Findings Of Fact Parties Mr. Boynton has applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock to allow him access to an island which he owns in Lake Iamonia in Leon County, Florida. Petitioners Wilkinson, Frye, Gary, Pennington, Dunlap and Buford 1/ are riparian landowners who use the waters of Lake Iamonia for recreation, fishing and duck hunting. The Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the state statutes and rules regulating water quality and dredging and filling in the waters of the State of Florida. Nature of Project According to his application (as amended at the final hearing) Mr. Boynton requests a dredge and fill permit to construct a boat dock which will be 150 feet long and 10 feet wide. It will be strong enough to support a motor vehicle. Mr. Boynton owns a parcel of land on the west shore of Lake Iamonia just north of what is known as the North Meridian Road Bridge. He also owns Island #33, known locally as Live Oak Island, which is 300 feet east of the mainland. Between the mainland and the island is a neck of the lake which is a shallow slough. As proposed the dock will extend from the west side of the island toward Mr. Boynton's mainland parcel at approximately the narrowest portion of the slough. The dock will be constructed of creosoted pilings and planks. The pilings are to be sunk into the lake bottom by jetting to a depth of 10 to 12 feet. Mr. Boynton plans to construct a hunting cabin on his island. The purpose of the dock is to allow him to transport supplies to the cabin from the mainland by means of a small boat. In order to supply electric power to the planned cabin Mr. Boynton also applied for a permit to construct a subaqueous cable crossing between the mainland and the island. No objection to the cable crossing has been raised by Petitioners. In 1981 Mr. Boynton filed an application with both the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of Natural Resources for permits to construct a 300 foot long bridge from the mainland to his island in the same location as the proposed dock. The bridge application generated considerable opposition from adjacent landowners on the lake and as a result, Mr. Boynton stayed his application. In November 1981 he wrote a letter to the Department of Natural Resources which stated: November 2, 1981 Ted Forsgren Department of Natural Resources Tallahassee, Florida 32303 RE: Case #81-1910 Dear Ted: Please do not submit a report to the Cabinet for the bridge permit I had requested. I would prefer there be no position stated either pro or con about this project. Sincerely, /s/ Ben C Boynton Mr. Boynton later stated in a letter dated April 8, 1982 to Mr. William Williams at the Department of Natural Resources that: I have stopped the bridge application. This is not to be construed as a withdrawal of the application. I plan to resume the re- quest at a later date. I have earlier sent a letter to Mr. Ted Forestgren, permitting, DNR, stating the same. Should there be any other information requested, please let me know. Much of the opposition from Petitioners to the proposed dock application is founded in a fear that the dock is just a first step in later constructing a bridge. This fear is reasonable. The proposed dock is precisely half of the original proposed bridge. At the final hearing Mr. Boynton was unable to provide a reasonable explanation of why he needs such a large dock to service a simple hunting cabin. Water Quality and Wildlife Impact The impact of the proposed dock on water quality in Lake Iamonia is insignificant. Lake Iamonia is a Class III water of the State of Florida. The proposed placement of pilings in the lake bottom will cause some turbidity for a short duration. This turbidity can be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains at the time of construction. Petitioners have raised no objection in their Petition for Formal Hearing to the dock on the basis of water quality and it did not became an issue at the final hearing. Some impact by the dock on wild ducks was alleged by Petitioners. Lake Iamonia is a wintering area for certain migratory waterfowl most notably, the ringneck duck. Most of the Petitioners are hunters who are concerned about preserving their recreational interest in killing the ringnecks. As with water quality, the impact of the dock on waterfowl will be de minimis. Ducks are wary of any new man-made structure and a dock of the size proposed here is certain to be noticed by them. They will initially be "blind shy" of the dock, but will readily adapt to its presence. Were there to be constant human activity on the dock, it would have a noticeable effect on the ducks' flight paths. The occasional off-loading of supplies for a hunting cabin will frighten few, if any ducks. There are other structures, such as the residences of other riparian owners, and docks along the lake shore which have not frightened the ducks away. The fearless ringnecks even tolerate being shot at, yet return to the lake annually. At the final hearing Petitioners recognized the de minimis impact of the proposed dock on wildlife and water quality. Their concern is that the dock is the first step toward constructing a bridge and that the permitting of such a bridge will unleash an avalanche of additional permit applications for the development of the numerous islands in Lake Iamonia. With respect to Lake Iamonia no evidence was presented at the final hearing of a significant number of dock permit applications or of any bridge applications before the Department of Environmental Regulation. If enough structures were permitted by the Department to begin serious consideration of cumulative impact on the lake, the precedent of having permitted the first few docks would not be binding upon the Department because the facts on which the first permits were based would be different from those facts before the Department on consideration of the later applications. Navigation The slough between the mainland and Live Oak island is navigable by only small craft such as johnboats and canoes. There is a "channel" which runs north-south through the slough at a depth of several feet. Even though the proposed dock projects halfway to the mainland it will not block the channel. DNR Consent The submerged land over which the proposed dock will be constructed belongs to the State of Florida. Mr. Boynton has requested permission from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to use the land. Permission for the construction of a dock longer than 100 feet long was conditionally granted by DNR in a letter dated June 4, 1982 which said in part: We recognize that the lake is very shallow in the proposed dock location and the length was designed to avoid dredging. However, we can not recommend approval of a 200 foot long dock across this 300 foot wide area of the lake. We would have no objections to a 100 foot long dock. Additionally, should you ob- tain written statements of no objection from the adjacent landowners currently living on Lake Iamonia for a 150 foot long dock, we would then have no objections to a dock of that length. Our approval of a docking facility does not in any way indicate a favorable Position to- wards your previous bridge easement request which you have withdrawn. The use of state owned lands to construct a bridge would be in conflict with current rules and policies. Our intent in approving the docking facility is to allow you to have reasonable ingress and egress to your island. Consider this the authority sought under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, to pursue this project upon our receipt of the revised drawings indicating a reduced length of 100 feet or the no objection statements for a re- vised length of 150 feet. This letter in no way waives the authority and/or jurisdiction of any governmental entity nor does this letter disclaim any title in- terest that the State may have in this project site. Sincerely, /s/ Henry Dean Interim Director Division of State Lands (Emphasis added)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing a permit to Ben C. Boynton for the construction of a 150 foot by 10 foot dock and subaqueous cable crossing in Lake Iamonia as requested in his permit application, subject however, to obtaining a letter from the Department of Natural Resources indicating that Mr. Boynton has satisfied the terms outlined in the letter dated June 4, 1982 granting consent to use state owned submerged lands. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 15th day of December, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a letter of consent to use State-owned submerged lands (SL) and an environmental resource permit (ERP) (which are processed together as a SLERP) for the single-family dock proposed by Pamela C. Damico, which would extend 770 feet into the Atlantic Ocean from her property on Plantation Key in Monroe County (DEP Permit 44-0298211-001).
Findings Of Fact Pamela C. Damico owns property at 89505 Old Highway on Plantation Key in the Upper Florida Keys in Monroe County. Her property includes submerged land extending between 212 and 233 feet into the Atlantic Ocean, which is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). She applied to DEP for a permit to build a dock and boat mooring at her property. In its final configuration, the proposed docking structure would have an access pier from the shoreline that would extend across her submerged land, and then farther across State-owned submerged lands, for a total distance of 770 feet from the shoreline. A primary goal of the application was to site the mooring area in water with a depth of at least -4 feet mean low water (MLW). Mrs. Damico’s consultants believed that this was required for a SLERP in Monroe County. In addition, they were aware that -4 feet MLW would be required to get a dock permit from Islamorada, Village of Islands. The beliefs of Mrs. Damico’s consultants regarding the depth requirement for the mooring site were based in part on incorrect interpretations of DEP rules by certain DEP staff made both during Mrs. Damico’s application process and during the processing of other applications in the past. Those incorrect interpretations were based in part on ambiguous and incorrect statements in guidance documents published by DEP over the years. (Similarly, certain DEP staff made incorrect interpretations of DEP rules regarding a supposedly absolute 500-foot length limit for any dock in Monroe County.) See Conclusions of Law for the correct interpretations of DEP rules. Petitioner owns oceanfront property to the south and adjacent to Mrs. Damico’s. As expressed by Petitioner’s owner and operator, Dr. William Carter, Petitioner has concerns regarding impacts of the proposed docking structure on navigation, boating safety, and natural resources, including seagrasses, stony corals, tarpon, and bonefish. Several changes were made to the proposed docking structure to address concerns raised by Petitioner. In the earlier proposals, the access pier would have been supported by 10-inch square concrete piles, which must be installed using a construction barge and heavy equipment. In its final form, to reduce the direct impacts to the seagrasses and stony corals, it was proposed that the first 550 feet of the access pier from the point of origin on the shoreline would be installed using pin piles, which are made of aluminum and are 4.5 inches square inside a vinyl sleeve five inches square, and can be installed by hand. Instead of the planks originally proposed for the decking of the access pier, a grating material was substituted, which would allow greater light penetration to the seagrasses below. The orientation and length of the proposed docking structure was modified several times in an effort to achieve the optimal siting of the mooring platform. Handrails were proposed for the access pier, and no tie-up cleats are provided there. In combination with the elevation of the decking at five feet above mean high water (MHW), the handrails would discourage use of the pier for mooring by making it impractical if not impossible in most cases. Railing also was proposed for the north side of the mooring platform to discourage mooring there, and a sign was proposed to be placed on the north side of the platform saying that mooring there is prohibited. These measures were proposed to restrict mooring to the south side of the mooring platform, where a boat lift would be installed, which would protect the large seagrass beds that are on the north side of the terminal platform. (Mooring an additional boat along the end of the 8-foot long mooring platform, which faces the prevailing oceanic waves, is impractical if not impossible.) To make the docking structure less of a navigation and boating safety hazard, it was proposed that a USCG flashing white light would be installed at the end of the terminal platform. In its final configuration, the docking structure would preempt approximately 2,240 square feet of State-owned submerged land, plus approximately 200 square feet preempted by the proposed boat lift. In addition, it would preempt approximately 900 square feet of Mrs. Damico’s privately-owned submerged land. Mrs. Damico’s private property has approximately 352 linear feet of shoreline. Dr. Lin testified for Petitioner that the proposed docking structure would preempt a total of 3,760 square feet. This calculation included 520 square feet of preemption by the boat lift, but the proposed boat lift is for a smaller boat that would preempt only approximately 200 square feet. Intending to demonstrate that the proposed docking structure would wharf out to a consistent depth of -4 feet MLW, Mrs. Damico’s consultants submitted a bathymetric survey indicating a -4 MLW contour at the mooring platform. In fact, the line indicated on the survey is not a valid contour line, and the elevations in the vicinity do not provide reasonable assurance that the mooring area of the docking structure in its final configuration is in water with a consistent depth of -4 feet MLW, or that there is water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel. The evidence does, however, provide reasonable assurance that the proposed mooring platform is in water with a consistent depth of at least -3 feet MLW, and that there is water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, which would avoid damage to seagrass bed and other biological communities. The evidence was not clear whether there is another possible configuration available to Petitioner to wharf out to a mooring area with a consistent depth of at least -3 feet MLW, not over seagrasses, and with water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, that would not require as long an access pier, or preempt as many square feet of State-owned submerged land. A noticed general permit (NGP) can be used for a dock of 2,000 square feet or less, in water with a minimum depth of -2 feet MLW, and meeting certain other requirements. