 30, 1982. The application describes the project as a dock consisting of two boat slips measuring 24 feet by 10 feet, a 24 foot by 4 foot pier, and a 12 foot by 12 foot deck. The application identifies as the adjacent property owners the individuals owning condominium units on either side of the Stearns' unit. Mr. Stearns did not complete the affidavit of ownership or control, in which the applicant attests that he is the record owner or, if not, will have "the requisite interest . . .before undertaking the proposed work." The Department of the Army received the application on May 11, 1987. At this time, a copy of the application was forwarded to the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") without the required application fee. By letter dated May 18, 1987, DER notified Mr. Ramseyer that the application fee had not been received and, until received, the application had not been officially received. DER received the application fee on May 28, 1987. By letter dated June 25, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns, through his designated agent, Mr. Ramseyer, that the proposed project would require a permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and that his application was incomplete. Among other items requested were descriptions of water depths within a 300-foot radius of the proposed structure, shoreline structures within 100 feet of the proposed dock, and the boats intended to be moored at the facility. By letter dated July 10, 1987, Mr. Stearns provided DER with additional information. Submitting a new application, Mr. Stearns represented this time that the proposed use was private single dwelling, rather than private multi- dwelling, as previously indicated. He also stated that the adjoining landowners were Sunrise Landings Condominium. Again, he failed to complete the affidavit of ownership or control. A partial site plan of the condominium complex shows the dock as five feet north and 45 feet south of the next nearest docks at the complex. As he had on the February 22 application, Mr. Stearns certified as true that he knew that he had to obtain all required authorization prior to commencing construction, although construction had already been completed at this time. In fact, Mr. Stearns indicated on the application, as he did on the October 27 application described below, that construction was "proposed to commence" on June 22, 1987, and was "to be completed" on July 3, 1987. The application explains a four foot increase in the length of the dock as necessitated by "water depth." Elsewhere, the application states that the river had receded four inches since March, 1987. In justifying the construction of the dock in two sections, Mr. Stearns explained that the "shallow depth of the water . . . could result in possible environmental damage to the river bottom, if power boats were allowed to be moored in close proximatity [sic] to the area of the bulkhead line." Mr. Stearns described the boats that he proposed to moor at the dock. At maximum capacity, one boat has a draft of 10 inches, and the other has a draft of 14 inches. Attached to the application is a diagram showing maximum/minimum water depths. The depths are 13"/9" at the bulkhead, 19"/15" at 10', 21"/17" at 20', 23"/19" at 30 `, 25"/21" at 40', and 26"/22" at 50'. Mr. Stearns explained: In order to minimumize [sic] the possible environmental damage to the river bottom aquatic growth, it was necessary to place the power boat mooring section of the dock a minimum of 20 feet away from the bulkhead line. Another diagram shows water depths of 22" to 26" from 50 feet to 300 feet from the bulkhead to the north and south of the dock. 15. By letter dated June 17, 1987, which Mr. Stearns attached to the July 10 application, the Department of the Army issued him a general permit for the proposed project. The letter warns that "it appears that a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation may be required." The attached diagram shows a structure with a total length of 36 feet. By letter dated July 30, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns that, among other things, the affidavit of ownership or control was incomplete; discrepancies existed between the original application and the most recent application, such as with respect to the names of different adjoining landowners and different proposed uses from private multi-dwelling to private single dwelling; it was unclear whether all permits were received prior to dock construction; and it was unclear what portion of the deed entitled the applicant to place the dock in its proposed location. By letter dated October 27, 1987, Mr. Stearns provided DER with additional information and submitted a partial new application. He attested to the fact that he was the record owner of the property, although he failed to provide the required legal description. As to the question involving different adjoining property owners, Mr. Stearns indicated that he believed that because the dock was located more than 25 feet from the nearest living unit, the approval of other property owners was not required. He explained that the private single dwelling unit was a condominium unit in an eight-unit building. He advised that construction of the dock was completed on July 3, 1987. As to water depths, he showed a depth of 9 inches at the bulkhead and 26 inches at 500 feet. Additionally, he showed mean low water of 12 inches at 10 feet, 16 inches at 20 feet, 23 inches at 30 feet, and 26 inches at 40 feet. By letter dated December 8, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns that his application was deemed complete as of October 29, 1987. By Intent to Deny dated January 8, 1988, DER notified Mr. Stearns of its intent to deny his application for a permit. The notice states that the project is not exempt from permitting procedures. The notice acknowledges the presence of about 40 piers installed at the condominium complex without the appropriate permits. The notice states that water depths within visual distance of the shoreline are relatively shallow with scattered marine grass/algae clumps in the vicinity due to the shallow water. In this regard, the notice concludes: Installation of a pier in such shallow water, less than 24 inches deep, for permanent mooring of a small watercraft will probably cause localized disturbance of the benthic community by prop wash. This situation is already evident at several of the nonpermitted piers. Additionally, the Notice of Intent raised the issue of ownership or control. Citing an earlier final order, the notice states that "`the Department will not knowingly issue a permit for dredging and filling or other activities which would constitute a trespass on private property."' By Petition for Administrative Hearing filed January 19, 1988, Mr. Stearns requested an administrative hearing on the Intent to Deny his application for a permit. By letter dated January 27, 1988, assistant general counsel for DER confirmed a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Stearns and stated that, pursuant to that conversation I will hold your petition pending further action by the Department towards resolution of the situation. If it appears that an amicable resolution cannot be reached, I will forward the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer. By Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated December 19, 1988, DER notified Mr. and Mrs. Stearns and 101 other persons owning or having owned units at Sunrise Landing Condominiums that an investigation of the property on June 2, 1987, had disclosed that 43 docks had been installed and placed less than 65 feet apart with 75 boat slips. These docks had been constructed without permits. A meeting with unit owners on March 15, 1988, had not produced a resolution of the dispute. The Notice of Violation alleges that the docks extended up to 20 feet waterward of the bulkhead through water depths of 8-24 inches. The docks allegedly were constructed within an area conditionally approved by the Department of Natural Resources for shellfish harvesting, but without a Department variance. The docks allegedly resulted in damage to state waters and pollution through localized disturbance of the benthic community by associated boat traffic prop wash in shallow water. The adversely impacted submerged bottom allegedly is highly productive with scattered seagrasses providing valuable fishery resources for the Indian River. Lastly, DER alleges that it had incurred investigatory expenses of at least $1500. After reciting the statutes allegedly violated by the construction of the docks, the Notice of Violation demands, among other things, the removal of all of the docks. By Petition for Formal Proceeding filed January 12, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Stearns requested a formal administrative hearing on the Notice of Violation. Pursuant to notice, DER held an informal conference with numerous owners of docks, including Mr. and Mrs. Stearns, on February 9, 1989. At the conclusion of the meeting, DER agreed to hold open the informal conference period for an additional 30 days to allow settlement negotiations to be concluded. By Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated March 23, 1989, DER issued another notice of violation against the ten remaining dock owners, including Mr. and Mrs. Stearns, who had not yet removed or agreed to remove their docks. The allegations are substantially identical to those of the original Notice of Violation. Because of the failure of settlement negotiations, DER transmitted both files involving the Stearns to the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 31, 1989. In several prior cases, DER had previously informed other unit owners seeking to build a dock off of the bulkhead adjoining the Common Element that no permit was required because the project was exempt under Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In March or April, 1987, DER changed its position on this point. The docks 45 feet north and 5 feet south of the Stearns' dock were constructed without a dredge and fill permit, apparently in reliance upon the same exemption to which the