Findings Of Fact The subject property Petitioners, Michael and Janice Rush, are the owners of a single family residence located at 3032 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Such residence lies seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and is therefore subject to the permitting jurisdiction of respondent, Department of Natural Resources (Department). Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. The first application In April 1991, Petitioners filed a permit application (Permit File No. BO-267) with the Department for permission to renovate their home and construct a swimming pool. That application was found to be incomplete, and by letter of April 17, 1991, the Department notified petitioners of the information required to complete their application. Following receipt and review of the requested information, the Department, by letter of July 26, 1991, advised petitioners that, as proposed, their application to construct a pool and renovate the home would have to be denied. Pertinent to the proposed pool, such letter observed that a portion of the pool would be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection which is prohibited 1/, the general construction line of major structures would be advanced further seaward, adverse impacts to the beach/dune system during a major storm event could be expected, and cumulative adverse impacts could be expected. Thereafter, by letter of August 14, 1991, the Department was advised that petitioners were submitting new house plans for the subject property, and that the request for leave to construct the pool had been removed from their application. 2/ On December 23, 1991, the Department issued a final order in Permit File No. BO-267 which authorized the petitioners to remodel their home. Such final order observed: . . . The direct and cumulative impacts to the beach and dune system that will be caused by both the seaward location and shore- parallel width of the proposed construction represent the maximum such impacts that are acceptable to the Department. Therefore, future construction on the site seaward of the coastal construction control line shall not extend further seaward of, or increase the shore- parallel coverage occupied by, the proposed structures approved pursuant to this permit. The pool, which petitioners had initially proposed to construct seaward of the home, but subsequently deleted from their plans, constituted a major structure, albeit nonhabitable. Rule 16B-33.002(54)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners were expressly advised by the Department of their right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the provisions of the final order. No such contest was filed. 3/ The pending application On February 20, 1992, petitioners filed a new application (Permit File NO. BO-289) with the Department for permission to construct the swimming pool on their property. As proposed, the pool would be located in the beach-dune system seaward of petitioners' home, as well as seaward of an existing retaining wall on the petitioners' property. The pool would measure 16.0' x 35.7' externally, be constructed of reinforced gunite, and be supported by ten piles. The alignment of the pool would be in the shore parallel direction, rather than the shore normal direction as proposed in the prior application, thereby placing the pool landward of the 30-year erosion projection. By letter of March 8, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their application was incomplete, and requested additional information. Petitioners submitted the final information necessary to complete their application on July 21, 1992. By letter dated October 7, 1992, received by petitioners' representative on October 13, 1992, the Department issued a public notice as follows: The referenced application for a permit pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, has been placed on the agenda of the head of the Department of Natural Resources (Governor and Cabinet). The application will be reviewed by the Cabinet Aides in the Cabinet Meeting Room on the lower level of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 14, 1992. The application will then be heard by the Governor and Cabinet in Room LL03 of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 20, 1992. You may attend these meetings if you desire. The recommendation [for denial] shown on the enclosed agenda item has been made to the head of the Department by the Executive Director. This represents an agency determination. . . . The notice, consistent with the provisions of Rule 16B-33.012(8), Florida Administrative Code, further advised that any substantially affected person had the right to request a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within 21 days of receipt of the notice, and that "If the decision of the Governor and Cabinet is different from the staff recommendation as noticed . . ., then the applicant or any substantially affected person shall have 21 days from the date of the Governor and Cabinet's announcement of their decision in which to petition the agency for a hearing." The basis for the Department's denial of petitioners' application to construct the swimming pool was stated as follows: The proposed swimming pool is not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available. For example a similar structure could be sited in a less impactive location landward of the single-family dwelling on the southwest corner of the property. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Paragraph 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Rule 16B-33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shore line fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion. The proposed swimming pool is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system. * * * 8. The proposed project is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. The Department, therefore, may not authorize the construction of the pool. On October 13, 1992, petitioners requested that their application be removed from the agenda, and be rescheduled for "a later date to be determined." The rationale for petitioners' request was to afford "an opportunity for the permittee and staff to meet in Tallahassee in early to mid November and reach a design for a pool which can be recommended favorably by staff." By letter of October 14, 1992, the Department granted petitioners' request and the item was removed from the agenda for the Governor and Cabinet meeting of October 20, 1992. Such letter further provided that although the Department was willing to meet with petitioners to discuss the staff concerns about their application, that it "must caution you . . . that at this time I do not anticipate that a swimming pool, as you requested, can be satisfactory [sic] located seaward of your home." Petitioners and the Department were unable to resolve their dispute. Accordingly, petitioners filed a petition on November 2, 1992, to contest the proposed denial of their application. By letter of November 13, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their request for formal administrative hearing was inadequate, but accorded them 14 days from receipt of such letter to submit an appropriate request. Petitioners timely submitted an appropriate request for hearing on November 30, 1992, and the matter was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 4/ The merits of the pending application As heretofore noted in the findings of fact, the Department enunciated seven reasons to support its denial of petitioner's application. The first basis for denial was the Department's assertion that the proposed swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available." In this regard, it is observed that Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: . . . Establishment of a coastal construction control line . . . does not preclude all development of or alteration of coastal property seaward of such lines. However, activities seaward of a coastal construction control line . . . shall be limited and the necessity of such development, construction or alteration shall be stated and clearly justified by the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid rule does not further explain what is contemplated by the requirement that the applicant clearly justify the "necessity" of the proposed development; however, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary. 5/ In this regard, "necessity" is defined to mean "something that cannot be done without." Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary. It is also defined as "something needed for the existence, effectiveness, or success of something (a requirement)," and "the state or fact of being required or unavoidable." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Here, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct the swimming pool since it fails to credibly support the conclusion that such construction is required for the effective or reasonable use of petitioners' property or that such construction is essential for the well-being of its occupants.6/ To the contrary, the petitioners' decision to construct the pool is merely a matter of personal preference or convenience. Moreover, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct a pool of the size and configuration proposed (16' x 35.7' with a maximum depth of 8') or of the materials selected (reinforced gunite supported by piles). Indeed, a pool of a different configuration or size could be located elsewhere on the property and the pool could be constructed on a base slab foundation or of vinyl to alleviate the adverse effects of its current design, discussed infra. 7/ As further reasons for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade"; Rule 16B-33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties"; Rule 16B- 33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion"; and Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, "to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system." Pertinent to the aforesaid reasons for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, the "Department Policy Statement on Permits," provides: Seaward of the coastal construction control line . . ., special siting, structural and other design considerations are required: (a) for the protection of the beach-dune system; * * * (c) for the protection of adjacent properties. And, Rule 16B-33.007, Florida Administrative Code, the "Structural and Other Requirements Necessary for Permit Approval," provides: The proposed structure or other activity shall be located a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve the dune stability and natural recovery following storm induced erosion . . . . All structures shall be designed so as to minimize any expected adverse impact on the beach-dune system or adjacent properties and structures and shall be designed consistent with Section 16B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code. Relevant to such rules, the proof demonstrates that the frontal dune on the subject property appears to have been leveled at an elevation of approximately +12.0 feet NGVD, and petitioners' home is located on top of the crest of the frontal dune. The seaward slope of the frontal dune begins at the seaward face of the house and slopes down to the beach. Approximately 12 feet seaward of the house is an existing retaining wall. The proposed pool will be sited immediately seaward of such wall and therefore on the seaward slope of the frontal dune. The proposed pool is a pile supported concrete swimming pool with exterior dimensions of 16.0' shore-normal by 35.7' shore-parallel, and a maximum depth of 8.0'. The foundation is specified to be auger-cast piles, which will penetrate to an elevation of -23.0' NGVD or 3' embedment where a rock layer is encountered. The elevation of the pool is proposed at +13.0' NGVD, with a bottom elevation of +4.0' NGVD. As designed and sited, construction of the pool would destabilize the dune, hinder its function of protecting upland development during a storm event, and adversely affect natural shoreline fluctuation and recovery following storm induced erosion. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the location of the pool seaward of the existing retaining wall would interrupt the natural continuity of dune formation because sand would accumulate seaward of the pool in a less stable location and would impede the accumulation of sand on adjacent properties. Construction of the pool, as designed and sited, would also induce scour during the course of a storm event impacting the structure. Such storm- induced scour, in addition to erosion, would cause the loss of additional sand at the vicinity of the structure, robbing the beach-dune system of additional sand necessary to protect upland structures, and would also contribute to the potential failure of the structure itself and other upland structures. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that approximately 1,000 cubic yards of sand would be lost on petitioners' section of the beach in the event of a 10-year storm. Additionally, structure-induced scour of 77.5 cubic yards from the ten piles, 120.4 cubic yards from the pool shell, and 15.8 cubic yards from the "end effects" of the pool (the amount of structure-induced scour from the ends of the structure) might reasonably be anticipated in the event of a 10-year storm. If the pool were to be impacted by a higher frequency storm, such as a 20-year or a 100-year storm, scour and erosion would increase. 8/ As an additional basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, "because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area." Here, the proof supports the Department's conclusion. As its final basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, "because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event." Pertinent to the aforesaid basis for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site; however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event . . . . Here, petitioners' project is expected to have significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system as a consequence of its design and siting. Accordingly, the provisions of Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant. Moreover, there was no proof concerning any similar structures along the coast, existing or proposed, that would contribute to or intensify the degradation of the beach-dune system occasioned by the proposed project. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that cumulative impact is a relevant issue in these proceedings. While cumulative impact is not relevant to the pending application, the other reasons advanced by the Department for denial of the application have, as heretofore found, a rational basis in fact. Under such circumstances, petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioners' application to construct seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of November 1993.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) should approve a permit for the applicant, Indian River County (County), to install a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef) off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving permits such as the one at issue. The County is a governmental entity and is the applicant which has requested a permit for an experimental project to be located in Vero Beach, Florida. The Petitioners oppose the proposed project. The project at issue is the installation of a PEP reef system to be located between approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-80 to approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-83, in Indian River County, Florida. Because of the uncertainty as to the performance of the proposed project and the potential that it may cause adverse impacts to the coastal system, the Department classified the project as experimental pursuant to Chapter 89-175, Section 27, Laws of Florida. In making its preliminary approval for the permit, the Department required special permit conditions to safeguard the coastal system and marine turtles. Additionally, the Department specified both preconstruction and post installation monitoring and testing. The term of the permit is limited to five years, including three years to monitor the project's impacts. A PEP reef is a prefabricated erosion prevention product installed as a breakwater off the shore. In this case, the product measures approximately twelve feet long and six feet high. The base of the product (which is conically shaped) is approximately 15 feet tapering to a one foot crest at the top. The PEP unit is a proprietary product of a company called American Coastal Engineering (ACE). The County proposes to contract with ACE for the manufacture and installation of the units. It is proposed that the PEP units would be installed in an alignment parallel to the beach for a total, though not continuous, length of 3000 feet. The proposed location for the PEP reef in Vero Beach is in an erosion area as identified by the Department's Beach Restoration Management Plan. Historically, the subject beach has experienced a steady and continuous erosion which has been exacerbated during storm conditions. The proposed site is suitable for the experimental nature of this project. At least one past storm event caused substantial damage to the beach front at the project site. Walkways, utilities, and other public improvements were substantially damaged. Past efforts to curb the erosion have proved unsuccessful. Such efforts included beach renourishment, and the installation of seawalls or bulkheads. Future beach renourishment is undesirable for the project site due to the lack of compatible sand, and its high cost. More important, however, are concerns over the negative environmental impacts to nearshore reefs which could result from a large scale renourishment project. For over ten years the County has sought a solution to the erosion that has plagued the project site. To that end, the County established a special committee, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, to review options available and to recommend long-term solutions to the County. In June, 1993, the County contracted with Petitioner Walther to prepare a map of the nearshore hardbottom reef and to evaluate alternatives for beach restoration at the project site. Such work was completed, and recommendations from Mr. Walther were not incompatible with the installation of the proposed reef. The proposed installation should not adversely affect the hardbottom reefs which are in the vicinity of the PEP units. Such hardbottom is considered environmentally sensitive; however, no PEP unit will be placed on the hardbottom or so close to it that it will disturb the organisms located within the hardbottom community. In December, 1993, the County submitted an application for an experimental coastal construction permit to install