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-341.215 and 62-341.427. The evidence was not clear whether an NGP can be used in an OFW in Monroe County in water less than -3 feet FLW, according to DEP’s interpretation of its rules. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-312.400, Part IV. Initially, mitigation for impacts to natural resources was proposed. However, DEP’s staff determined that no mitigation was required because there would not be any adverse effects from the docking structure, as finally proposed. For the same reason, DEP staff determined that there would be no significant cumulative adverse impacts and that no further analysis of cumulative impacts was necessary. Actually, there will be adverse impacts to natural resources. The biologist for Mrs. Damico determined that there are some seagrasses and numerous stony corals in the footprint of the access pier, in addition to other resources less susceptible to impacts (such as macro-algae and loggerhead sponges). These organisms will be disturbed or destroyed by the installation of the access pier. The biologist quantified the impacts to round starlet corals by assuming the placement of two supporting piles, four feet apart, every ten feet for the length of the pier, and assuming impacts to the stony corals in a quadrat centered on each pile location and three times the diameter of the pile. Using this method, it was estimated that approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would be destroyed by the installation of the docking structure. The impacts assessed by Mrs. Damico’s biologist and DEP assume that construction would “step out” from shore and, as construction proceeds, from already-built segments of the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area. This construction method is not required by the proposed SLERP. It would have to be added as a permit condition. Petitioner did not prove that the impacts to a few seagrasses and approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would damage the viability of those biological communities in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure. Direct and indirect impacts to other species from the installation and maintenance of the docking structure would not be expected. Impacts to listed species, including manatees and sawfish, would not be anticipated. Manatees sometimes are seen in the vicinity but do not rely on the area for foraging or breeding. Sawfish are more likely to frequent the bay waters than the ocean. Migratory tarpon and bonefish use the area and might swim out around the docking structure to avoid passing under it. Resident tarpon and some other fish species might congregate under the docking structure. The proposed docking structure does not block or cross any marked navigation channel and is in a shallow area near the shore where boats are supposed to be operated at reduced speeds. Nonetheless, the proposed structure poses more than a casual navigation hazard, especially due to its length, which is significantly greater than any docking structure in the vicinity. In conducting its staff analysis of the impacts on navigation and boating safety, DEP understood that the closest marked navigation channel is at least two miles away from the proposed docking structure. Actually, there also is a marked channel at the Tavernier Creek, which is less than half a mile north of the site. It is not uncommon for boaters to leave the marked Tavernier Creek channel to motor south in the shallow water closer to shore; they also sometimes cut across the shallow waters near the site to enter the Tavernier Creek channel when heading north. There also are other unmarked or unofficially-marked channels even closer to the proposed docking structure. In good weather and sea conditions, the proposed docking structure would be obvious and easy to avoid. In worse conditions, especially at night, it could be a serious hazard. To reduce the navigational hazard posed by the dock, reflective navigation indicators are proposed to be placed every 30 feet along both sides of the access pier, and the USCG flashing white light is proposed for the end of terminal platform. These measures would help make the proposed docking structure safer but would not eliminate the risks entirely. The light helps when it functions properly, it can increase the risk if boaters come to rely on it, and it goes out. Both the light and reflective indicators are less effective in fog and bad weather and seas. The risk increases with boats operated by unskilled and especially intoxicated boaters. It is common for numerous boaters to congregate on weekends and holidays at Holiday Isle, which is south of the proposed docking structure. Alcoholic beverages are consumed there. Some of these boaters operate their boats in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure, including “cutting the corner” to the Tavernier Creek pass channel, instead of running in deeper water to enter the pass at the ocean end of the navigation channel. This increases the risk of collision, especially at night or in bad weather and sea conditions. DEP sought comments from various state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over fisheries and wildlife. None of these agencies expressed any objection to the proposed docking structure. No representative from any of those agencies testified or presented evidence at the hearing. Area fishing guides and sports fishermen fish for bonefish and tarpon in the flats in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure. If built, the proposed docking structure would spoil this kind of fishing, especially bonefishing, or at least make it more difficult. The more similar docking structures installed in the area, the greater the difficulties in continuing to use the area for this kind of fishing. On the other hand, resident tarpon and some other fish species could be attracted by such docking structures. Mrs. Damico’s application initially offered a money donation to the Florida Keys Environmental Restoration Trust Fund if mitigation was required. The proposed permit includes a requirement to donate $5,000 to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), before construction begins, for the maintenance of mooring buoys to reduce recreational boater impacts at the coral reef areas. The reefs are miles from the site of the proposed docking structure, and the donation does not offset project impacts. Rather, as stated in the proposed permit, its purpose is to “satisfy public interest requirements.” As a federal agency, the FKNMS does not accept donations directly. Donations would have to be made to the Sanctuary Friends of the Florida Keys (SFFK) for use by the FKNMS for buoy maintenance. A condition would have to be added to the ERP to ensure that the donation would be used for the intended purpose. In a bid to defeat Mrs. Damico’s attempt to satisfy public interest requirements, Petitioner offered to donate $10,000 to SFFK for the buoy maintenance if DEP denied the permit. Petitioner’s offer should not affect the evaluation of the proposed docking structure under the public interest criteria. DEP staff evaluated the proposed ERP under the public interest criteria to be essentially neutral and determined that the $5,000 donation would make it clearly in the public interest. This analysis was flawed. With or without the $5,000 donation, the proposed docking structure would have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, and welfare; an adverse effect on navigation; an adverse effect on fishing or recreational values in the vicinity; and an adverse effect on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It would not have any positive public interest effects. Its effects would be permanent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying a permit for the proposed docking structure; if granted, there should be a condition requiring construction to “reach out” from shore and, as construction proceeds, from already-built segments of the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of October, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia M. Silver, Esquire Silver Law Group Post Office Box 710 Islamorada, Florida 33036-0710 Brittany Elizabeth Nugent, Esquire Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. at Islamorada Professional Center 81990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor Islamorada, Florida 33036-3614 Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Wayne Zimmet's proposed single-family boat dock and lift project is exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3)(c).1
Findings Of Fact Both Wayne Zimmet and Scott Rosenblum own property in Tequesta, Florida, in a community known as North Passage, which has a man-made navigation and drainage easement canal that terminates at its eastern end at Mr. Rosenblum's property, which is Lot 74, at 8738 Riverfront Terrace. Mr. Zimmet's property, which is Lot 75, at 8750 Riverfront Terrace, is south of the eastern terminus of the canal. The Rosenblum and Zimmet properties are adjacent and share a common boundary. There is an existing dock extending from Mr. Rosenblum's property into the canal. The existing dock is perpendicular to, and extends west from the middle of, the shore of the eastern terminus of the canal. There is a wooden walkway leading from the residence on Mr. Rosenblum's property to the existing dock. However, there also has been a wooden walkway leading from Mr. Zimmet's property to the existing dock. As indicated in the Preliminary Statement, there is a dispute between Mr. Zimmet and Mr. Rosenblum as to who is entitled to access and use the existing dock--and in particular the south side of the existing dock. That dispute will be resolved in state circuit court.2 For purposes of this proceeding, it will be assumed that Mr. Rosenblum has the right to use the existing dock. On or about May 25, 2006, Mr. Zimmet filed an application requesting an ERP exemption to install an eight-foot by twenty-foot (160-square feet) marginal dock with a two-pile elevator lift to designed to accommodate his boat, which is approximately 24.5 feet long (22 feet at the waterline) and eight feet wide. According to documentation submitted with the application, the proposed dock would be centered along the waterfront of his property and extend approximately four feet into the canal. The proposed boat lift would be skewed toward the western end of the proposed marginal dock with the intent being to dock his boat with the bow facing the west so that proposed dock could be used to enter and load the boat from the stern. This positioning of the proposed lift and boat at the proposed dock would skew a boat on the lift at the proposed dock about three feet to the west, away from the existing dock. Based on the evidence, it is found that Mr. Zimmet did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed boat dock and lift, even if skewed to the west as indicated in the application drawings, would not "impede navigation" to and from the south side of the existing dock. (Otherwise, Mr. Zimmet's proposed dock and lift would not "impede navigation" in the canal.) This impediment to navigation to and from the south side of the existing dock is not a mere inconvenience. Although Mr. Rosenblum now only owns and uses a raft at the existing dock, he testified that he plans on purchasing and using a boat. Boats in the range of approximately 24.5 feet in length with a beam of 8 to 8.5 feet are common in the North Passage canal. A boat of that size docked at the south side of the existing dock would barely fit alongside Mr. Zimmet's boat, whether docked or on the lift, and there would not be a reasonable amount of clearance for navigating a boat of that size commonly to or from the south side of the existing dock if Mr. Zimmet's boat were docked at the proposed dock or on the proposed lift. (Likewise, if a boat of that size were docked on the south side of the existing dock, there would not be a reasonable amount of clearance for Mr. Zimmet to use his proposed dock and lift.) There was no evidence of any impediment to navigation to and from the north side of the existing dock.