Stearns claim to be entitled in the subject cases. The operation of boats in the vicinity of the dock constructed by Mr. and Mrs. Stearns would stir up the submerged bottom and result in prop dredging of critical vegetation. In sum, the intended use of the dock would disrupt the benthic community. At times, the Stearns have been unable to reach their dock with their boats due to the shallowness of the water. The waters of the Indian River surrounding the Stearns' dock are Class III waters that the Department of Natural Resources has conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting. The Department of Natural Resources has not granted the Stearns a variance for the construction of the dock. The dock is less than 500 square feet of total coverage. The moorings from the dock five feet to the south of the subject dock remained in place following the removal of the remainder of the structure. At the time of the application, the Stearns dock, whose construction had begun no later than June 22, 1987, and been completed on July 3, 1987, was 45 feet south of the nearest dock to the north and 5 feet north of the nearest dock to the south. Both of these docks had been built under claims of exemption. The Stearns dock was maintained for the exclusive use of the Stearns and was not available to other unit owners. DER has failed to prove any investigatory expenses directly attributable to the Stearns, as opposed to the 103 unit owners in general. Moreover, given the pending applications, which disclosed most of the specifics of the subject dock, including inadequate water depths, no portion of the investigation could properly be attributed to the Stearns, especially when the sole witness for DER could not testify to any specific damage to submerged bottom and vegetation caused by boats using the Stearns' dock. Additionally, actual damage and the investigatory expenses attributable thereto are divisible and could have been attributed to a particular violator, but were not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the subject permit and ordering Mr. and Mrs. Stearns to remove their dock, upon such conditions as are necessary to avoid damage to the environment, but not imposing any administrative fine. ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 22nd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DER 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12: adopted as to general shallowness and excessive shallowness with respect to the passage of boats. 13-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16: rejected as irrelevant. 17-24: adopted. 25: rejected as recitation of testimony, unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of the Stearns 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance, except that last sentence of Paragraph 3 is rejected as subordinate. 4: adopted. 5: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Placing a dock in water too shallow for safe boating may arguably constitute a navigational hazard. 6: adopted. 7: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. In the first place, the facts at the time of the application should control whether the project was, at the time of its actual construction, exempt from the permitting requirements. In addition, the evidence showed that the pilings of at least the closer dock remained in the water following the removal of the decking. 8: first two sentences adopted. Second sentence rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 9: [omitted.] 10: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. It is clear from the operative documents--namely, the warranty deed and declaration of condominium--that Mr. and Mrs. Stearns lack the legal right to use the Common Element in the manner that they have used it. A clause in an unrecorded contract, which probably does not survive closing, cannot diminish the rights of other Unit Owners in their undivided shares of the Common Element, which, in part, the Stearns have seized for their private use. 11: first paragraph adopted. Second paragraph rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Steven A. Medina Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Frank J Griffith, Jr. Cianfronga, Telfer & Reda 815 South Washington Avenue Titusville, FL 32780
The Issue At issue was whether Petitioner should be granted a permit from the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to excavate material in front of the Petitioner's seawall in Naples Bay, Collier County, Florida. The Petitioner owns a residential homesite lot in the Royal Harbor Subdivision in Naples, Florida. Royal Harbor is a waterfront oriented residential community devoted to single family residences; each residence either has waterfront' on Naples Bay or through a network of interior canals which provide navigational access to Naples Bay. All lots are bordered by concrete seawalls. The Concrete seawall bordering the Petitioner's property does not Immediately abut the water, but has an amounts of earth between the seawall and the water's edge, somewhat resembling a beach. It is this earth the Petitioner wishes to remove so that he may have his seawall abut the water which would facilitate the launching of a vessel from his property. Presently, it does not appear that the Petitioner could keep a boat at his property without building a lengthy dock from his seawall into Naples Bay. The Department of Environmental Regulation opposes the application in that it claims the excavation of this material would destroy an oyster bar which exists in front of the Petitioner's property and would eliminate an ecologically significant area. From the exhibits presented at the hearing and after consideration of the testimony, it appears that in the entire Royal Harbor development only the Petitioner's property lacks having the bay waters abut the seawall. The Petitioner's property is approximately one quarter mile from the channel in Naples Bay which is a low energy water body. That is to say, wave action does not become extremely forceful in this area because of the protected nature of the waterway. The Department of Environmental Regulation in part opposes the permit because they state to remove the berm from in front of the seawall would expose the seawall to direct wave energy which would cause turbidity within the waters. No direct evidence was presented that wee the seawalls in Naples Bay are in direct contact with the water that this ill fact does cause increased turbidity and therefore this testimony is rejected by this Hearing Officer as being merely speculative. On the other hand, the Petitioner made no showing that the project would actually be in the public interest except to show that the area in question was a relatively small area. Witnesses for the Department of Environmental Regulation stated that were this berm removed and the area converted to a shallow submerged bay bottom, oysters and marine vegetation would eventually propagate here, particularly if the bottom was excavated with a smooth contour. It is difficult to imagine after listening to all the testimony in this case how the granting of this permit would have a measurable environmental Impact. It would appear to this Hearing Officer that there could be some benefit to water quality from the granting of this permit by somewhat restoring Naples Bay to its original condition. Testimony was received that the entire Royal Harbor development was man-made and the removal of this fill would, in some slight degree, remove fill material that had been previously placed within the waters of Naples Bay. Testimony was also received from Mr. Thomas Provenzano, District Supervisor of the Department of Environmental Regulation, that in his opinion it would be environmentally acceptable for the Petitioner to excavate this berm from within five (5) feet of the concrete seawall. This appears to be a reasonable disposition of this dispute. Whatever destructive force the waves of Naples Bay might have on an exposed vertical seawall would be minimized by leaving a five (5) foot berm seaward of that wall and would in no way interfere with the Petitioner's intended use of his land; reasonable navigational access to Naples Bay. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: The application be granted with the proviso that the Petitioner leave a five (5) foot berm between Naples Bay and his vertical seawall. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. KENNETH G. OERTEL, Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Carole Haughey, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2552 Executive Center Circle, E. Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald T. Frank, Esquire Suite A, U.S. Home Building 3174 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33940 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LYNN A. LUNDSTROM, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 76-1555 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue in these consolidated proceedings is whether the proposed single-family residential dock meets the requirements for a letter of consent for use of sovereignty submerged lands pursuant to chapters 253 and 258, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 18-20 and 18-21, such that the Consolidated Regulatory Exemption and Letter of Consent for Department of Environmental Protection File No. 0319584-003EE, as amended on September 30, 2020, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DEP is the state agency charged with regulating specified activities in state jurisdictional surface waters, pursuant to chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes. Additionally, DEP is charged with performing all staff duties and functions for the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Trustees" or "Board") related to the administration of state-owned lands pursuant to chapter 253, including sovereignty submerged lands in aquatic preserves, pursuant to chapter 258. In this case, DEP is responsible for reviewing the application for the dock and issuing the Dock Approval that has been challenged in these proceedings. Fondriest owns the upland property riparian to the sovereignty