the PEP reef which is at issue. The PEP units are to be placed in seven to ten feet of water. The PEP reef is designed to reduce wave heights, particularly during a storm event, which should reduce the wave energy and currents in the lee of the structure. While it is hoped the units will deter erosion, they may also cause some accretion to the beach. Whether such accretion would be temporary or long- term is uncertain. As a result of studies performed by the University of Florida under the direction of Dr. Dean, and supported by the County's coastal engineer Mr. Donaldson, it was determined that the PEP units should be installed in shorter lengths (than originally designed) with gaps between each segment. Consequently, the installation proposed by the County is not continuous but is staggered and gapped. The installation proposed by the County is unique in that the coastal characteristics of the area and the proposed design should produce results different from past installations of reef structures in Palm Beach County, Florida. As a result, studies performed by Dr. Dean in connection with a reef installed in Palm Beach County have been discounted as dissimilar to the one proposed in this case. In reviewing the subject permit application, the Department requested additional data which the County retained Dr. Zarillo to gather. Dr. Zarillo performed numerical modeling for the proposed reef system. Based upon Dr. Zarillo's work it is expected that the PEP reef system will have a positive benefit in that wave height and energy is likely to be reduced by the installation of the units. The site for the installation is suited for the proposal and is not within an area that is considered environmentally sensitive. Moreover, the PEP reef itself will add to the development of species since it should develop into a nursery habitat for young fish and other marine organisms. The installation of PEP reefs at other locations have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful. Having considered the studies performed by Dr. Bruno, an expert in coastal engineering and in measuring/modeling coastal processes, it is likely that the proposed project will be similar enough in design to installations reviewed by Dr. Bruno to allow the proposed project to be compared. Dr. Bruno has monitored three installations at three different sites in New Jersey. Each site had different results based upon conditions of each location. One site, expected to be most like the proposed site in Vero Beach, has experienced a reduced rate of erosion. Based upon Dr. Bruno's "real life" experience it is expected that the proposed installation will result in a reduction of wave height on the order of 10 percent to 20 percent. Consequently, the proposed installation should provide a benefit to the control of erosion. The reduction of wave height leads to a reduction in the erosive power of the wave field. Therefore, it is expected to result in a reduced erosion rate behind the PEP reefs. Additionally, Dr. Bruno's assessment of Dr. Zarillo's modeling work suggests that "in theory" the proposed site should experience a reduction in wave height as a result of the proposed installation. As a result, both scientific methods support the proposed project. No scientific study can, however, assure the success of this project. In fact, success may be derived from the value of the data which will be gathered during the monitoring period. Such data may assist in the future design of structures to reduce wave energy. The County's proposed monitoring plan contains detailed and adequate performance criteria to assure that the PEP reef system will be fully evaluated. The County has provided adequate assurance that it will comply with the permit conditions, including the modification or removal of the reef system if directed by the Department. All installation and monitoring as well as removal is to be performed at the County's expense. The PEP reef system will have no appreciable adverse impact on marine turtles. Construction is prohibited during nesting season under the terms of the permit. The PEP reef system will have no adverse impact on swimmers or boaters. The units are to be clearly marked and identified under the terms of the permit. No adverse impacts to Petitioners Walther and Clemens should be incurred as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the permit requested by the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 16th day of February 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4045 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Walther: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 29, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, and 60 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation is hearsay as it relates to the record cited; however, although not stipulated, the record most likely supports the paragraph in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the factual conclusion that because another permit holder has failed to remove a reef that the County will similarly default on its obligation to do should the agency order the PEP reef removal. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant if it purports to suggest the contracting was improper; this proceeding does not consider the propriety of the contracting process. With the deletion of any emphasis and the last sentence which are rejected as argument, paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted that Mrs. Clemens opposed the permit and requested a hearing. Paragraph 27 is rejected as an incomplete statement and therefore not supported by the total weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 30 through 33 are rejected as law not statements of fact. Paragraph 34 is accepted in general terms but not as to the specific measurements cited. Paragraphs 35 through 38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. It is determined that the site is suitable for a non-biased, comprehensive analysis of the project. Paragraphs 39 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 45, it is accepted the reefs may settle but such is expected to be unlikely to impair the overall performance of the structure; therefore, the paragraph, as drafted, must be rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as unclear or incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 58 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 61, it is accepted that Dr. Dean envisioned a current being created that would run parallel to the shoreline as a result of the reef installation but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 62, such statement is generally true; however, Dr. Dean did not conduct any sediment transportation test to verify that the structure in an open setting (as opposed to the experimental tank) would transport sediment as inferred. Paragraphs 63 through 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is accepted as accurate but the agency did not express, and the record does not establish, that there is a concern that the County may not honor its agreement to remove the PEP reef if directed to do so. Paragraph 69 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Clemens: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent Department: All proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department as listed are accepted. See comments below as to rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the County. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent County: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 through 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that an extensive renourishment program might damage the sensitive nearshore hardbottom community; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 16, with the deletion of the word "significantly" in the second sentence and the last sentence which are rejected as irrelevant, editorial comment, argument or not supported by the total weight of credible evidence, it is accepted. With regard to paragraph 18, the first sentence is accepted. As to the balance of the paragraph, with the deletion of the word "significantly" and the substitution of "might" for "could", the paragraph is accepted. Otherwise rejected as an inaccurate characterization of the weight of the record. With regard to paragraph 19, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as a compound statement of proposed fact some of which are accurate but which taken in whole constitute argument, unnecessary, irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 31, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence three, the paragraph is accepted. With regard to paragraph 32, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence two, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 35, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 36 through 38 are rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. The proposed PEP reef should not adversely impact the Vero Beach shoreline. Paragraph 44 is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraphs 47 through 53, it is accepted that the Petitioners did not establish that they will be substantially affected by the proposed project; however, their conduct does not rise to the level to establish participation in the administrative process was for an improper purpose. Consequently, the paragraphs are rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Lewis, Esquire John W. Forehand, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Michael P. Walther 1725 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Adele Clemens 3747 Ocean Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Dana M. Wiehle Assistants General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherall Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1988, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent for a permit to construct improvements to real property seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL). Petitioners' property is located at 2400 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The parcel of land owned by Petitioners measures approximately 50' in width and 140' in depth and is located in a primarily residential area of beachfront property with high property values. On this parcel is a residence that is approximately 1600 square feet in size. The residence is constructed on reinforced concrete pilings. There are many other residential and commercial structures in this area which are also constructed on reinforced concrete pilings. The improvements to this property seaward of the CCCL that Petitioners desire to make and that Respondent finds objectionable is the construction of a poured monolithic reinforced concrete slab patio supported by twenty-one reinforced concrete pilings. The patio would be approximately 27' by 50' in size. On November 17, 1987, Respondent approved an application filed by a previous owner of this property for the construction of a patio to be constructed with concrete pavers. Petitioners arranged to have the previously approved permit transferred to their name. The project contemplated by the subject application employs a different method of construction than the one permitted in 1987 because Petitioners desire to have a patio that is more attractive and is easier to maintain. Petitioners are also concerned that concrete pavers will be hazardous during a storm since they may be subject to being swept along by high winds and water. Petitioners have valid reasons for preferring the method of construction reflected by the subject application based on aesthetic and maintenance considerations. However, Petitioners did not establish that the proposed method of construction was necessary as a safety measure. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence was that blocks the size of the pavers to be used for the construction that has been permitted would not be propelled by either hydrodynamic or aerodynamic forces during a major storm as Petitioners contend. Instead, these blocks would likely be undermined during a major storm and, because of their weight, fall as the beach is eroded. Respondent has regulatory authority over the property in question. Respondent's regulatory authority, which includes rule making authority, is conferred by statute. Respondent's responsibilities include the preservation of the beach-dune area within its jurisdiction. There is a relationship between the siting of a structure, in terms of its proximity to the shoreline, and the likelihood that the structure will have an impact on the beach and dune systems. The subject patio is to be located within the beach-dune system. The patio Petitioners propose to construct on concrete pilings would have more of an adverse impact on the beach-dune system than a patio constructed of concrete pavers. During a major storm, greater erosion on the site around the pilings will occur as a result of scour. Following a major storm, the ability of a dune to re-form will be more inhibited if the patio is supported by pilings. Considering the hundreds of thousands of pilings that are already in place along the beach, the effect of the twenty-one pilings proposed by Petitioners, whether considered individually or cumulatively, will be insignificant. A patio is usually considered by Respondent to be a "minor structure". "Minor structures" are non-habitable structures that are generally designed to be expendable during a major storm event. Dune walkovers, viewing platforms, and decks are examples of minor structures. A patio constructed of concrete pavers would be another example. The nature of their construction permits minor structures to be placed more closely to the shoreline than major structures. The patio as proposed Petitioners has been properly categorized by Respondent as being a "major structure" since it is designed to withstand a major storm event. Respondent has not to date permitted any major structure as far east of the CCCL in this area of Broward County as Petitioner's proposed project. All major structures constructed on pilings that are that far east of the CCCL were built before permits were required. Respondent is concerned that the granting of the subject permit will set a precedent that will require the issuance of permits for the construction of other major structures as far seaward of the CCCL as the Petitioners' proposed project, and that such construction would result in a cumulative adverse impact on the beach-dune system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order which denies the subject permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-6 and 8-10 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being argument. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in the third sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being conclusions of law that are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. While Petitioners' application included as a proposed condition to the issuance of the permit, a covenant running with the land that would require the property owner to reconstruct the beach-dune system in the event of destruction by a major storm, the evidence did not establish, as Petitioners proposed, that the covenant would "... protect the interests of DNR and its long term end of protecting the dunes and beaches". The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-2, 5-6, 10-16, 24-27, 30-31, and 33 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 and 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 21 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7-9 and 28-29 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 17-20, 23, and 32 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. These proposed findings are incorporated in part as conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 22 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Stevens 412 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Room 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ken Plante General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues for determination at final hearing were (1) whether Petitioner's coastal construction Permit No. 86-155PB, authorizing Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be extended under Special Permit Condition 10 of the Permit and (2) whether the experimental reef structure should be removed pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12 of the Permit.
Findings Of Fact On April 6, 1987, American Coastal Engineering, on behalf of Willis H. DuPont (Petitioner) and Florida Atlantic University's Department of Ocean Engineering, was granted coastal construction Permit NO. 86-155PB 3/ (Permit) by the Department of Natural Resources (Respondent). 4/ The Permit authorized Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The experimental reef structure, referred to as a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef), is a 550 foot submerged breakwater which was constructed using prefabricated concrete segments, placed end-to-end underwater in the nearshore area. The purpose of the PEP reef is to reduce erosion of the beach landward of the structure. The PEP reef was installed on May 5, 1988. Special conditions were placed on the Permit, to which Petitioner agreed. The special conditions in pertinent part provide: The permittee shall adjust, alter or remove any structure or other physical evidence of the work or activity permitted, as directed by the Executive Director, if in the opinion of the Executive Director, the structure, work or activity in question results in damage to surrounding property or otherwise proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary. Adjustment, alteration, or removal required under this provision, shall be accomplished by the permittee at no cost to the State of Florida. * * * 10. The proposed submerged breakwater shall be removed within two years following installation of the experimental structure unless determined by the staff to remain in place for an extended period of time. This determination shall be based on a staff evaluation of the monitoring data, existing statutory regulations, and the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan at that time. The experimental structure shall only remain in place after two years upon written approval from the Executive Director indicating an extension has been granted. * * * 12. The Executive Director may order removal of the experimental structure as soon as the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished under Special Permit Condition 6 erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location within the area to be monitored. Petitioner requested an extension of the Permit. On July 10, 1991, Respondent issued a final order denying an extension of the Permit, pursuant to Special Permit Condition 10, and directing the Petitioner to remove the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. An extension of the Permit beyond