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, absent a circuit court determination that Mr. Rosenblum does not have the right to access and use the south side of the existing dock, Mr. Zimmet's proposed dock and lift project is not exempt from the need to obtain an ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 23rd day of October, 2007.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether the dock modification approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Permit No. 41-01935093-001, adversely affects the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others and navigation. § 373.414(1)(a) 1. and 3., Fla. Stat.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Bridge Tender Inn (Inn) is a restaurant and a Green Bay Packer bar located at 135 Bridge Street, Bradenton, Florida. Dr. Fred Bartizal is a medical doctor and the president of the Bridge Tender Inn, Inc. and the owner of the Inn. Petitioners are adjacent landowners who object to the proposed permit issued to Brown. The general public uses the Inn’s two existing docks. (The southernmost dock is adjacent to the Brown dock that is the subject of this proceeding.) Petitioners are in the process of obtaining a submerged land lease (from DEP) for the southern dock. Petitioners are substantially affected persons. DEP has the statutory authority to issue Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) for the construction of docks such as the modification proposed by Brown. Respondent, Harry K. Brown (Brown), owns the property at Section 4, Township 35 South, Range 16 East, Manatee County Florida.1 The property is located in and on Anna Maria Sound off of Bay Drive South, between Third and Fourth Streets South, in Bradenton Beach, Florida. Brown owns the property upland to the proposed dock extension. See Endnote 1. The existing dock, as proposed for modification, is located in Sarasota Bay, a Class II Outstanding Florida Water. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400(12)(b)41. The Gulf of Mexico is west of Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota Bay. Brown’s Original Application for Permit Authorization to Construct a Dock In 1994, Brown filed an application with the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit “to perform work in and affecting navigable waters of the United States.” On December 19, 1994, the Corps authorized Brown “to construct a T-shaped dock with four boat slips (one covered) in Anna Maria Sound” at the above-described property, in accordance with the “drawings and conditions which are incorporated in, and made a part of, the permit.” There are two drawings attached to the Corps permit. Joint Exhibit 4. The first shows the proposed Brown T-shaped dock with four identified boat slips, two on the south and two on the north sides of the portion of the dock running perpendicular to the shore. The approach to the “T” portion of the proposed dock extended 120 feet waterward (to the east.) The described “T” end of the dock measured 10’x60’. The proposed covered slip was adjacent to the northern portion of the “T,” with a boat slip adjacent to the west. (There are also two mooring pilings shown on the north side that indicate the boundaries of the covered and uncovered boat slips.) Joint Exhibit 4. This drawing also shows part of the existing and adjacent boat dock to the north of the Brown dock that runs perpendicular to the shoreline and has a T-shape at the end, running in a north and south direction. The drawing indicates that the southeastern portion of the dock to the north is “20’” from the mooring piling that forms the western boundary for the covered boat slip. Based on the “20’” designation, it appears that the second mooring piling to the west is also shown approximately 20 feet from the southeastern portion of the other boat dock. (Part of the explanation portion of this drawing was not copied.) Another, hand-drawn drawing (identified as “Exhibit 1 D,” dated April 25, 1995, prepared by Florida Permitting, Inc., and stating “REVISED APPLICATION”) shows the location of the two docks. The distance between the southeastern corner of the northern boat dock (the Bartizal dock) and the eastern mooring piling (on the north side of the Brown dock and the western boundary for the covered boat slip (slip 1)) is shown as approximately “40’.” There is no measurement shown for the distance between the southeastern corner of the Bartizal boat dock and the western mooring piling for slip 2 on the north side of the Brown dock. The distance appears to be less than 40 feet but more than 35 feet from the southeast corner of the Bartizal “T” shaped dock. On September 14, 1994, Brown also filed an application with DEP to construct a dock with four slips. (Fred Bartizal and Barbara Lohn are listed as adjacent property owners.) The Brown project was “revised to ensure adequate water depths and minimal impacts, and to maintain reasonable access to both the proposed dock and the existing dock to the north” as reflected in three drawings (Sheets A-C-dated April 25, 1995, and prepared by Florida Permitting, Inc.) that are a part of the application. Joint Exhibit 5. (Sheet C is the same as “Exhibit 1 D,” described in Finding of Fact 7. See also DEP Exhibit 7, Sheet A.) The three sheets are similar and provide the same locations for the proposed Brown and built Bartizal docks, including the “40’” measurement. Also, as revised, the approach to the Brown dock “T” is shown to be 130 feet long and the “T-end” of the dock is reduced by 12 feet, for a total length of 48 feet, and the width reduced from 10 to 8 feet, or 48’x 8’. On August 8, 1995, DEP issued Permit No. 412576623 authorizing the construction of a four slip private docking facility consisting of 904 square feet, with a conservation easement granted to DEP. Brown was required to submit “as- built” drawings to DEP within 30 days of completion of the authorized work. “Record drawings shall include the controlling elevations of all permitted structures, including final elevations as shown in the permit drawing(s)” in the “Plan View” “Sheet A,” which shows the “40’” measurement. Based on the weight of the evidence, “Sheet A” depicts the 1995 DEP approved location of the Brown dock. See DEP Exhibit 7, stamped approved by DEP, August 8, 1995, and Joint Exhibit 5, Sheet A. 2 It appears that the original Brown dock, as revised and approved by DEP Permit No. 412576623 in 1995, was actually constructed such that there is 33.4 feet between the northwestern corner of the Brown “T” portion facing north, and the southern portion of the adjacent Bartizal dock, rather than approximately 43 feet. Compare Joint Exhibits 1, 20, and 23 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J with Joint Exhibit 5, Sheet A and DEP Exhibit 7, which are the same document. See Finding of Fact 24. The mooring piling on the west side of slip 1, as depicted on DEP Exhibit 7, was constructed approximately 27 to 30 feet from the southeastern corner of the Bartizal dock (not approximately 40 feet as shown on DEP Exhibit 7) and the second mooring piling to the west was approximately 25 to 28 feet from the southeastern corner of the Bartizal dock. These are rough approximations. The ultimate finding is that the two western mooring pilings on the north side of the Brown dock and the main walkway of the Brown dock were originally constructed closer to the Bartizal dock than authorized by DEP in 1995.3 The 2002 Application Requesting Approval for Modification of the Existing Dock On or about January 3, 2002, Sherri Neff, Environmental Specialist with Florida Permitting, Inc., and Melvin Rector, president of Florida Permitting, Inc., on behalf of Brown, filed an application with DEP requesting approval of an Environmental Resource Permit for a modification of the dock previously authorized pursuant to Permit No. 412576623. Bartizal and Gregory Ellis Watkins are listed as adjoining property owners. The dock modification requested the replacement and extension of an existing structure to accommodate the dockage of 11 boats. DEP Exhibit 1. The “Project Narrative” included with this application stated in part: The egress to the proposed recreational pier currently falls along the 187' shoreline located along Bay Drive South. Access to the structure is provided by an easement from the City of Bradenton Beach. If permitted, the egress associated with the modified structure will remain at the current length of 121' beyond the jurisdiction line. The northern extension of the existing T-shaped structure, currently measured at 9.9' by 21.5', will be eliminated, and the southern extension will be reduced in width to six foot with a 28' length. In addition, an L-shaped extension is proposed to extend beyond the existing pier linearly approximately 27' into Sarasota Bay while maintaining four-foot width. A 43' by two-foot perpendicular arm would extend north at the terminus of this structure. Eleven mooring slips of specified size (Table l) are proposed in areas of suitable water depth around the structure. The modified pier would encompass an estimated 846 square feet, a reduction of 58 square feet, in relation to the originally permitted 904 square foot structure (the existing structure measures approximately 965 square feet). The application included, among other documents, a plan view of the dock modification and a cross section; a summary of structures over wetlands and other surface waters; an aerial of the area; a photograph of the existing Brown T-shaped dock and the two mooring pilings and part of the Bartizal dock to the north, including the two mooring pilings on the south side of the Bartizal dock, see also DEP Exhibit 8 and Joint Exhibit 20; water depth data; and a document showing the proposed structure and the location of the local channel. See also DEP Exhibits 2 and 4. In part, Brown granted DEP a perpetual conservation easement for 0.12 (submerged) acres as shown on an attached survey which is a rectangular area south of the Brown dock, running parallel to the shoreline and Bay Drive South. See Joint Exhibit 3, diagram identified as P 16 and DEP Exhibit 6. This diagram also shows what purports to be the pre-existing Brown T-shaped dock, the portion on the south side that is to be removed, and the location of the proposed addition, with the main portion of the dock extending east of the existing “T” and to the north. The location of the 11 boat slips is shown with the mooring pilings. Bartizal’s dock is not shown on this diagram, although it is shown on an aerial of the area dated March 1, 2002, DEP Exhibit 3. DEP employee George Molinaro reviewed the Brown modification and recommended approval. He no longer works for DEP and did not testify. On June 2, 2002, DEP issued Environmental Resource Permit, DEP Project No.: 41-01935093-001 for the construction of a 846 square foot multi-slip docking facility that would accommodate the mooring of 11 vessels. The approved dock configuration was: “a 4 ft. x 121 ft. access walkway (484 sq. ft.), a 28 ft. x 6 ft. southern extension (168 sq. ft.), a 4 ft. x 27 ft. extension (108 sq. ft.) and the 2 ft. x 43 ft. northern finger pier (86 sq. ft.).” The Challenge to the Modification An Amended Petition was filed on behalf of Petitioners. See Finding of Fact 1. The southern Bartizal dock extends out from the upland property, and is north of the Brown dock. The Bartizal dock is a four-foot wide dock that extends east into the water approximately 95 feet. There is a “T” extension at the easterly portion of the dock that extends to the north and south. There are two mooring piles that are west of the southern portion of the “T” extension. See Joint Exhibits 1 and 23; DEP Exhibit 8; and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. Boaters have moored their boats at the southern Bartizal dock, which has two southern slips for purposes of docking. In this manner, these patrons can access the Inn. Bartizal contends that boaters will be reluctant to use these slips because they are too close to the Brown mooring pilings as built. Prior to the completion of the Brown modification requested in 2002, i.e., when the Brown dock had a “T” portion, depending on the tidal currents, Bartizal and others would travel south, hugging the eastern portion of the Brown “T” following an unmarked portion of the waterway. In this manner, he and other boaters could access the inter-coastal waterway leading to the Gulf of Mexico. See Joint Exhibit 2. Now, Bartizal contends that he and an uncertain number of others are unable to travel in this manner because of the eastward extension of the Brown dock and mooring pilings and the depth of the water in this location. Id. Resolution of the Controversy One issue to be resolved is the distance between the Bartizal dock and the westerly mooring pilings north of the Brown dock and whether the placement of the Brown mooring pilings (and boats using these slips) interferes with and is potentially hazardous to boats that enter and exit from the southern portion of the Bartizal dock and boats moored at the Brown dock. See Endnote 3. The other issue to be resolved is whether the modification and extension of the Brown dock adversely affects navigation. There is no “as built” survey of the originally permitted and constructed Brown dock. However, there is a “sketch”4 drawn by Jeffrey L. Hostetler, P.S.M. (Joint Exhibit 1) and an “as built” survey by Leo Mills, P.S.M. dated October 16, 2003, (Joint Exhibit 23),5 which indicate that the distance from the southern portion of the Bartizal dock to the northwestern corner of the old “T” portion of the Brown dock was 33.4 feet. See also Joint Exhibit 13 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. Based on all of the available information of record, it appears that the western-most mooring piling of the previously constructed Brown dock was approximately 25 to 28 feet from the southern portion of the Bartizal “T” dock. The two originally constructed mooring pilings to the north of the Brown dock were constructed closer to the Bartizal dock than originally permitted in 1995. See Finding of Fact 11. Based on a later, February 16, 2004, “as-built” survey by Leo Mills, Jr., P.S.M., Petitioners’ Exhibit J, it appears that the two western-most mooring piles that extend northerly from the now-constructed Brown dock are 26.6 feet (west side of slip 3 (DEP Exhibit 6)) and 27.1 feet (west side of slip 4, id.) from the southeastern corner of the Bartizal “T” dock, which appears to be in close proximity to the two mooring pilings previously constructed. See also Findings of Fact 11 and 24. But, as noted herein, they are not located 40 feet from the Bartizal dock. See DEP Exhibit 7. The water between the Bartizal dock and the Brown dock is very shallow. Bartizal stated that he could probably wade out to his southern dock at mean low tide. (Bartizal owns another dock to the north that also provides boat slips for access to the Inn.) Bartizal testified that the previous configuration of the mooring pilings on the north side of the Brown dock allowed easier ingress to and egress from the south side of his dock. However, Bartizal further stated that the two western mooring pilings that now exist on the north side of the Brown dock have a greater impact on ingress and egress than the prior pilings. Bartizal believes that the two western-most mooring pilings are not in the same location as previously constructed, although he is not sure. The