submerged lands on which the Dock is proposed to be, at 1953 Long Beach Drive, Big Pine Key, Florida. She is the applicant for the Dock Approval that has been challenged in these proceedings. The Trust owns the upland property located at 1975 Long Beach Drive, Big Pine Key, Florida. This property is located immediately adjacent to, and west of, Fondriest's property. DeMaria and Appel own the upland property located at 1997 Long Beach Drive, Big Pine Key. This property is located two parcels west of Fondriest's property. Appel owns two other upland properties located on Long Beach Drive, neither of which is located immediately adjacent to Fondriest's property. Crilly is the holder of a marine turtle permit issued by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWCC"), and she volunteers as a sea turtle monitor for the Long Beach Drive area of Big Pine Key. History of the Dock Approval and Notice of Agency Action As stated above, on December 10, 2019, DEP issued a regulatory general permit and letter of consent to Fondriest, approving the 2019 Approval, which was then proposed as an 800-square-foot structure for use as a pier for non-motorized vessels. There was no evidence presented that Petitioners received a clear point of entry to challenge DEP's proposed agency action issued on December 10, 2019, either through receipt of written notice by mail, or constructively through publication of notice of the proposed agency action in a newspaper or other publication medium. The Trust filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing on January 30, 2020; DeMaria filed a Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on January 31, 2020; and Crilly filed a Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on February 27, 2020. On September 11, 2020, Fondriest filed a revised application with DEP, reducing the size of the Dock to 500 square feet; requesting a verification of exemption from permitting, pursuant to rule 62-330.015(5)(b) and section 403.813(1)(b)2; and requesting authorization, pursuant to chapters 253 and 258, and chapters 18-20 and 18-21, to use sovereignty submerged lands. On September 30, 2020, DEP issued Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Notice of Proposed Changes to Agency Action—i.e., the "Dock Approval"— 2 Because the Dock will have less than 500 square feet of over-water surface area, it is exempt, pursuant to section 403.813(1)(b). from permitting under chapters 373 or 403. Petitioners have stipulated that the Dock qualifies for the permitting exemption under section 403.813(1)(b). verifying the regulatory exemption and authorizing the use of the sovereignty submerged lands by a letter of consent.3 DEP's agency action proposing to approve the Dock supersedes all prior DEP agency action with respect to the Dock, and constitutes the proposed agency action at issue in these proceedings. Long Beach Drive and the Surrounding Area Fondriest's property is located on Long Beach Drive, Big Pine Key, in Monroe County. Long Beach Drive is located on a spit of land comprising the southern and westernmost part of Big Pine Key. The south side of Long Beach Drive, where Fondriest's, the Trust's, and DeMaria's and Appel's properties are located, borders the Straits of Florida.4 Thus, Fondriest's, the Trust's, and DeMaria's and Appel's properties are riparian to sovereignty submerged lands underlying the Straits of Florida. The land along Long Beach Drive is platted and has been developed for residential and commercial uses. The Long Beach Drive area of Big Pine Key is located within the Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve ("CBAP"), an Outstanding Florida Water and aquatic preserve consisting of approximately 6,000 acres of bays, mangrove forests, seagrass beds, and offshore patch coral reefs. The Long Beach Drive area, including Fondriest's property, is characterized by a rocky shore, with some narrow sandy beaches. The shore accumulates a significant amount of weed wrack consisting of seaweed, seagrass, and other debris. A beach berm created by wave and tide action 3 The Dock Approval states that the Dock does not qualify for the federal State Programmatic General Permit for section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Separate federal approval for the Dock has been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, and Monroe County has issued a Building–Floodplain–Development Permit for the Dock. 4 All references to the shore or shoreline along Long Beach Drive refer to the shore or shoreline abutting the Straits of Florida. exists along much of the shore. The berm is frequently overtopped by water during high tides and storms. The beach is disturbed due to frequent use by residents and sea turtle monitors. Among the activities that take place on the beach are kayak launching, beach walking, beach cleaning and restoration, vegetation planting, and sea turtle nest monitoring. Several docks already exist along the shore on Long Beach Drive. The longshore current along the shore at Long Beach Drive flows, and transports sand from, east to west. The existing mangroves, jetties, and points along the Long Beach Drive shoreline trap sand and cause accretion of updrift beaches and starvation of downdrift beaches. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the docks along the shoreline on Long Beach Drive do not significantly contribute to beach accretion, starvation, or erosion in the area. The Proposed Dock The Dock is a private residential single-family dock associated with Fondriest's single-family residence at 1953 Long Beach Drive. It will not be used for commercial purposes or residential habitation, and there are no boat houses, boat lifts, or other enclosures proposed or approved as part of the Dock. As approved, the Dock will occupy 498 square feet, consisting of a 142-foot-long by 3-foot-wide access dock and a 12-foot-long by 6-foot-wide (i.e., 72-square-foot) terminal platform, and extending a total length of 154 feet. The access dock will be constructed with pressure-treated lumber planks spaced half-an-inch apart, to allow light penetration. The supporting pilings are comprised of PVC-encased aluminum, spaced approximately 9 feet, 5 inches apart. The PVC casing will help protect the piles from corrosion, thus helping to protect water quality. The terminal platform, which also will be supported by PVC-encased aluminum pilings, will consist of fiberglass grating, which allows sunlight penetration in order to prevent shading of seagrasses and other benthic resources.5 The top of the terminal platform is designed to be a minimum height of five feet above the mean high water line ("MHWL"). Handrails will be constructed along each side of the dock for its entire length, to prevent vessel mooring in adjacent shallow areas, thus helping protect against damage to benthic resources. The Dock will be used solely for the water-dependent activities of launching vessels and swimming. Only non-motorized vessels, such as kayaks, canoes, and paddleboards, may be launched from the Dock, and then only when there is a minimum depth of 0.5 feet (six inches, or half-a-foot) of water at the terminal platform.6 Additionally, the terminal platform must include signs of at least one-square- foot each placed on each side of the platform, stating "no mooring of motorized vessels allowed." A ladder is proposed to be located on one side of the terminal platform to provide access to the water for swimming or kayak launching, and the Dock Approval imposes a requirement that the ladder cannot be located over seagrass or hard bottom benthic communities. Although some turbidity in the water column may be generated by launching kayaks or other non-motorized watercraft from the terminal platform, the turbidity would be temporary and would not exceed that currently generated by dragging or hauling a kayak or other vessel from the shore across the substrate, to access sufficient water depth for launching. To prevent potential trapping, under the Dock, of sea turtles and other animals, such as Key Deer, an enclosure consisting of barriers one inch apart must be constructed beneath the portion of the Dock's landward access ramp having less than three feet of clearance above grade. 5 This is a standard construction material frequently used for docks in Florida. As further discussed below, the benthic survey performed for the area comprising the footprint of the Dock showed that no seagrass beds or other significant benthic resources are present. 6 The 0.5-foot water depth is keyed to the mean low water datum. At mean high water, the water depth at the terminal platform is approximately 1.2 feet. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the rest of the Dock will be elevated approximately five feet above the MHWL, so will be of sufficient height to allow animals to pass under without being trapped or impeded, and will provide sufficient clearance for sea turtle monitors to pass under as they traverse the beach. The competent, credible evidence also shows that the Dock will not impede the flow of water. The design is such that there are no structures on, or beneath, the Dock that will act as dams to prevent, or otherwise affect, the flow of water under and around the Dock. The water depth at the end of the terminal dock is 0.5 feet at mean low water, and 1.2 feet at mean high water. The Dock does not extend out to a depth of four feet of water. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the Dock will not interfere with navigation. The water depth between the shore and the end of the Dock's terminal platform is too shallow to accommodate motorized watercraft, and the Dock will be of sufficient height to enable persons using non-motorized watercraft to pass under it. The Dock will be constructed to meet the 2017 Southern Building Code, so will be able to resist 180-mile-per-hour, three-second wind gusts. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that in a storm, the decking and stringers on the Dock will be washed off the pilings and will not become windborne projectiles. The Dock pilings will be imbedded into the substrate to a minimum depth of five feet, using a vibration hammer, rather than drilling and punching the pilings into the substrate. Using a vibration hammer will generate less turbidity in the water column than using the drill-and-punch installation technique, and turbidity curtains must be erected and maintained around the construction footprint to control turbidity and protect water quality. Additionally, the pilings will be installed using a spud barge elevated above the substrate, which also will help reduce turbidity during construction. Any turbidity generated during construction will be temporary. Installing the dock pilings using a vibration hammer also will generate less noise than the drill-and-punch technique. The Jacksonville Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service has issued a biological opinion stating that the vibration hammer installation technique "may affect/is not likely to affect" certain species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Additionally, because the Dock will be constructed in an open waterbody, the noise generated by piling installation is anticipated to be insignificant. Construction of the Dock may only be conducted outside of sea turtle nesting season, which runs from April 15 to October 31. Dock construction activities also must meet the requirements and standards established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to protect manatees, sea turtle species, the Smalltooth Sawfish, and the Eastern Indigo Snake. The 2011 Standard Manatee Construction Conditions for In-Water Work require vessels to navigate at slow speeds; manatee awareness signs to be posted; and construction to stop if a manatee is spotted within 50 feet of the construction site. In any event, manatees are unlikely to be present in the vicinity of the Dock, due to the very shallow water. The sea turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish construction conditions require vessels to operate at idle speeds in the vicinity of the project; turbidity curtains to be erected and maintained; and construction to be stopped if individuals of these species are observed within 50 feet of the construction site. The Eastern Indigo Snake, an upland species, is unlikely to be present at the Dock construction site. To prevent harm to individuals of this species, the letter of consent requires that educational materials be distributed to the construction crew and educational signs be placed at the construction site. No permanent exterior lighting is authorized for the Dock. This will prevent the Dock from attracting sea turtles and other marine species that are drawn to light. No turning basins, access channels, or wave break devices are proposed to be constructed for or used by the Dock. Fondriest's property has approximately 100 linear feet of riparian shoreline. There are no other docks existing on the shoreline along Long Beach Drive for at least 65 linear feet in either direction. The Dock will be constructed perpendicular to the shoreline, and will be located in Fondriest's riparian area, set back more than 40 feet from each riparian line demarcating her riparian area. Thus, the Dock will be located well outside the 25-foot setback from each riparian line. Biological and Other Resources in the Vicinity of the Dock Much of the shoreline along Long Beach Drive below the MHWL, including that along Fondriest's property, consists of bare, hard rock. The water is extremely shallow, and the bare rock is exposed at low tide. Site assessments conducted in 2020 at the location and in the vicinity of the Dock, show that limestone caprock, loose rubble, and some deeper depressions in the rock exist in the footprint of the Dock. The substrate consists of hard, highly uneven rock, with pools of tannin-stained water. Water pooled in the rock depressions is heated at low tide and, due to rotting vegetation, is nutrient-rich. The dissolved oxygen levels are very low, rendering the pools incapable of supporting substantial marine life other than cyanobacteria and filamentous algae, both of which indicate poor water quality. Some algae species are attached to the limestone caprock in the footprint and immediate vicinity of the Dock. However, recent biological resource assessments show that no seagrass beds, corals, or other hard bottom communities exist in the footprint of the Dock. Thus, the competent, credible evidence shows that there are no aquatic resources of any significant value in the footprint, or immediate vicinity, of the Dock. A small seagrass bed is located near the terminal platform. The letter of consent requires avoidance of this seagrass bed during construction and use of the Dock. Additionally, as discussed above, turbidity curtains must be installed to prevent turbidity and siltation of this seagrass bed during construction. The evidence establishes that the area waterward of the MHWL along Long Beach Drive generally supports a rich aquatic community. Fish and aquatic invertebrates inhabit the water in the vicinity, and numerous bird species use the area waterward of the MHWL, including that bordering Fondriest's property, as feeding and foraging habitat. However, no non-speculative evidence was presented to show that the construction, presence, and use of the Dock will result in adverse effects to this aquatic community, or to any plant or animal species in this aquatic community. Additionally, the competent, credible evidence shows that none of these resources exist in the footprint, or immediate vicinity, of the Dock, and conditions have been imposed in the letter of consent to ensure that the construction and use of the Dock will not adversely affect these resources. To the extent that the vibration hammer installation of the pilings will result in noise that may cause fish, birds, and other animals to leave the area, that effect will be temporary and will cease when piling installation is completed. Although some benthic or attached species, such as seahorses, may be unable to leave the area, so may be subjected to noise stress, no persuasive, non-speculative evidence was presented showing that these species inhabit the area in the vicinity of the Dock. Thus, any alleged harm to these species is speculative. Because the Dock may only be used for nonmotorized vessels such as kayaks and canoes, use of the Dock will not generate noise or otherwise adversely affect the aquatic habitat waterward of the MHWL along Long Beach Drive. The Key Deer is listed as an endangered species. Key Deer traverse and forage along the shore at Long Beach Drive. No credible evidence was presented showing that the Dock would adversely affect the ability of Key Deer to traverse and forage on the beach on, or adjacent to, Fondriest's property. As discussed above, the Dock will be elevated waterward of the MHWL to approximately five feet above grade. The evidence showed that this height is sufficient to allow Key Deer to pass underneath without being impeded or trapped. No credible evidence was presented showing that the three-foot wide access ramp would interfere with Key Deer foraging or traversing along the beach. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the Loggerhead Sea Turtle and Green Sea Turtle, both of which are listed as endangered species, use the beach above the MHWL along Long Beach Drive, including the beach on Fondriest's property above the MHWL, for nesting. The FFWCC has determined, through its Florida Sea Turtle Nesting Beach Monitoring Program, that the shore along Long Beach Drive has a relatively low nesting density—i.e., within the lower 25% of nesting density values—for both of these sea turtle species. The evidence establishes that the Hawksbill Sea Turtle, Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle, and Leatherback Sea Turtle do not use the beach along the Long Beach Drive shoreline for nesting. No competent, credible evidence was presented showing that significant sea turtle food sources are present in the footprint, or immediate vicinity, of the Dock. The competent, credible evidence does not show that the Dock will adversely affect the habitat value of the beach on Fondriest's property for sea turtle nesting, or that it will otherwise adversely affect nesting sea turtles and hatchlings. As previously discussed, an enclosure will be constructed under the access ramp to prevent nesting sea turtles and hatchlings from becoming trapped under the Dock. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the Dock will not adversely affect other protected species, including the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit, the Keys Rice Rat, or the Mole Skink—none of which inhabit or use the marine/beach habitat present along the shore at Long Beach Drive. To this point, no evidence was presented showing that these species are, or ever have been, present on the beach at Long Beach Drive. Thus, no evidence was presented showing that the Dock adversely affect these species. The Dock will be Located in a Resource Protection Area 3 Areas within aquatic preserves are classified as Resource Protection Area ("RPA") 1, 2, or 3, for purposes of imposing restrictions and conditions on the use of sovereignty submerged lands, to protect discrete areas having high quality and transitioning habitat. The RPA 1 classification applies to areas within an aquatic preserve that have resources of the highest quality and condition. Areas classified as RPA 1 are characterized by the presence of corals, marine grassbeds, mangrove swamps, salt marshes, oyster bars, threatened or endangered species habitat, colonial water bird nesting sites, and archaeological and historical sites. The RPA 3 classification applies to areas within an aquatic preserve that are characterized by the absence of any significant natural resource attributes. The RPA 2 classification applies to areas within an aquatic preserve that are in transition, either having declining RPA 1 resources, or new pioneering resources within an RPA 3. Recent biological resource assessments conducted at the location of, and in the immediate vicinity of, the Dock show that no mangrove swamps, salt marshes, oyster bars, archaeological or historical resources, or colonial water bird nesting sites are present. As discussed above, although sea turtles nest on the beach along Long Beach Drive, this area does not constitute significant sea turtle nesting habitat, and there is no significant food source for adult or juvenile sea turtles in the vicinity of the Dock. Thus, the evidence shows that the Dock will not be located in an RPA 1. The biological resource assessments also showed that no transitioning resources are present at the location, or in the vicinity, of the Dock. The competent, credible evidence showed that current natural resource conditions at the site are the same as those that historically existed before Hurricane Irma struck the Long Beach Drive area in 2013. Thus, the evidence shows that the Dock will not be located in an RPA 2. Because there are no significant natural resource attributes or transitioning resources in the footprint and the immediate vicinity of the Dock, it is determined that the Dock will be located in an RPA 3.7 7 Some portions of the CBAP do contain seagrass beds, offshore coral patch reefs, and mangrove swamp communities, and provide habitat for protected species, including the Key Deer and colonial water birds, and, thus, merit an RPA 1 classification. By contrast, none of these habitats and conditions are present at the location, or in the vicinity, of the Dock. The definitions of RPA 1, 2, and 3 in rules 18-20.003(54), (55), and (56), respectively, refer to "areas within aquatic preserves" which contain specified resources types and quality. Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.004(54) through (56)(emphasis added). Additionally, rule 18-20.004(1)(a) provides that in determining whether to approve or deny a request to conduct an activity in an aquatic preserve, the Trustees will evaluate each request on a "case-by-case basis." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.004(1)(a)(emphasis added). These rules make clear that determining whether an activity will be located in an RPA 1, 2, or 3 necessarily entails a site-specific resource assessment to determine the type and quality of habitat, and the conditions present, at that specific site. As discussed above, the site-specific biological assessments conducted show that the Dock will be located in an RPA 3, and Petitioners did not present any site- specific evidence to rebut that classification. Cumulative Impacts Analysis In determining whether an activity proposed in an aquatic preserve may be approved, an analysis must be performed to determine the projected cumulative impacts of the activity. This analysis focuses on determining the impact of the proposed activity, combined with that of similar existing activities and similar activities currently under consideration for approval. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 20.006. A cumulative impacts analysis performed by Fondriest's expert witness, Sandra Walters, showed that the Dock, in conjunction with similar existing docks and all other applications for docks that could be proposed for approval, will not result in adverse cumulative impacts to the aquatic resources in the CBAP. Walters's cumulative impacts analysis took into account both the acreage and linear footage of parcels within the CBAP for which a dock similar to the one at issue in this proceeding could be approved for construction. In performing a cumulative impacts analysis using linear feet of shoreline, Walters calculated a total of 19,357 feet, or 22.6 miles, of shoreline in the CBAP. Of this linear footage, approximately 7,500 linear feet of shoreline along Long Beach Drive and approximately 1,200 linear feet of shoreline along the ocean side of the Cook's Island portion of the CBAP are developable, for purposes of having the potential to be developed for a minimum-sized single-family residential dock similar to that proposed in this case. Walters's estimate is conservative, in that it included, as developable linear shoreline footage, parcels that likely could not be developed due to rate of growth, conservation easement, or other land use or environmental restrictions. Walters's linear footage analysis showed that approximately 5.7% of the entire CBAP shoreline possibly could be developed for construction of a perpendicular dock. Assuming that each of these docks is four feet wide—which is a valid assumption, using the four-foot maximum access dock width permitted under the aquatic preserves rules—a total of .23% of the shoreline would be impacted if a perpendicular dock was developed on each eligible parcel. Walters opined, credibly and persuasively, that this impact to the resources in the CBAP would be de minimis. In performing a cumulative impacts analysis on an acreage basis, Walters calculated that if a minimum-size single-family residential dock were developed on each of the 68 total developable lots within the CBAP, a total area of approximately 34,000 square feet, or approximately .013% of the acreage in the CBAP, would experience impacts similar to those created by the Dock. Walter credibly and persuasively opined that this impact to the resources in the CBAP would be de minimis. Walters used a conservative approach—i.e., projecting a realistic "worst case" scenario—in performing the cumulative impacts analysis. Specifically, she considered all parcels for which a minimum-size single-family residential dock reasonably could be proposed for approval in the future, rather than limiting her consideration of cumulative impacts to only those currently proposed for approval by the listed agencies. Additionally, she included impacts of similar dock projects for parcels that likely would not qualify for dock approval due to development restrictions. Thus, the cumulative impacts that Walters projected in her analysis are likely greater than the actual cumulative impacts of similar dock projects that reasonably can be anticipated to be developed in the area in the future. Petitioners presented the testimony of Michael Czerwinski regarding the cumulative impacts analysis required under the aquatic preserves rule for approval of an activity in an aquatic preserve. Czerwinski's analysis projected the potential cumulative impacts if every parcel along Long Beach Drive were developed with a minimum-size single-family residential dock, including the parcels on which development restrictions have been imposed such that they would not be eligible to be developed for a single-family residential dock. Based on this assumption, Czerwinski opined that such "buildout" along Long Beach Drive would result in a "cascading" or "nibbling" effect on the resources in the CBAP, and that there would be adverse impacts on sea turtle nesting habitat. Additionally, based on the unsupported assumption of maximum "buildout" of a single-family residential dock on every parcel along Long Beach Drive, Czerwinski projected that the resources within the entire CBAP would be adversely affected as a result of the cumulative impacts from approval of the Dock. Czerwinski's cumulative impacts analysis did not take into account the numerous parcels in the CBAP, including several on Long Beach Drive, that are unable to be developed for single-family residential docks due to conservation easements and local land development restrictions. As such, his analysis considered impacts which could not reasonably be expected to result in the Long Beach Drive area from approval of the Dock. Additionally, based on the unreasonable assumption of maximum dock buildout on every parcel on Long Beach Drive, Czerwinski projected adverse impacts to the entire CBAP as a result of the Dock. This analysis again failed to take into account that numerous parcels within the boundaries of the CBAP that are not located in the Long Beach Drive area also are under development restrictions that will prevent the construction of docks on those parcels. Czerwinski's analysis did not comply with the provisions of rule 18-20.005(1) and (3), which expressly limit the consideration of impacts to only those likely to affect the preserve and which reasonably could be expected to result from the proposed activity. For these reasons, Czerwinski's testimony regarding cumulative impacts as a result of the Dock was not credible or persuasive. As discussed above, Monroe County has issued a permit authorizing the construction of the Dock. This evidences that the Dock is permissible under the Monroe County local comprehensive plan. Additionally, as discussed in detail below, the Dock is an allowable use that is consistent with the CBAP Management Plan ("Management Plan"). As previously discussed, the competent, credible evidence establishes that there are no significant biological resources in the footprint, or in the immediate vicinity, of the Dock. Thus, the Dock will not cause the loss of beneficial biologic functions that would adversely impact the quality or utility of the CBAP. As previously discussed, the competent, credible evidence establishes that the Dock will not cause the loss of the beneficial hydrologic functions, either in the immediate vicinity of the Dock, or in the CBAP. As discussed above, the Dock will be a minimum-size single-family residential dock that will not adversely affect the quantity or flow of water. Accordingly, it is determined that the Dock will not have adverse cumulative impacts on the CBAP. Consistency with the CBAP Management Plan The Management Plan expressly identifies single-family private residential docks as an allowable use within CBAP, and specifies the standards that such docks must meet. Specifically, a dock may not extent waterward of the MHWL more than 500 feet or 20% of the width of the waterbody; must be designed to ensure maximum light penetration; the terminal platform may not be more than 160 square feet in area; and the access dock may not be wider than four feet. As discussed above, the Dock will comply with these standards. The Management Plan also delineates "management areas" within the CBAP, and describes resources and allowable uses within the different management areas. The Management Plan states that final determinations of allowable uses within a particular management plan are made by agency staff on a case-by-case basis. The sovereignty submerged lands along Long Beach Drive, out to a distance of 500 feet from shore, are designated as "Management Area SF/1." The sovereignty submerged lands bordering Fondriest's property are included within the Management Area SF/1. The resources included in Management Area SF/1 generally include grass beds, fringing mangroves, coral banks, coral heads, and hardbottom communities. However, as discussed above, the site-specific biological resource assessment surveys conducted on the sovereignty submerged lands bordering Fondriest's property showed that none of these resources are present at, or in the vicinity of, the Dock site. Furthermore, private single-family residential docks are expressly identified as an allowable use in the Management Area SF/1. Long Beach Drive is not a pristine, undeveloped shoreline. There are residences and some commercial uses along Long Beach Drive, with accessory uses such as seawalls, revetments, and private docks. The Dock is consistent with these existing uses and with the aesthetics of the shoreline on Long Beach Drive. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the Dock is consistent with the CBAP Management Plan.8 Petitioners' Interests and Timeliness of Crilly's Petition The Trust's Interests The Trust owns a parcel of real property located at 1975 Long Beach Drive, immediately adjacent to, and west of, Fondriest's property. Barry Roberts and Gloria Meredith are the trustees of the Trust. 8 Rule 18-20.004(7) states, in pertinent part: "[t]he aquatic preserve management plans shall be used by [DEP] to preserve and restore the distinctive characteristics identified by the inventories for each aquatic preserve. The management plans for each aquatic preserve are available for guidance purposes only." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.004(7)(emphasis added). Thus, to the extent a rule provision in chapter 18-20 conflicts with an aquatic preserve management plan, the rule controls. See Decarion v. Martinez, 537 So.2d 1083, 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(an agency must follow its own rules). Neither Roberts nor Meredith, in their individual capacity, is a petitioner in these proceedings. Meredith testified that she and Roberts purchased the property at 1975 Long Beach Drive because of its location and the natural resources in the area, including the tide pool habitat in the rock depressions along the shore, and the animals that forage along, and inhabit, the shore. Meredith testified that she and Roberts both have a keen personal interest in, and use and enjoy, the natural resources along the shore at Long Beach Drive. They engage in bird watching; nature photography; kayaking; and observing nature, including Key Deer, birds, nesting sea turtles, and fish and invertebrates inhabiting tide pools in the rock depressions along the shore. After Meredith and Roberts purchased the property, they placed it in the Trust in order to preserve it, and its value as a residential property, for their children and grandchildren to enjoy in the future. Meredith and Roberts, as trustees of the Trust, have significant concerns about the aesthetic impact the Dock will have on the Trust property, particularly its impact on the view of the beach and the sunrise over the water. Meredith expressed her personal concern regarding the Dock's impacts on the biological resources at, and in the vicinity of, the Dock, and she also expressed concern that the Dock would interfere with her ability to safely walk along the shoreline. She testified that she was concerned that approval of the Dock would constitute a precedent, resulting in the construction of more docks and piers which would adversely affect the natural resources and the beauty of the beach. Meredith conceded that the Dock will be located within Fondriest's riparian area, will be set back more than 25 feet from the common riparian line, and will not cross the common riparian line into the Trust's riparian area. DeMaria's and Appel's Interests DeMaria is an original Petitioner in Case No. 20-2474, which is part of these consolidated proceedings, and Appel has moved to intervene and become a party to that case. DeMaria and Appel own the Deer Run eco-lodge bed and breakfast ("Deer Run") located at 1997 Long Beach Drive, immediately west of the property owned by the Trust. The Deer Run property is not located immediately adjacent to Fondriest's property. Appel owns two other parcels on Long Beach Drive, neither of which is located immediately adjacent to Fondriest's property. DeMaria testified that she and Appel purchased the Deer Run property because they were attracted to the unspoiled natural environment along Long Beach Drive. Deer Run attracts guests from around the world, who are drawn to the natural environment. These guests engage in nature photography and in-water recreational activities, such as kayaking, paddle boarding, and windsurfing; and they use and enjoy the natural resources and aesthetics of the area. DeMaria and Appel both testified that the presence of a long dock in close proximity to Deer Run would interfere with the view of the water and sunrise from Deer Run, and would significantly detract from the natural beauty and aesthetics of the environment at, and in the immediate vicinity of, Deer Run. Both testified that the presence of the Dock would render Deer Run a less attractive destination for guests. DeMaria testified that the presence of the Dock would interfere with her personal view of the water and the sunrise over the water; her ability to walk along shoreline below the MHWL; and her personal use and enjoyment of the natural beauty and aesthetics of the area. DeMaria also volunteers as a sea turtle nest monitor under the authority of Crilly's marine turtle permit. She expressed concerns similar to those expressed by Crilly—specifically, that the existence of the Dock would interfere with her ability to safely traverse the shoreline below the MHWL on Long Beach Drive to perform her sea turtle monitoring activities. Appel echoed DeMaria's concerns regarding the alleged injury to Deer Run's ecotourism business as a result of the Dock. He also testified that the presence of the Dock on Fondriest's property would injure his personal use and enjoyment of the natural beauty and aesthetics of the Long Beach Drive area. Appel also serves as a volunteer sea turtle monitor, and, in connection with that activity, traverses the shoreline along Long Beach Drive. He testified that the presence of the Dock would interfere with his ability to safely traverse the shoreline below the MHWL to conduct sea turtle monitoring activities. Appel also testified regarding the potential for the Dock to be damaged in storms, resulting in flying and floating debris that may damage his properties and the natural resources in the area. Crilly's Interests and Timeliness of Petition Crilly is the holder of a marine turtle permit issued by FFWCC, authorizing her to monitor sea turtle nesting along the beach at Long Beach Drive. Other volunteer sea turtle nest monitors work with Crilly under the authority of her permit. Crilly and her team of sea turtle monitors walk the beach daily during sea turtle nesting season. Crilly's responsibilities under the marine turtle permit include monitoring sea turtle nesting and false crawls; collecting data on the number of hatchlings that emerge from each sea turtle nest; and collecting data on sea turtle nesting mortality. The data are provided to the FFWCC for use in sea turtle research. Crilly testified that the Dock will impede her ability and that of her team to safely traverse along the shore below the MHWL to perform the sea turtle monitoring duties authorized under her permit. Specifically, Crilly testified that because the property above the MHWL is private, she must walk along the shoreline below the MHWL. The rock is slippery with numerous depressions, and traversing under the Dock would be treacherous. She testified that "I personally would not crawl under a dock and, therefore, I would not ask any of my volunteers on my team to crawl under a dock." According to Crilly, if she and her sea turtle nest monitoring team are unable to traverse the shoreline where the Dock will be located, they will be required to retrace their steps to the roadway on Long Beach Drive, walk down the road to a public access point, walk down to the beach, and walk back to the Dock, significantly increasing the time and effort to conduct their sea turtle monitoring activities. Crilly testified that she "learned of" DEP's approval of the Dock on December 30, 2019. No evidence was presented regarding whether, or how, Crilly received notice of the 2019 Approval sufficient to provide a clear point of entry for purposes of commencing the time for her to challenge that proposed agency action. Crilly filed her Petition challenging the 2019 Approval on February 27, 2020. When DEP issued the Dock Approval on September 30, 2020, superseding the 2019 Approval, Crilly already had filed her Petition at DEP, and the Petition had been referred to DOAH. IX. Findings of Ultimate Fact Regarding Compliance with Applicable Rules The term "dock" is defined in chapters 18-20 and 18-21. Chapter 18-20, applicable to aquatic preserves, defines a dock as "a fixed or floating structure, including moorings, used for the purpose of berthing buoyant vessels either temporarily or indefinitely." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.003(19). Chapter 18-21, which generally governs approvals to use sovereignty submerged lands, defines a dock as "a fixed or floating structure, including access walkways, terminal platforms, catwalks, mooring pilings, lifts, davits and other associated water-dependent structures, used for mooring and accessing vessels." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(22). The Dock meets the definition of "dock" in both rules.9 As discussed above, the Dock Approval limits mooring to non-motorized vessels, and Fondriest, a riparian owner, will use the Dock to access the water for the water-dependent activities of kayaking, paddle-boarding, and other water-dependent activities such as swimming, snorkeling, and fishing, consistent with rule 18-20.004(1)(e)5. 