two as-built Brown slips (3 and 4) measure 21 feet in length to the north and nine feet in width. According to the document (Joint Exhibit 3, P 16 and DEP Exhibit 6) that is stamped approved by DEP, slip 3 was approved to measure 18’x 8’ and slip 4 was approved to measure 21’x 8’, which means that the slip 3 western mooring pile is off by three feet. Also, the actual width of all of the northern slips (slips three through seven) is greater than what was approved. Compare Joint Exhibit 3, P 16 and DEP Exhibit 6 with Joint Exhibit 13 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. (DEP Exhibit 6 shows the DEP-approved distances between the pilings next to the Brown dock. It appears that the distance between the out pilings is the same.) The two Bartizal slips facing the Brown dock are 22.4 feet in length by 12 feet. The southeastern corner of the Bartizal “T” dock is 51.6 feet from the northwestern corner of the Brown extended and constructed “L” shaped finger-dock. The two western-most Brown mooring pilings concern Bartizal. See Petitioners’ Exhibit J. There are two videotapes of record that show boats entering, docking, and exiting from the slips at the Bartizal dock, on the south side facing the Brown dock. There are also photographs of the Brown-Bartizal docks. Boat captains, navigating the area in and around the Brown-Bartizal docks, described their adventures in docking their boats. For the purpose of a video, Captain Claire operated a 21.6-foot Wellcraft center console sport fishing boat with a 2.5-foot draft and an 8-foot wide beam and an outboard motor. During the docking procedure at the Brown/Bartizal docks, at times, Captain Claire trimmed his motor to avoid contacting the bottom with the propeller and lower portion of the engine. Coming from the north, he pulled the boat in between the Brown and Bartizal docks, backing the boat into the Bartizal boat slip, which is closest to the Brown western-most mooring piling. According to Captain Claire, he “had very little problem backing into that slip” which is 12 feet wide and 22.4 feet deep. If he had a choice, Captain Claire would not dock a 21-foot boat in this area. Smaller vessels with shallow drafts are more suitable for this location given the tidal influences and the shallow water depth. Captain Claire was able to dock his boat at the same Bartizal boat slip by going forward into the slip. Captain Claire stated the distance of 26.6 feet between the Brown western-most mooring piling and the southeast portion of the Bartizal dock was “[v]ery typical.” (The two western-most Brown boat slips were empty when Captain Claire docked his boat, although there was a boat in the third slip that extended past the mooring piling which did not impact his ability to dock his boat in the Bartizal slip.) Captain Claire also stated he would not proceed south of the Brown dock in a large vessel unless the tide “was extremely high.” Darrell Konecy holds a U.S. Coast Guard license for an uninspected passenger vessel. He operates a parasailing operation and keeps his boat moored off of Bartizal’s northern dock. His boat is 28 feet in length and roughly a 9.5-foot beam and a 3.5-foot draw, at the “lowest part of the scag.” For the video, he had difficulty maneuvering his boat into Bartizal’s boat slips and between the Bartizal and Brown pilings. With difficulty, he was successful when he backed in. The two western-most Brown dock slips were not occupied at this time. Prior to the Brown extension, leaving the Bartizal dock area to the north, Captain Konecy would travel to the east of the Brown dock mooring pilings, then south out to Longboat Pass. Now, he states that he cannot travel east of the new pilings because the water is too shallow. Captain Konecy does not navigate his boat south of the Brown dock during low tide. Mike Greig holds a U.S. Coast Guard, “six pack license.” He has been boating in the waters around the Inn for approximately 20 years. He runs a 24-foot Robin, center console boat. He had difficulty docking his boat at the Bartizal dock in light of the Brown dock and mooring pilings. Prior to the modification, he did not use the south side of Bartizal’s dock. Prior to the construction of the modified Brown dock, Captain Greig was able to pass “pretty close” to the east of the Brown dock and travel south. He stated that there is a southern unmarked channel that runs from Longboat Pass up past the Brown dock. He agreed that an unmarked channel such as this is highly dependent on the tides and that the area would not be accessible to some boats at mean-low tide if the water were a very low spring tide. (He said most boats in the area are “small runabouts” which can get through the area.) He agreed that he could navigate his boat east of the existing Brown dock mooring pilings and through 4.5 feet of water as depicted on DEP Exhibit 4. He did not believe a boat that draws more than 3.5 feet could skirt east of the Brown pilings. Captain Greig also agreed that a boat with a 3.5-foot draw would have difficulty in waters as shallow as Sarasota Bay outside of the marked channel. Based on the weight of the evidence, including but not limited to consideration of the tidal variations in and around the docks, the varying sizes of the boats that may enter and exit from the Bartizal/Brown docks, the size of the slips for both docks, and the varying skill of the boat captains, the two as-built western-most mooring pilings on the north side of the Brown dock (slips 3 and 4, see DEP Exhibit 6) are potentially hazardous to incoming boats attempting to dock at the Bartizal dock on the south side and potentially hazardous to boats docked in slips three and four of the Brown dock. These mooring pilings should be removed. See Endnote 3. The next issue is whether the extension of the Brown dock to the east, including the “L” shaped extension to the north and the mooring pilings to the east, adversely affects navigation. The local channel begins just south of the Brown dock and travels in a north, northeast direction. DEP Exhibits 2 and 4; Joint Exhibits 7 and 15. Most of Bartizal’s customers utilize the northern channel to access his docks and Inn. The water depths south of the Brown dock are shallower than north of the Brown dock. The weight of the evidence indicates that there is no defined channel that extends any further than approximately 20 feet south of the Brown dock. Bartizal and others have traveled east and close to the old Brown “T” dock and then south of the Brown dock prior to the construction of the “L” extension. (The largest boat used by Bartizal to travel to the south of the Brown dock prior to the extension was 28 feet.) In this manner, they were able to access Longboat Pass via a shorter route. Boaters from the south could access the Inn without going around and entering the Bartizal docks from the north. Depending on the size of the boat and draft and the tide, it would not have been prudent to proceed south of the Brown dock without having first-hand knowledge of the water depths even prior to the extension. With the construction of the eastern extension of the Brown dock, when the tide makes passage possible, the depth of the water is sufficient east of the new Brown dock mooring pilings, i.e., east of the new northern “L” shaped finger-dock, to permit passage to the south, depending on the size of the boat and draft. Boaters to the south of the Brown dock can still proceed in a southeasterly direction through the Sound and out through Longboat Pass, subject to the caveat noted above. Joint Exhibit 2. Larger boats leaving the Bartizal docks can proceed north, east, and then south to access Longboat Pass. Joint Exhibit 2. While it may be inconvenient to proceed in this fashion, the eastward extension of the Brown pilings and the “L” shaped finger dock do not adversely affect navigation.
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 adopting this Recommended Order and ordering Respondents, Harry Brown and David Teitelbaum, to remove the two western-most mooring pilings on the north side of their dock which border slips three and four. See DEP Exhibit 6 and Petitioners’ Exhibit J. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2004, 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 27th day of May, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the replacement of a dock by Respondent Christner in February 1993, is exempt from the requirement for a permit pursuant to Section 403.813(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1995) 1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-4.051(11)(i) and 62-312.050(1)(i) 2/ and, if not, whether: Petitioners waived their right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Rules 62-103.155(3)(b); Petitioner's have legal standing to challenge the agency action proposing the exemption; and the agency is estopped from reopening its prior determination.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating and permitting residential docks. Since February 1969, Christner has resided at 1655 Misty Dawn Lane, Merritt Island, Florida. The Christner property is adjacent to the waters of Newfound Harbor in Brevard County, Florida. Petitioners have owned property adjacent to Christner since 1990 and resided there until September 1997. Petitioners' property is located at 1665 Misty Dawn Lane. A dock existed behind the Christner property from 1972 until February 1993 (the "original dock"). After constructing the original dock, Christner sold a parcel of his land to Petitioners. After the sale, the original dock was located within 25 feet of the common boundary between the respective properties owned by Christner and Petitioners. In February 1993, Christner contracted with Mr. John Calhoun, Unique Seawall and Dock Systems, to replace the original dock. The replacement dock was completed in February 1993. The replacement dock is in the same location and of the same configuration and dimensions as the original dock. The replacement dock was constructed within the footprint of the original dock. No fill material other than piles was used to replace the original dock. Prior to October 1991, the original dock was in need of repair but was still functional. It provided access to boats moored at the dock. The original dock could still be used for fishing and mooring small boats. Between October 1991 and December 1992, the original dock was rendered non-functional. It was rendered non-functional by a discrete event. The term "discrete event" is not defined by statute or rule. A discrete event includes a storm, flood, fire, or accident. Neither the witnesses nor their records recorded a storm, flood, fire, or accident between October 1991 and December 1992. The term "discrete event" is not limited to a storm, flood, fire, or accident. It can include wind and high water. Wind and high water could have damaged the original dock without damaging newer docks in the immediate vicinity that had the benefit of better construction and were in better repair. The original dock was nearly 20 years old in October 1991 and in disrepair. The damage caused by the discrete event left several large gaps in the original dock. The damage to the original dock between October 1991 and December 1992 could not have occurred without a discrete event. Christner constructed the replacement dock in February 1993 without a permit. In September 1995, Petitioners filed a complaint with the Department. The complaint alleged that the replacement dock was constructed without a required permit. By letter dated October 4, 1995, the Department advised Christner that the replacement dock was an unauthorized single family dock. The Department stated in the letter that the original dock was non-functional in November 1992 and was repaired prior to March 1993 without proper permitting. The letter required Christner to apply for a permit. In October 1995, Christner filed an application for a Noticed General Permit and paid the application fee. After October 4, 1995, the Department determined that the dock was functional prior to its repair and exempt from permitting requirements pursuant to Section 403.813(2)(d) and Rules 40C-4.051(11)(i) and 62-312.050(1). The Department based its determination on representations by Christner and his dock builder that the original dock was repaired with planks before constructing the replacement dock. Christner and his dock builder represented that the planks spanned the gaps in the original dock so that the dock could be used to moor small boats. Christner represented that an individual could walk above the water line on the planks to the boats. On December 8, 1995, Petitioners received actual notice of the Department's determination that the replacement dock was exempt from permitting requirements because the original dock was functional prior to its replacement. An employee of the Department who investigated Petitioners' complaint notified Petitioners and Christner by telephone of the proposed exemption. The Department did not publish written notice of the proposed exemption and did not provide Petitioners with written notice of the Department's action. The Department violated Rule 62-103.155(5) by failing to provide Petitioners with written notice of their right to request an administrative hearing. In December 1995, counsel for Petitioners made several inquiries of the Department to determine how the decision to exempt the replacement dock was made and if it could be changed. Department personnel represented that the case was closed and nothing could be done to change the decision. In December 1995, counsel for Petitioners contacted the Department's office of general counsel concerning a point of entry. A Department employee represented that no review was possible. In its PRO, the Department now proposes that the replacement dock was not exempt from the requirement for a permit. The Department proposes that the original dock was not functional prior to the construction of the replacement dock and that a discrete event did not cause the original dock to be non- functional.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge to the proposed exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1998.
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 Whether or not Petitioner should be granted a dredge and fill permit for construction of a multi-family dock in either of the two configurations proposed in its application filed pursuant to Section 403.918 Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Secret Oaks Owners' Association, Inc. is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with its principal place of business in First Cove, St. Johns County, Florida. DER is the State agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing permits under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and its applicable rules. Martin Parlato and his wife Linda Parlato are the owners of, and reside on, Lot 10, Secret Oaks Subdivision, First Cove, St. Johns County, Florida. They have standing as Intervenors herein under the following facts as found. Petitioner claims rights to dredge and fill pursuant to an easement lying along the southerly boundary of Lot 10 in Secret Oaks Subdivision, which is a platted subdivision in St. Johns County, Florida. The easement runs up to and borders the St. Johns River, a tidal and navigable river in St. Johns County, Florida. Petitioner filed an application for dredge and fill permit with DER on September 18, 1992. The dock was proposed to be five feet wide and 620 feet long including a 20 foot by 10 foot terminal platform and six associated mooring pilings. On November 3, 1992, the Petitioner filed an alternative proposal with DER. That submission proposed construction of an "L" shaped walkway into the St. Johns River to connect the easement with an existing private dock to the north, which dock is owned by the Intervenors. The walkway is proposed to be five feet wide and may extend approximately 80 feet into the river, and then turn north and run parallel to the shoreline a distance of 41 feet to connect with the existing dock. Additionally, the existing dock would be reclassified as multi-family and four mooring pilings would be placed on the south side of the terminal platform. It is undisputed that a DER permit is necessary to construct either dock requested by Petitioner. While Petitioner sought to create an issue regarding a dock that once was located emanating from the easement and connecting with the present dock emanating from Lot 10 in a configuration similar to the Petitioner's proposed auxiliary dock configuration, the previous dock was never permitted and would be subject to DER rules and potential removal orders if it still existed, unless some "grandfathering" legislation or rule protected the structure. No such "grandfather" protections have been affirmatively demonstrated. Instead, it was orally asserted, without any corroborating circuit court orders, that after Petitioner prevailed over Intervenors in circuit court on various real property, riparian rights, and property damage issues due to Intervenors' removal of the old dock, the circuit court had conditioned further relief upon Petitioner obtaining the necessary DER permit. In its Notice of Permit Denial dated January 22, 1993, DER stated several reasons why reasonable assurances had not been given by Petitioners that water quality would not be violated and that the project was not contrary to the public interest, and further stated, by way of explaining how the permit might still be granted, that, "Compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 17- 312.080(1) and (2) can be achieved for either proposal by complying with the following requirements: Determine the legal status of the easement to establish ownership and control; Design a structure to provide a sufficient number of slips to accommodate all members in sufficient depth of water so that the grassbeds will not be disturbed by boating activity, or specifically limit only the area of the dock in water greater than three feet to be utilized for mooring boats or boating activity and record this action in a long-term and enforceable agreement with the Department; Obtain documentation from adjacent landowners that demonstrates they fully recognize and consent to the extent of activity which may occur in the water by either proposal (i.e., single dock or access walkway). Subsequent to the denial of Petitioner's application, Petitioner and DER representatives met and discussed DER's recommendations for reasonable assurances outlined in the Notice of Permit Denial. DER representatives have also orally recommended alternatives for hiring a dock-master or creating assigned boat slips, but DER has received no formal submissions of information from the Petitioner. All of Petitioner's and DER's proposals have not been reduced to writing. No long-term enforceable agreement as proposed by DER in the Notice of Permit Denial has been drafted. The project site is located on the eastern shore of the St. Johns River, three-quarters of a mile north of Cunningham Creek and one mile south of Julington Creek, at First Cove, a small residential community in the extreme northwest of St. Johns County, where the St. Johns River is approximately 2.5 miles wide. Located at the proposed project site are submerged grass beds (eel grass) that extend from approximately 100 feet to 450 feet into the St. Johns River in depths of two to three feet of water. The water at the proposed project site is classified as Class III Waters suitable for recreational use and fishing, but the area is not listed as an Outstanding Florida Water. The grass beds at the proposed project site are important for the conservation of fish and wildlife and the productivity of the St. Johns River. They provide detritus for support of the aquatic based food chain and they provide a unique, varied, and essential feeding and nursery habitat for aquatic organisms. They are valuable for the propagation of fish. Endangered West Indian manatees seasonally graze on the eel grass in this locale during their annual migrations. Absent the replacement of the auxiliary dock, lot owners' primary access to the larger dock is by swimming or boating from the upland of the pedestrian easement to the larger dock. This can mean sporadic interaction with the eel grass. However, DER's experts are not so much concerned with the individual and occasional usages of Petitioner's lot owners but with the type of activity common to human beings in congregate situations encouraged by multi- family docks. The proposed construction of the auxiliary dock does not intrude on the eel grass as the dock does not extend 100 feet from the upland. The grassbeds end some 200 feet east of the west end of the dock. DER experts testified that the time-limited turbidity and scouring associated with construction of either proposed configuration would have very minimal impact, but the continual increased turbidity of the water over the eel grass to be anticipated from multi-family use of either dock may detrimentally affect juvenile aquatic life and the Manatees' feeding ground. The auxiliary dock as proposed provides no facilities for docking watercraft. The permit application provides for a maximum of four facilities for docking watercraft, presumably by tying up to four end buoys. Petitioner intends or anticipates that only four boats would ever dock at one time under either configuration because of planned arrangements for them to tie up and due to an Easement and Homeowners Agreement and Declaration recorded in the public records of the county. Among other restrictions, the Agreement and Declaration limits dock use and forbids jet ski use.1 The permit application seeks a multi alternative dock construction. Petitioner intends to control the use of the dock(s) only by a "good neighbor policy" or "bringing the neighborhood conscience to bear." Such proposals are more aspirational than practical. Petitioner also cites its Secret Oaks Owners' Agreement, which only Petitioner (not DER) could enforce and which Petitioner would have to return to circuit court to enforce. Petitioner has proposed to DER that it will limit all boating and water activity to the westward fifty feet of the larger dock, prohibit all boating and water activity on the auxiliary dock, and place warning signs on the docks indicating the limits of permissible activity, but Petitioner has not demonstrated that it will provide any mechanism that would insure strict compliance with the limited use restrictions placed on the homeowners in Secret Oaks by their homeowners' restrictive covenant. Testimony was elicited on behalf of Petitioner that Petitioner has posted and will post warning signs and will agree to monitoring by DER but that employing a dock master is not contemplated by Petitioner, that creating individual assigned docking areas is not contemplated by Petitioner, and that there has been no attempt by Petitioner to draft a long term agreement with DER, enforceable by DER beyond the permit term. The purpose of the dock is to provide access to the St. Johns River for the members of the Secret Oaks Owners' Association which includes owners of all sixteen lots, their families, and social invitees. Although there are currently only three or four houses on the sixteen lots, there is the potential for sixteen families and their guests to simultaneously use any multi-family dock. Although all sixteen lot owners do not currently own or operate boats, that situation is subject to change at any time, whenever a boat owner buys a home or lot or whenever a lot owner buys a boat. All lots are subject to alienation by conveyance at any time. It is noted that this community is still developing and therefore anecdotal observations of boating inactivity among homeowners before the old dock was torn down are of little weight. No practical mechanism has been devised to limit homeowners' use of the dock(s) if a multi-family permit is issued. Also, no practical mechanism has been devised to exclude any part of the boating community at large from docking there. Thomas Wiley, a DER biologist, accepted without objection as an expert in the environmental impacts of dredge and fill activities, and Jeremy Tyler, Environmental Administrator for DER's Northeast District, also accepted without objection as an expert in environmental impacts of dredge and fill activities, each visited the site prior to formal hearing. They concurred that the application to construct the 620 foot long dock presented the potential for a number of boats to be moored or rafted at the pier at any one time, particularly weekends and holidays, and that multiple moorings might greatly exceed the capacity intended by Petitioner. Wiley and Tyler further testified, without refutation, that over-docking of boats could hinder or block the use of the waters landward of the terminal structures by adjoining property owners. Congregations of power boats at marinas and facilities designated for multi- family use also pose a threat to the endangered West Indian manatees. With regard to alternative two of the application to reconstruct the unpermitted "L" shaped walkway, such a configuration would extend 80 feet of the "mean high water line", then run 41 feet parallel to the shoreline of Lot 10 before attaching to the existing pier and that the parallel portion of the walkway lies immediately adjacent to, and inshore of, the extensive submerged grass beds. According to Wiley and Tyler, it can reasonably be expected that boaters would utilize this walkway as a convenient boat loading/off facility rather than walking to and from the terminal end of the existing 620 foot long dock. Water depths vary from two to three feet offshore of the proposed structure, and the operation of boats, jet-skis, and other watercraft would result in prop scouring of the silt/sand bottom and damage to grass bed areas, degrading water quality and adversely impacting important habitat areas. The DER experts concluded that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurances that the proposed structures would not cause hindrances to ingress and egress or the recreational use of State waters by adjacent property owners, including Intervenors at Lot 10, that grass habitat areas will not be adversely impacted or inshore water quality will not be degraded by boating and related activity. The potential for intensive use of either of the proposed docks could result in a large number of boats and/or water activity at and around the docks. Submerged grass beds occur in waters generally less than three feet deep in areas near the docks. Any boating activity landward of 450 feet from the shore could seriously damage the extensive grass beds that occur there. Boating activity is likely to occur in the areas of the grassbeds if a number of boats are using the dock(s) at the same time or if a boater desires to minimize the length of dock to be walked, in order to reach the uplands. That damage is expected to be from prop dredging and resuspension of bottom sediments onto adjacent grasses. Upon the evidence as a whole, the project is neutral as to the public health, safety, welfare, and property of others, except to the extent it impacts the Intervenors as set out above. The anticipated increase in water-based activities around the proposed dock(s) will cause shifting, erosion and souring that can be harmful to the adjacent grass beds. The anticipated increase in water based activities around the proposed dock will adversely affect marine productivity because the clarity of the water in the area of the grass beds will be decreased. The project may be either temporary or permanent but should be presumed permanent. The project does not affect any significant historical or archeological resources. The current condition of the eel grass beds in the area is lush and valuable as a fish and wildlife habitat. In the course of formal hearing, DER witnesses testified that absent any disturbance of the grassbeds, DER would have no complaints about either proposed project configuration. After considering and balancing the above criteria, it is found that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project in either form would not violate state water quality standards and that it would not be contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit application be denied without prejudice to future applications. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1993.