9 The Dock is not a "pier," which is defined as "a structure in, or, or over sovereignty lands which is used by the public primarily for fishing or swimming." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.003(41)(emphasis added). As discussed above, the Dock is a private single-family residential dock that will be constructed on sovereignty submerged lands waterward of Fondriest's property. It will not be open to, or used by, the public for fishing or swimming. As previously discussed, the Dock meets the 500-square-foot threshold for purposes of exemption from regulatory permitting, pursuant to section 403.813(1)(b). The evidence also establishes that the Dock is a "minimum-size" dock, as defined in rule 18-21.002(39). Specifically, the Dock's area has been reduced to the smallest size possible that will provide Fondriest reasonable access to the water for kayak launching. The Dock's reduced size also will minimize impacts to resources at, and in the vicinity of, the Dock. Thus, the Dock has been designed to minimize any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and threatened and endangered species habitat, as required by rules 18-21.004(2)(b) and (i), and 18-21.004(7)(d). Compliance with Aquatic Preserve Management Policies, Standards, and Criteria Rule 18-20.004 establishes the policies, standards, and requirements for approval of uses of sovereignty submerged lands in aquatic preserves. As discussed above, the Dock extends a total of 154 feet waterward from the MHWL. This is substantially less than the allowable 500-foot maximum extent from the MHWL, and also is substantially less than 20% of the width of the Straits of Florida, which spans from the Florida Keys to Cuba. Thus, the Dock is consistent with rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the Dock will not be located in an area of significant biological, scientific, historic, or aesthetic value. However, even if such resources were present, the Dock would not cause adverse impacts due to its specific design features and the use of best management practices during construction. As discussed above, the Dock will minimize shading by reduction of the width of the access dock from four feet to three feet; by elevation of both the access dock and the terminal platform five feet above mean high water; and by the use of light-penetrable grating for the terminal platform. The Dock is designed to ensure that vessel use will not cause harm to site- specific resources, as required by rule 18-20.004(5)(a)3. The types of vessels that may use the Dock are limited to non-motorized vessels, and the letter of consent is conditioned to allow vessel launching only when there is a minimum depth of 0.5 feet of water at the terminal platform. As previously discussed, the evidence establishes that the Dock will be located in an RPA 3. Nonetheless, the Dock will comply with design standards applicable to docks in an RPA 1 or RPA 2. Specifically, the Dock will be constructed of wooden planking less than eight inches wide, spaced half an inch apart after shrinkage; will be elevated five feet above the MHWL; and will have a terminal platform consisting of light-penetrable grating to minimize shading. As previously discussed, the terminal platform will have a total area of 72 square feet—well below the 160-square foot maximum size allowed in aquatic preserves under rule 18-20.004(5)(b)6. The Dock extends out from the shoreline to a depth of approximately -0.5 ft at mean low water. Thus, Dock meets the requirement that it may not extend out from the shoreline further than to a maximum water depth of -4 feet at mean low water. Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.004(5)(b)3. Consistency with Coupon Bight Aquatic Preserve Management Plan Rule 18-20.004(7), which addresses management plans for aquatic preserves, states, in pertinent part: "[t]he aquatic preserve management plans shall be used by the Department to preserve and restore the distinctive characteristics identified by the inventories for each aquatic preserve." Rule 18-20.004(3)(a) states, in pertinent part: "all proposed activities in aquatic preserves having management plans adopted by the Board must demonstrate that such activities are consistent with the management plan." For the reasons discussed in detail above, it is determined that the Dock is consistent with the Management Plan, and, thus, complies with rule 18-20.004(3)(a). Public Interest Demonstration Chapters 18-20 and 18-21 both require an analysis to determine whether an activity proposed to be conducted on sovereignty submerged lands meets an applicable public interest test. Rule 18-20.004(1)(b), the aquatic preserve rule's public interest test, states, in pertinent part: "[t]here shall be no further sale, lease or transfer of sovereignty lands except when such sale, lease or transfer is in the public interest (see subsection 18- 20.004(2), F.A.C., Public Interest Assessment Criteria)." However, with respect to private residential single-family docks, rule 18-20.004(4)(c) states, in pertinent part: "[f]or the purpose of this rule, a private, residential single-family docking facility which meets all the requirements of subsection 18-20.004(5), F.A.C., shall be deemed to meet the public interest requirements of paragraph 18-20.004(1)(b), F.A.C." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.004(1)(b)(emphasis added). As discussed herein, the Dock meets all applicable requirements in rule 18- 20.004(5). Accordingly, the Dock meets the aquatic preserves public interest test in chapter 18-20. The Dock also meets the public interest test codified in chapter 18-21. Rule 18-21.003(53) defines "public interest" as "demonstrable environmental, social and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of the proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." Rule 18-21.004(1) states: "[f]or approval, all activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest, except for sales which must be in the public interest." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(1)(emphasis added). In this case, the Dock provides recreational water access to the riparian owner, and, as discussed extensively, will not have any adverse impacts on sovereignty lands, aquatic resources, or listed species. Thus, it is determined that the Dock is not contrary to the public interest, as defined in chapter 18-21. Petitioners assert that the Dock is inconsistent with article X, section 11 of the Florida Constitution, which states: Sovereignty lands. – The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the states, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people. Sale of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when in the public interest. Private use of portions of such lands may be authorized by law, but only when not contrary to the public interest. Fla. Const., art. X, §11 (emphasis added). Chapters 253 and 258, and the implementing rules codified in chapters 18-20 and 18-21, authorize the use of sovereignty submerged lands for private residential single-family docks when not contrary to the public interest. As discussed above, the Dock is not contrary to the public interest under chapters 18-20 and 18-21. Thus, the use of sovereignty submerged lands for the Dock is consistent with article X, section 11 of the Florida Constitution. Petitioners raised, as a public interest concern, their ability to walk below the MHWL along the shoreline on Long Beach Drive. The evidence shows that the Dock will, within its narrow footprint, present a minor hindrance to Petitioners' ability to walk unimpeded along the shoreline below the MHWL. However, the competent, persuasive evidence established that Petitioners will be able to duck under the Dock, or walk around the end of the terminal platform, where the water is relatively shallow. Importantly, Petitioners did not cite any statutory or rule provisions affording completely unencumbered access, by the general public, to all sovereignty submerged lands.10 Cumulative Impacts Rule 18-20.006 requires that an activity proposed in an aquatic preserve be evaluated for its cumulative impact on the aquatic preserve’s natural system. As extensively discussed above, Fondriest's expert, Walters, conducted a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis that addressed all pertinent considerations in rule 18-20.006, and she concluded that the Dock will not have any 10 A key purpose of chapters 18-20 and 18-21 is to establish standards for approval of private uses of sovereignty submerged lands which may, to a certain extent, hinder the general public's access to those sovereignty lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004 ("[t]he following management policies, standards, and criteria shall be used in determining whether to approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny all requests for activities on sovereignty submerged lands"); and Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.004 ([t]he following management policies, standards, and criteria are supplemental to chapter 18-21 . . . and shall be uses in determining whether to approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny all requests for activities on sovereignty submerged lands in aquatic preserves.") adverse cumulative impacts on the CBAP as a whole, or on any significant biologic, hydrologic, or other resources within the CBAP. As discussed above, Walters's analysis was comprehensive; her testimony was credible and persuasive; and her conclusion that the Dock will not result in adverse cumulative impacts to the CBAP, or to any resources within the CBAP, was rule- based, and considered all pertinent factual information. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the Dock will not cause adverse cumulative impacts to the CBAP, or to any resources within the CBAP, as required by rule 18-20.006. Minimization of Adverse Impacts to Sovereignty Submerged Lands and Resources Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) states, in pertinent part, that activities that would result in significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources may not be approved. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that there are no significant natural resources present at the location, or in the vicinity, of the Dock. Thus, the Dock will not have adverse impacts on such resources or on sovereignty submerged lands. Nonetheless, numerous protective measures have been imposed as conditions to the letter of consent, to minimize the potential for adverse water quality impacts and to protect aquatic resources. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the Dock will meet the resource impact minimization requirements in rules 18-20.004(5)(a)1. and 18-21.004(2). Measures to Avoid and Minimize Adverse Impacts to Listed Species and Habitat 18-21.004(7)(e) requires that "construction, use, or operation of the structure or activity shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened[,] or of special concern, as listed in rules 68A-27.003, 68A-27.004[,] and 68A-27.005." DEP consulted with FFWCC on the Dock application, to determine its potential impacts to species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern. As discussed above, FFWCC provided recommendations to minimize the Dock's potential impacts to several listed species, and those recommendations have been imposed as conditions to the letter of consent. As discussed above, the Dock will implement numerous measures to ensure that construction and use will not adversely affect manatees, sea turtle species, the Smalltooth Sawfish, and the Eastern Indigo Snake. As discussed above, Key Deer forage on and traverse the shore along Long Beach Drive. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the Dock will not impose any substantial barrier to the Key Deer's use of the shore on Fondriest's property, and will not otherwise adversely affect the Key Deer. Also, as discussed above, the competent, credible evidence establishes that due to the lack of suitable habitat, other protected species, such as the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit, Keys Rice Rat, and Florida Keys Mole Skink are unlikely to inhabit, or otherwise be present at or near, the Dock site. Thus, it is determined that the Dock will not have any adverse impacts on these species. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the Dock will not have adverse impacts to listed species and their habitat. Riparian Rights Chapters 18-20 and 18-21 require that the riparian rights of owners of upland riparian property adjacent to an activity seeking approval to use sovereignty submerged lands be protected. Rule 18-20.004(4) states, in pertinent part: "[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law and statutory riparian rights of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty lands." Rule 18-21.004(3) states, in pertinent part: None of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in section 253.141, F.S., of upland riparian property owners adjacent to sovereignty lands. Satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is required for activities on sovereignty submerged lands riparian to the uplands. All structures and other activities must be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners. [A]ll structures, including mooring pilings, breakwaters, jetties and groins, and activities must be set back a minimum of 25 feet inside the applicant's riparian line. Exceptions to the setbacks are private residential single- family docks associated with a parcel that has a shoreline frontage of less than 65 feet, where portions of such structures are located between riparian less than 65 feet apart. Pursuant to rule 18-21.003(63), "satisfactory upland interest" means owning the riparian uplands or having some other possessory or use interest, as specified in the rule. Section 253.141(1) defines riparian rights as follows: Riparian rights are those incident to land bordering upon navigable waters. They are rights of ingress, egress, boating, bathing, and fishing and such others as may be or have been defined by law. Such rights are not of a proprietary nature. They are rights inuring to the owner of the riparian land but are not owned by him or her. They are appurtenant to and are inseparable from the riparian land. The land to which the owner holds title must extend to the ordinary high watermark of the navigable water in order that riparian rights may attach. Conveyance of title to or lease of the riparian land entitles the grantee to the riparian rights running therewith whether or not mentioned in the deed or lease of the upland. Fondriest owns the upland property riparian to the sovereignty submerged lands on which the Dock is proposed to be located, and Petitioners stipulated that she has a satisfactory upland interest for purposes of rule 18-21.004(3). The Trust owns upland property bordering the Straits of Florida; thus, riparian rights inure to the Trust property, pursuant to section 253.141. As previously discussed, the evidence establishes that the Dock will be set back over 40 feet from the common riparian line between Fondriest's property and the Trust's property. To this point, Meredith acknowledged that the Dock would be set back more than 25 feet from the common riparian line, and will not intrude into the Trust's riparian area. No evidence was presented showing that the Dock would unreasonably interfere with the Trust's traditional riparian rights of navigation, boating, swimming, or fishing within its riparian area. Meredith testified that the Dock would obstruct the view of the waterbody, the shore, and the sunrise over the water, from the Trust property. She appeared to assert these interests on behalf of the Trust and herself. However, as more fully discussed below, under Florida law, the riparian right to an "unobstructed" view does not entail a view completely free of any infringement or restriction by structures or activities appurtenant to neighboring riparian properties. Rather, the right to an "unobstructed" view means that a riparian owner is entitled to a direct, unobstructed view of the channel of the waterbody and a direct means of ingress and egress to the channel. No evidence was presented that the Dock—which will be constructed perpendicular to the shoreline within Fondriest's riparian area—would obstruct the Trust's or Meredith's view of the channel of the Straits of Florida. Additionally, as previously discussed, the Trust presented no evidence to show that the presence of the Dock in Fondriest's riparian area would interfere with the Trust's direct ingress and egress to and from the channel of the Straits of Florida. Accordingly, it is determined that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on the Trust's riparian rights. Similarly, it is determined that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on the riparian rights incident to the Deer Run property, or to Appel's properties on Long Beach Drive. To this point, Demaria and Appel did not present any evidence showing that the Dock will obstruct their view of the channel of the Straits of Florida, either from the Deer Run property, or from Appel's properties. DeMaria and Appel also failed to present evidence showing that the Dock would interfere with direct ingress and egress to and from the channel of the Straits of Florida, either from the Deer Run property or from Appel's properties. Accordingly, it is determined that, consistent with section 253.141 and rule 18-21.004(3), the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on the riparian rights of the Trust or of DeMaria and Appel. General Requirements for Authorization to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands As discussed above, the Dock will be constructed and used in a manner that will avoid and minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources, consistent with rule 18-21.004(7)(d). The competent, credible evidence also demonstrates that the construction and use of the Dock will not adversely affect listed species, consistent with rule 18-21.004(7)(e). As discussed above, the Dock will not unreasonably interfere with the riparian rights of the Petitioners, consistent with rule 18-21.004(7)(f). Additionally, the Dock will not constitute a navigational hazard, consistent with rule 18-21.004(7)(g). Due to the shallow water in the footprint and in the vicinity of the Dock, navigation in the area is typically by kayak or canoe. The competent, credible evidence shows that the Dock will not impede navigation of these types of vessels. Because the sandy beach areas on Long Beach Drive are in private ownership, the Dock will not interfere with the public easement for traditional uses of sandy beaches, as provided in section 161.141, Florida Statutes; thus, the Dock is consistent with rule 18-21.004(7)(h). Also, as discussed above, the Dock will be constructed, operated, and maintained solely for the water-dependent uses of launching non-motorized vessels and swimming, consistent with rule 18-21.004(7)(j).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order granting Respondent Julia Fondriest's application for a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands and verifying that the Dock is exempt from the requirement to obtain a regulatory permit, pursuant to section 403.813(1)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 18th day of February, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia Fondriest Doug Scheele Lifetime Dock & Lumber, Inc. 24536 Overseas Highway Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Luna E. Phillips, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. Suite 1400 450 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Deborah K. Madden, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. Suite 1400 450 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for consent of use of sovereignty submerged land for a 9,180 square foot docking facility in Lake Worth be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st day of August, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire Roberts, Egan & Routa, P.A. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John W. Williams, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