The Issue Whether the after-the-fact permit sought by Petitioner for a single family dock that has been constructed within the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, Malabar to Vero Beach, should be granted and, if so, the conditions that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard O. Thomas, resides at 13845 North Indian River Drive, Sebastian, Florida. Mr. Thomas is the owner of this real property, which fronts the intracoastal waterway in an area that is referred to as the Indian River Aquatic Preserve, Malabar to Vero Beach (IRAP). Construction of docks in the IRAP requires a permit from Respondent pursuant to Section 253.77(1), Florida Statutes. A dock is presently built in front of Petitioner's property and is within the IRAP. 1/ Petitioner began applying for a permit from Respondent to construct a single-family private dock in front of his property to extend into the IRAP in April of 1987. The size of main access docks and terminal platforms are limited by Respondent primarily to protect the fragile environment found in aquatic preserves such as the light-sensitive sea grass beds and attached algae found in the vicinity of Petitioner's dock and to minimize the effect of the construction of these type facilities on those areas. Petitioner sent a drawing of the requested dock to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in April of 1987. DER thereafter forwarded a copy of the drawing to Respondent. The April 1987 drawing depicted a main access dock 200' long and 4' wide with a terminal platform in an ell shape to the south of the main access dock 16' wide and 10' long. The dock was to be elevated 4' in height with railings around the terminal platform. This drawing was not the drawing subsequently permitted by Respondent. In June 1987, Petitioner first learned that he needed, in addition to the other permits he was seeking, a permit from Respondent. After consulting Brian Poole, an Environmental Specialist employed by Respondent, Petitioner submitted a revised drawing to Respondent on June 25, 1987. This drawing, stamped "Revised" by Respondent, was forwarded to Wilbert Holliday, an Environmental Specialist Supervisor, in Respondent's Orlando office. The June 1987 drawing depicts a main access dock 200' long and 4' wide with an ell shaped terminal platform facing south that is 6' long and 10' wide. The main access dock did not extend the length of the terminal platform. Petitioner made numerous telephone calls between June 1987 and October 1988, to Mr. Poole and to Mr. Holliday in an effort to determine the status of his request and in an effort to have his request approved. In the interim, Petitioner received conflicting instructions from Respondent, the Army Corps of Engineers, and DER as to how long the dock would have to be. Respondent's staff wanted the dock to be 500' in length so that the boats that would be moored at the dock would not be crossing sea grass beds that were located closer to shore. Petitioner testified that he engaged in a series of telephone conversations with Mr. Holliday concerning the pertinent permitting requirements. Pursuant to conversations with Mr. Holliday, Petitioner submitted a written request on October 17, 1988, for permission to build a dock "... no longer than 210 feet, 5 feet above mean low water, and with 1/2 inch spaces between deck planks. The platform is to be no more that 6 feet by 10 feet. The draft of the boat is to be used is no more than 18 inches. " Between October 17 and October 20, 1988, Petitioner informed Mr. Holliday that the ell platform had to be moved from south of the main access dock to north of it due to the county's concern for his neighbor's riparian rights. During that same telephone conversation Mr. Holliday informed Petitioner that his staff was still recommending that the dock be 500 feet in length. On October 20, 1988, Petitioner wrote Mr. Holliday a letter which voiced his displeasure as to that recommendation and which provided, in part, as follows: ... I again respectfully request that the dock length be 210 ft. long with platform area 160 sq. ft. and the dock to be 4 ft. in height with spaces 3/8 inches (they will shrink to 1/2 inches.) If the 4 ft. is disallowed then I need a lower platform area to get in and out of my two boats. My wife is 5 ft. 2 in tall. If this isn't's going to fly then I have no other recourse than seek a third party opinion. At Petitioner's request, Mr. Holliday gave Petitioner the name and number of John Peterson, an environmental specialist in Respondent's Tallahassee office. Petitioner and Mr. Peterson engaged in a lengthy telephone conversation about Petitioner's application. At the conclusion of the conversation, Mr. Peterson asked Petitioner to submit his final plan and informed Petitioner that he would be back in contact with Petitioner. A day or two after that conversation, Mr. Holliday called Petitioner and requested that Petitioner send to him Petitioner's final plan. On October 27, 1988, Petitioner sent to Mr. Holliday what Petitioner considered to be his final plan depicting a main access dock 4' x 210' with a 12' x 12' covered ell platform facing north. This 12' by 12' area (or 144 square feet) is the area Petitioner considers to be the terminal platform. The main access dock extended the length of the terminal platform and added to the terminal platform an area 4' wide and 12' long (or 48 square feet). The main access dock and the terminal platform were to be 5' above mean low water. Two boat slips were requested with an adjacent catwalk 3.5' above mean low water. On November 14, 1988, Casey Fitzgerald, as Chief of Respondent's Bureau of Submerged Lands Management, sent Petitioner a letter that stated in pertinent part: You are hereby authorized to proceed with construction of a two-slip single-family dock as depicted on the attached drawing ... . This authorization is specifically conditioned upon the following: The proposed dock shall be elevated +5 feet above the ordinary water line with 3/8 inch spaces between deck planks. The terminal platform area shall be elevated +3 feet above the ordinary water line. Vessels to moor at the dock shall have a maximum running draft of 18 inches, and shall be operated in a manner that will minimize impacts to the grassbeds at the site; and The attached general consent conditions shall be accepted and complied with. 2/ Please consider this the conditional authority sought under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, to pursue this project. The letter in no way waives the authority and/or jurisdiction of any governmental entity, nor does it disclaim any title interest that the State may have in this project site. We appreciate your cooperation with our resource management objectives, and apologize for the long delay. If you have and questions, please feel free to contact me. No drawing was attached to Mr. Fitzgerald's letter of November 14, 1988. Petitioner thereafter constructed the dock in accordance with the plan he submitted on October 27, 1988. Construction on the dock and covered terminal platform was concluded in approximately March of 1989. The as constructed dock deviated from the plan submitted on October 27, 1988, in that Petitioner added two lowered platforms approximately 3.5' x 12' each around the north and east ends of the terminal platform to be used for access to moored boats. Petitioner concedes that these platforms were not part of the drawing of October 27, 1988, and he has agreed to remove them. Respondent calculated that the square footage of the terminal platform is 351 square feet (19' wide and 19.5' long). Respondent's calculations included the two lowered platform areas that Petitioner has agreed to remove and the portion of the main access dock that extends the length of the terminal platform. Petitioner made a good faith effort to follow the instructions of Respondent and to comply with the appropriate permitting procedure. He relied in good faith on the letter of November 14, 1988, and he reasonably assumed that the October 27, 1988, drawing was the one referred to in the November 14, 1988, letter. Mr. Fitzgerald did not testify at the formal hearing. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Mr. Fitzgerald, as the bureau chief, had greater authority in permitting matters than did either Mr. Holliday or Mr. Poole. While there is no question that Petitioner was permitted to construct a dock, there is no direct evidence as to which of the several drawings Petitioner submitted had been approved by Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Holliday did not recall having sent the October 27, 1988, drawing to Mr. Fitzgerald. After Mr. Peterson and Mr. Fitzgerald became involved in Petitioner's application, it is not clear what involvement Mr. Holliday had, other than to ask Petitioner to submit his final plan. It is clear that Mr. Fitzgerald had information pertaining to Petitioner's application available to him when he wrote Petitioner on November 14, 1988. The most reasonable inference 3/ to be drawn from the evidence is that Mr. Fitzgerald had for his review Petitioner's complete application file, including the drawing submitted October 27, 1988, and it was to the drawing of October 27, 1988, that his letter referred. The next contact between Petitioner and Respondent occurred June 1, 1990, when an inspection team from Respondent's field office, including Mr. Poole, visited the site and met with Petitioner. During this visit, Mr. Poole observed that the sea grass that had been visible before the dock was built had died and that underneath the structure was now white sand. Mr. Poole wrote a letter to Petitioner dated June 14, 1990, which asserted Respondent's understanding of an agreement reached during the on-site meeting of June 1, 1990, 4/ and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The terminal platform area will be reduced to no more than 160 square feet. This will require the removal of all the catwalks and reducing the ell-shaped platform area to 10' x 16' or any other shape so long as the size does not exceed 160 square feet. The resulting terminal platform may be lowered to a height of +3 feet above the ordinary water line to facilitate ingress and egress from the two vessels. The roof over the platform will be removed. ... It is our position that the roof is inconsistent with Chapter 18-20, FAC, and the adopted Indian River Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Section 18-20.004(5)(a)(2) provides for more restrictive modification for docks that fall within areas of special or unique importance, such as extensive seagrass beds. Section 18- 20.004(1)(f) requires that the structure be necessary to conduct water dependent activities, a roof over the platform is not necessary to access the water. ... * * * 6. You agreed to comply with the above requirements within 60 days. Your receipt of this letter will initiate the 60 day time clock. The letter of June 14, 1990, also discussed the requirement that Petitioner remove a boat hoist and that he not moor a commercially registered vessel at the dock. These two matters were resolved by the parties and were not at issue at the formal hearing. On October 24, 1990, James M. Marx, an Environmental Administrator with Respondent's Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves, sent a letter which advised that modifications to the dock in accordance with the letter of June 14, 1988, including removal of the roof, must be completed within thirty days of his receipt of the letter and that failure to do so will result in action that may result in removal of the entire structure. On December 26, 1990, Petitioner filed an application seeking approval of the dock as constructed less the two platforms he had agreed to remove. After the removal of the two platforms, the dock will be substantially in compliance with the drawing submitted by Petitioner on October 27, 1988. On April 4, 1991, Michael E. Ashey, as Chief of Respondent's Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves, advised Petitioner by letter that his after-the- fact permit application was denied on the following grounds: 1. Section 18-20.004(5)(b)(6) (sic), Florida Administrative Code, states in pertinent part: "terminal platform size shall be no more than 160 square feet." The existing structure has a terminal platform area of 392 square feet. 2. Section 18-20.004(5)(b)(1) (sic), Florida Administrative Code, limits the width of the main access walkway to 4 feet. The existing structure includes a main access walkway and a 3' x 42'11" catwalk adjacent to the walkway. The combined width of the access walkway structure exceeds the 4' width limit of the rule. 3. Section 18-20.004(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, states in pertinent part: "that activities shall be designed so that the structure or structures to be built in, on or over sovereignty lands are limited to structures necessary to conduct water dependent activities." The existing roof is not a necessary component to a water dependent activity. All three of the deviations raised by Mr. Ashey's letter of April 4, 1991, were reflected on the drawing that Petitioner submitted to Mr. Holliday on October 27, 1988. Petitioner understood that the terminal platform could not exceed 160 square feet. Petitioner believed that the terminal platform consisted only of the 12' x 12' platform that was attached to the main access dock. Petitioner did not understand that the 4' width of the adjacent main access dock would be included in calculating the square footage of the terminal platform, nor did he understand that the two unauthorized platforms (which did not appear on his final plans of October 27, 1988) would be included in calculating the terminal platform. The term "terminal platform" is not defined by rule. By internal memorandum, to which Petitioner did not have access, a "terminal platform" is considered to be that portion of the dock which is wider than the main access dock, generally at the terminus of the dock, and the area where boats are generally moored. Neither Mr. Poole, Mr. Holliday, Mr. Fitzgerald, or Mr. Peterson has the authority to permit the construction of a dock which contains the design of a terminal platform in excess of 160 square feet. Mr. Holliday and Mr. Poole testified that Respondent does not mark approved plans "approved" before returning the plans to the file so there is no way to distinguish preliminary plans from approved or permitted plans. There is no plan in Respondent's files pertaining to Petitioner's application marked "approved" or "permitted". On November 18, 1988, the date of Mr. Fitzgerald's letter to Petitioner, Mr. Fitzgerald served as the Bureau Chief, Department of Submerged Lands and Aquatic Preserves in Respondent's Tallahassee office. Mr. Holliday served as the Planning Manager of the East Central Florida field office located in Orlando. Mr. Poole served as an Environmental Specialist out of the Respondent's Melbourne office. The letter of November 14, 1988, was not routed through either Mr. Holliday or Mr. Poole. Petitioner and other members of his family, including his mother, his aunt, and his uncle have had skin cancers in the past. Young children and babies use the dock for recreational purposes during the day. Petitioner had not, prior to the construction of the structure, discussed his desire to have the terminal platform covered with either Mr. Poole or Mr. Holliday. The first drawing reflecting that the platform would be covered was the drawing of October 27, 1988. The roof on the dock would offer those using the dock during the day protection from the sun. Respondent has permitted at least two other docks located within an aquatic preserve that were roofed. Respondent is opposed to permitting the roof because of the shading that results from a solid structure. Neither Mr. Poole nor Mr. Holliday would have permitted the dock pursuant to the drawing of October 27, 1988, because neither believed the dock to be in compliance with his interpretation of the permitting requirements found in Chapter 18-20, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which requires that Petitioner remove the two lowered platforms on the north and east ends of the terminal platform within sixty days of the entry of the Final Order. It is further recommended that the Final Order find that the after the fact application submitted by Petitioner on December 26, 1990, is consistent with the authorization granted by the letter issued by Mr. Casey Fitzgerald on November 14, 1988. It is further recommended that the Final Order grant the after the fact application submitted by Petitioner on December 26, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 31st day of January, 1992.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Thidadeau is entitled to a Noticed General Permit, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427, and a Letter of Consent, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule, to construct a single family dock in the central embayment of the Loxahatchee River in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit filed August 14, 2002, Respondent Paul Thibadeau (Applicant) requested a Noticed General Permit (NGP) and Letter of Consent for a single-family dock to be constructed at his home located at 129 River Road, Palm Beach, Florida (Application). The dock would extend from the southern shore of the Central Embayment of the Loxahatchee River, which is Class III waterbody that is also an Outstanding Florida Water and Aquatic Preserve. At the time of the filing of the Application, Applicant's contractors and Respondent Department of Environmental Protection tried various alignments to avoid impacts. Petitioner Board of Commissioners of Jupiter Inlet District (District) is an entity created by the Legislature to operate and maintain the Jupiter Inlet and maintain and preserve the Loxahatchee River. The District's jurisdiction covers the Central Embayment and Applicant's property. The District employs an engineer to inspect the Central Embayment for navigational hazards. Intervenors Andrea Cameron and Jeffrey Cameron and Douglas Bogue reside in shoreline property to the west of Applicant's property. The Camerons and Mr. Bogue live on the same cove that the west side of Applicant's property abuts. Mr. Bogue's parcel is the second parcel to the west of Applicant's parcel, and the Camerons' parcel is the third parcel to the west of Applicant's parcel. Intervenors swim, fish, birdwatch, boat, and otherwise use the area in which Applicant would construct the dock and platform. Applicant has owned his property for a little over seven years. Applicant's property consists of nearly 1.5 acres of land that forms a peninsula jutting into the Central Embayment from the southern shoreline near the Alternate A1A bridge, which marks the east end of the Central Embayment. Applicant owns 1000 linear feet of shoreline. The proposed dock and platform would be constructed on the northwest side of Applicant's property. Applicant currently owns a dock, measuring five feet into the water by 67 feet along the shoreline, in the canal on the east side of his property. The water depth at this dock is only four inches at the lowest tides and less than one foot at mean low water. Seagrasses--mostly shoalgrass and threatened Johnson's seagrass--grow in the vicinity of this dock, and it is a reasonable inference, given the nearby seagrass beds, prevailing shallow depths, shading effect of the present dock, and the relocation of prop and boating disturbances, that seagrass would recolonize the area of the existing dock, after it is removed. Applicant has agreed to amend either the NGP or Letter of Consent to condition the approval of the construction and use of the proposed dock upon the removal of the existing dock. The Application describes a dock that is 270 feet long and four feet wide. At the end of the dock is a 160 square-foot terminal platform. The diagram shows the dock running 110 feet due north from an upland point that is ascertainable only approximately by reference to a concrete sidewalk and mangrove fringe depicted on the drawing. The dock then turns to the northwest and runs 160 feet to the terminal platform, which measures 5.3 feet by 30 feet. Boat-lift pilings are waterward of the waterward edge of the platform. The diagram depicts approximations of water levels, at mean tide, along the dock. The shorter run of the dock ends in water two feet deep, at mean tide. The longer run crosses a long sandbar and terminates between the 3.5- and 4-foot contours. A cross-section in the Application shows mean high water at about 1.0 feet (presumably National Geodetic Vertical Datum, or NGVD) and mean low water at about -0.5 feet NGVD. The cross-section reveals that the waterward edge of the terminal platform is at almost -3.33 feet NGVD and the landward edge of the terminal platform is at about -3.2 feet NGVD. This means that, at mean low water, the water level would be a little more than 2.75 feet deep at the waterward edge of the terminal platform and about 2.75 feet deep at the landward edge of the terminal platform. The pilings, which are waterward of the waterward edge of the terminal platform, are at -3.5 feet NGVD. This means that, at mean low water, the water level would be about 3 feet deep at the most waterward pilings. However, the second slip, which mostly runs along the end of the dock, not the terminal platform, is in shallower water. According to a drawing that is part of the Application, the waterward end of this slip is at the same depth as the landward end of the terminal platform, so it would be in about 2.75 feet of water at mean low water, and the landward end of this slip is at -2.0 feet NGVD, so it would be in about 1.5 feet of water at mean low water. Disagreeing with this drawing, Applicant Exhibit 61 indicates that the shallowest water depth at the second boat slip is at least two feet at mean low water. Although the scale of District Exhibit 62 prevents a precise determination, District Exhibit 62 seems to agree with this value, as well as other landward values, contained in Applicant Exhibit 61. The superior detail of both of these exhibits, as compared to that of the drawing accompanying the application, compels a finding consistent with the deeper water levels reported on Applicant Exhibit 61 and District Exhibit 62. Thus, the water depth, at mean low water, is at least two feet at the second boat slip. DEP environmental scientists visited Applicant's site twice before issuing the permit and snorkeled the area proposed for the dock to find the location that would result in the minimum impacts. On the first visit, the DEP scientists did not record the tide, but, in the second visit, they snorkeled the area at mean low water. After DEP approved the permit, its scientists snorkeled the site a third time, also at mean low water. Applicant has worked closely with DEP at all stages of the permitting process. In fact, early discussions resulted in several different alignments and locations for the proposed dock. After DEP's environmental scientists determined for themselves the location of the seagrass beds in the affected area, Applicant settled on a location and alignment acceptable to the DEP scientists and revised the application (Revised Application). The Revised Application locates portions of the dock deck over some seagrass beds, but adds restrictions, beyond those normally imposed on docks built in Aquatic Preserves, to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the dock on these seagrass beds. The Revised Application narrows the dock deck by one foot to three feet, replaces solid decking with grated decking for the first 200 feet from the shoreline, adds handrails for the first 200 feet from the shoreline, and raises the elevation of the dock deck from five feet to seven feet above mean high water for the first 200 feet from the shoreline. The Revised Application also changes the width of the terminal platform from 5.3 feet to 6 feet and its length from 30 feet to 25 feet. The Revised Application clearly identifies two boat slips: one on the waterward side of the long side of the terminal platform and one perpendicular to the first slip, along the north side of the end of the dock deck. Lastly, the Revised Application reduces the dock deck from 270 feet to 250 feet to the shoreline. The proposed alignment of the dock passes between two relatively small seagrass beds immediately offshore of the northwest side of Applicant's property. The cove contains a large seagrass bed, mostly confined to water depths of less than 1.5 feet at mean low water. A little more than 50 feet of the dock passes over the eastern edge of this large seagrass bed, and the most waterward 40-50 feet of the dock passes over bottom that is uncolonized by seagrass. The seagrass that is traversed by the dock is mostly confined to the long sandbar that the dock would cross. Petitioner presented several alternatives to the present alignment. These are depicted in District Exhibit 79. Petitioner and its witness ultimately selected Alternative F, which would be a shorter dock running to the northeast off the northern tip of Applicant's property. Passing over little, if any, seagrass, this dock would terminate in a hole that is three feet deep at mean low water. However, Alternative F provides Applicant with little better access than he has at present. The northern route to the channel requires several turns and passes over much seagrass. The longer eastern route runs over 600 feet in a narrow, turning channel that contains only 1.5-2.0 feet of water at mean low water. This side of Applicant's property is more exposed to currents and winds than the west side abutting the cove, so accurate navigation of a vessel with the engine trimmed partly up would be more difficult. Channels, especially shallow ones, shift over time and shoal up, especially given this tendency within the Central Embayment. The Central Embayment is a shallow waterbody prone to shoaling due to sedimentation. The main channel through the Central Embayment generally runs along the north shoreline of the Central Embayment, although it runs in a more central location as it approaches the Alternate A1A bridge at the east end of the Central Embayment. Applicant's property, which is close to the A1A bridge, is relatively close to the main channel. A shallow area with interspersed seagrass beds separates Applicant's property from the main channel. Applicant operates a 24-foot boat with a 200- horsepower outboard motor. The boat requires 12 inches of water to float with the engine up and 24 inches of water for the skeg and prop to clear the bottom with the engine down and the boat operating at idle or low speed. To ingress or egress the existing dock, Applicant can operate his boat only within two hours of high tide. To reach the main channel, Applicant must navigate poorly marked, local channels. The longer local channel runs east from Applicant's property and requires several turns. The shorter local channel runs north of Applicant's property and enters the southern access channel at a point near to its junction with the main channel. The southern access channel is an important channel in the Central Embayment, whose shoreline has been densely developed. A long sandbar runs through the center of the Central Embayment. Rather than navigate to the west of the sandbar, most boat operators coming from the south shoreline take the southern access channel, which shortens the time it takes for them to leave the Central Embayment. A mangrove island at the east end of the long sandbar is located immediately north and west of the southern access channel, just west of its junction with the main channel. Directly across from the mangrove island, in a southeasterly direction, is the northwest side of Applicant's property, from which the dock would extend, running toward the southern access channel. Boating traffic in the southern access channel may reach over 100 trips during a 10-hour period on weekends. In the vicinity of the proposed terminal platform, two large, privately installed pilings exist nearly in the center of the southern access channel. The closer of these pilings would be about 95 feet from the proposed terminal platform. One of the pilings marks the junction of the southern access channel with the main channel. The closer piling is between the proposed platform and the mangrove island to the northwest. Boats operate to the south and east of these pilings, typically at planing speeds of at least 20 miles per hour. In the vicinity of the proposed terminal platform, the southern access channel is 120-150 feet wide, and the waterward edge of the platform is about 70 feet from the center of the channel. The bathymetry in the vicinity of the proposed platform reduces the navigational hazard posed by the proposed project. The -3 and -4 feet NGVD contours run parallel along the southern edge of the southern access channel in the vicinity of the proposed terminal. Both contours, on either side of the proposed terminal, take sharp turns landward 25-50 feet on either side of the proposed platform. The effect of this bathymetry is to create a sort of submerged cove for the proposed terminal platform, which is protected from passing boat traffic from the fact that these contours are generally 25-75 feet further waterward on either side of the platform. For instance, at mean tide, boaters approaching the area of the platform would presumably wish to stay in water deeper than three feet, so they would unlikely find the platform to be a navigational hazard. Additionally, an imaginary line extending from the takeoff point of the dock on Applicant's shoreline, along the dock, to a point on the opposite shoreline would run about 13,800 feet. This line would run just east and north of the mangrove island described above. The drawing of riparian lines at this location is much more difficult due to the irregular shoreline and the orientation of the southern access channel. Originally, Applicant proposed a riparian line that ran from the westernmost extent of his property, which is located at the end of the waterway running along the west side of the property. Dutifully running this line perpendicular to the orientation of the southern edge of the southern access channel, Applicant deprived a corner of his neighbor's property of any riparian rights at all. During the hearing, Applicant redrew proposed riparian lines. The appealingly named, "Equitable Allocation" line does more justice to the neighbor by not crossing his property. Instead, this line runs roughly along the middle of the canal- like waterway on the west side of Applicant's property and, at the mouth of this waterway, turning to the northwest to run perpendicular to the southern edge of the southern access channel. The problem with the "Equitable Allocation" line offered by Applicant emerges when it is considered in broader scale, sufficient to encompass not only Applicant and his neighbor to the immediate west, but also that neighbor's neighbor to the immediate west. The "Equitable Allocation" line does no equity to the riparian access of one of the two landowners to the west of Applicant. However, the task in this case is not to draw riparian lines, but to determine whether the proposed dock or platform is within 25 feet of another landowner's riparian line. Applicant Exhibit 62 draws the 25-foot offset line. If the riparian- rights line runs perpendicular to the orientation of the southern access channel (the so-called "Equitable Allocation"), the terminal platform and dock are offset by more than 25 feet from the line. If the riparian-rights line extends property lines without regard to the orientation of the channel, then the platform, but not the dock, would be within the 25-foot offset. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, case law teaches that the location of the channel and property boundaries receive consideration in establishing riparian rights. When based on the larger-scale map of Applicant Exhibit 63, any equitable application of these factors would not result in the establishment of a riparian rights line within 25 feet of the proposed terminal platform or dock. The proposed dock and platform would impact the aesthetic enjoyment of nearby landowners and others using the waters of the Central Embayment. Swimmers and sunbathers set up on the sandbar and throw balls and flying disks. The proposed dock would divide the sandbar into two sections of about 170 feet and 100 feet. The impact of the dock, with its pilings spaced at ten-foot intervals, is unclear on these recreational users, as it is on users of canoes and kayaks, which also occupy these waters. The record does not portray a high-energy, strong-current environment in this area, which is essentially at the mouth of a small cove, so it is difficult to infer that typical currents will create unsafe conditions for swimmers, kayakers, or canoeists around the pilings. Likewise, the record does not establish the net impact of the dock and platform on fish, birds, and other wildlife using the area. The platform covers submerged bottom that is uncolonized by seagrass, and, given its coarse sand and shell hash, as well as the water depths and water clarity, this bottom is unlikely ever to be colonized by seagrass. The portion of the dock that traverses seagrass will shade this vegetation, but the effect of shading is mitigated by the seven-foot elevation of the deck, translucency of the decking material, and near north-south orientation of the deck. The construction of the takeoff of the deck will not require significant alterations to the existing mangrove fringe. The issue of cumulative impacts is not that the average dock in the Central Embayment is 80 feet, and the proposed dock is over three times longer. Nor is it that only two docks on the southern shoreline of the Central Embayment would equal or exceed in length the length of the proposed dock, and one of these two docks serves a planned unit development. The length of the dock is subordinate to the depth of the water to be reached by the dock. The more relevant issue, as to cumulative impacts, is that the proposed dock would extend to water whose depth is -3.5 feet NGVD, and the majority of docks in the Central Embayment terminate in water at least one foot shallower. An estuary whose urbanized shoreline appears almost condominiumized in aerial photographs, the Central Embayment will undergo shoreline development to match whatever DEP permits in its most generous permitting decisions. However, a close examination of District Exhibit 62 reveals numerous examples of docks or platforms terminating in -3.5 or even -4.0 feet NGVD, so the potential of the Letter of Consent generating cumulative impacts, strictly in the termination depths of docks, is small. The most relevant concern, as to cumulative impacts, is the potential for the construction of docks where no docks presently exist and the number of such docks that would need to extend 250+ feet to reach water depths comparable to those reached by the proposed dock and platform. Perhaps landowners abutting such extensive stretches of flats have been discouraged from trying to obtain permits for such lengthy structures. Perhaps Applicant himself was emboldened to seek the present NGP and Letter of Consent due to the permitting of the other single- family dock of comparable length on the southern shoreline. The problem as to this aspect of cumulative impacts is that the record does not support findings as to the number of littoral parcels without docks and the number of such parcels that would require docks of 250+ feet to reach the depths involved in this case. These cumulative impacts, if any, are too speculative to assess. Thus, the analysis of cumulative impacts in this case is necessarily restricted to consideration of the impacts of some additional pressure to construct docks to one-foot deeper water than has historically limited docks and the accumulation of additional impacts to resources, such as seagrass, or recreational uses, such as boating and swimming, from an authorization to build the proposed dock and platform. The record does not support findings of significant adverse cumulative impacts from this proposed activity. Moreover, the elimination of 335 square feet of shallow-water dock and the possible recolonization of seagrass, including threatened Johnson's seagrass, mitigate any cumulative impacts and limit or even eliminate the precedential value of the permitting decisions in this case.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection: Grant the Noticed General Permit. Grant the Letter of Consent upon two conditions: a) the prohibition against any boat mooring to the slip for any period of time, if the boat requires more than two feet of water with its engine in normal operation position and the boat operating at idle or slow speed; and b) the removal of the existing dock prior to the construction of the new dock and platform. DONE AND ENTERED this 25t day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 25th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Greg Munson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kevin S. Hennessy Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. SunTrust Building 1001 3rd Avenue West, Suite 670 Bradenton, Florida 34205 Thomas F. Mullin Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Marcy I. Lahart Marcy I. Lahart, P.A. 711 Talladega Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 John S. Yudin Guy & Yudin, LLP 55 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 34994 Toni Sturtevant Assistant General Counsel Christine A. Guard Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether the Department should issue a permit to the Applicant. In its request for hearing, Petitioner asserted that the proposed dock extension would constitute a navigational hazard and would cause certain adverse environmental consequences. At the hearing, Petitioner withdrew its contentions as to adverse environmental consequences. The only issues raised during the course of the hearing relate to whether the proposed dock extension will result in navigational hazards to adjoining property owners.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant owns a lot which includes 52 feet of frontage along a cove which is located to the south of the Fort Pierce Inlet. Applicant presently has a dock which extends 85 feet out from his shoreline. The dock is 4 feet wide and has an 8-foot by 14-foot platform at the end, forming an "L" shape. The Applicant presently uses the dock for two of his own boats. Additionally, he rents four or five additional docking spaces. The Applicant is proposing to extend his dock an additional 72 feet out from his property. He proposes to remove the existing platform and place a 12-foot by 24-foot platform at the end of the extended dock, maintaining the "L" configuration. The Applicant has had problems mooring his own commercial fishing boat at his present dock due to shallow depths at low-water periods. He proposes to utilize the dock extension to moor one of his own boats in a deeper area and to moor a commercial fishing boat which is owned by his son. The platform at the end of the extended dock would be used for fishing by the Applicant and his family and guests. When completed, the Applicant's present dock and proposed addition would extend 157 feet northward from the Applicant's property. There is space for two boats to be moored on the east of the present dock. Applicant does not propose to allow the mooring of additional boats on the east side of the extension. Docking would be expressly prohibited on that portion of the proposed dock. The Petitioner, 1010 Seaway Drive, Inc., owns land immediately to the east of the Applicant's property. The Petitioner's property includes approximately 118 feet of water frontage. The Petitioner operates a commercial marina on its property. Petitioner has a dock which extends considerably farther to the north than the Applicant's present dock and also considerably farther than the Applicant's dock with the proposed extension. Petitioner contends that permitting the proposed extension would result in a navigational hazard for boats that are moored at Petitioner's dock. This contention is not supported by the evidence. There is more than 25 feet between the proposed extension of the Applicant's dock and any structure connected with Petitioner's dock. The closest structures are mooring poles, not the dock itself. The Applicant's dock as proposed for extension will continue to allow boats ample ingress and egress to Petitioner's dock. If the mooring and docking of boats were permitted on the east side of the Applicant's proposed extension, however, a significant navigational hazard would result. The property immediately adjacent to the Applicant's property to the west is owned by the Books. The Books' property includes 40 feet of water frontage. The Books presently moor their boat at a small dock which runs along their shoreline. The proposed extension of the Applicant's dock would require the Books to exercise more caution in docking their boat, but it would not significantly interfere with their ingress and egress. The 24-foot platform at the end of the proposed extension could cause some problems. The Applicant, however, has indicated his willingness to shorten the platform to 14 feet. Thus shortened, the proposed extension and platform will cause no significant interference with the Books' ingress and egress. Furthermore, the Books are left with adequate room to build a dock in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a permit for the Applicant, Robert R. Phifer, to construct an addition to his existing dock in accordance with his application. The permit should contain all of the specific conditions included in the Department's letter of intent issued October 15, 1982. In addition, the platform at the end of the proposed extension should be reduced from 24 feet to 14 feet in length. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross A. McVoy, Esquire Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark & Skelding Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert R. Phifer 1006 Seaway Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33449 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 1300 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