the two years following installation of the PEP reef, according to Special Permit Condition 10, is based upon three factors: (1) an evaluation by Respondent's staff of monitoring data gathered by Petitioner, (2) statutory regulations existing at the time of the extension request, and (3) the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan existing at the time of the extension request. Although Petitioner's monitoring data addressed the question whether the PEP reef was performing its function, it did not address existing statutory regulations or the project's feasibility in concurrence with the current beach management plan. 5/ Petitioner's monitoring data was collected over a two-year period with surveys being performed through March 1990: March 1988 (preconstruction), May 1988 (post-construction), August 1988, December 1988, February 1989, April 1989, July 1989, November 1989, and March 1990. The data was collected along 17 profile stations: seven stations were located within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the PEP reef, and five to the north and five to the south of the PEP reef. The data indicated that the PEP reef was an experiment and approved by Respondent as an experiment. As a conclusion, Petitioner indicates that the PEP reef is functioning for the purpose it was designed in that it is providing a benefit to the beach. Respondent disagreed with Petitioner's conclusion. For one, Respondent disagreed with the method of analysis used by Petitioner to analyze the data because Petitioner's analysis failed to filter out seasonal effects. This procedure brought into play the first of the three factors in Special Permit Condition 10 which was used for denial of the Permit extension. Petitioner's monitoring data was utilized and analyzed by Respondent. Using the data gathered, Respondent created profile plots which are cross sectional depictions of the shoreline profiles and which displayed changes to the shoreline occurring during the survey period. Respondent used a shoreline change analysis in determining the PEP reef's effect on the shoreline in its vicinity. The analysis focused on the net change in the shoreline, i.e., the net change in the location of the mean high water line, factoring out the seasonal variations which occur along the coast by comparing profile plots from the same time of year taken during the two-year monitoring period. The shoreline change analysis indicated that in the vicinity of the PEP reef the shoreline showed irregular periods of both accretion and erosion. However, the shoreline did not reflect the typical pattern that was expected with a functioning breakwater. To the contrary, the irregular periods of accretion and erosion and the irregular configuration of the shoreline indicated that factors other than the PEP reef were affecting the shoreline. One such intervening factor was attributed to the large number of existing shoreline structures called groins which are scattered throughout the area. Groins are structures intended to stabilize the shoreline by blocking the down drift movement of sand, thereby altering the natural coastal processes. The monitoring data shows that, in terms of accretion or erosion, the PEP reef produced no recognizable influence on the shoreline in its vicinity. As to the second factor in Special Permit Condition 10, at the time the Permit was granted in 1988, no regulations specifically applicable to experimental structures existed. However, in 1989 a provision specifically addressing the permitting of experimental structures became law. /6 The provision provides that the "intent" of the Florida Legislature is to "encourage the development of new and innovative methods for dealing with the coastal shoreline erosion problem," and that, in authorizing the "construction of pilot projects using alternative coastal shoreline erosion control methods," the Respondent must determine, among other things, that "the proposed project site is properly suited for analysis of the results of the proposed activity." Groins in the PEP reef area alter the natural coastal processes and, therefore, play a significant role in the analysis of the shoreline processes. The effect of the groins affected the Respondent's ability to determine the effectiveness of the experimental structure. As a result, the Respondent was unable to make a determination in accordance with the legislative mandate. As to the third factor in Special Permit Condition 10, Petitioner presented no evidence addressing this factor. Petitioner has failed to show that the experimental structure, the PEP reef, has satisfied Special Permit Condition 10. It has failed to show that the intended purpose of the PEP reef has been accomplished, i.e., that the PEP reef is effective or beneficial. In denying Petitioner's request for an extension of the Permit, Respondent directed removal of the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Special Permit Condition 3 provides for removal, alteration or adjustment of the PEP reef if it "proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary." The construction of the PEP reef consisted of, among other things, the placing of individual reef units end-to-end. To alert boaters to the location of the PEP reef, a buoy was placed at each end of the structure. The stability of the PEP reef is questionable. In 1989 a storm dislodged the individual units. In an effort to prevent sliding, Petitioner attempted to realign the units to their original position and added more weight to the units. Despite Petitioner's efforts to stabilize the structure, the PEP reef has experienced continued movement. Furthermore, because of the continued movement, boaters' safety would be compromised in that the buoys would be ineffective in warning them of the location of any units which may be dislodged. Also, the additional weight to the units could cause the individual units to settle, potentially affecting the performance of the PEP reef, and could induce erosional scour around the structure itself. Special Permit Condition 12 provides for removal when "the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished . . . erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location." The shoreline analysis showed that the shoreline in many portions of the nourished area eroded landward of the pre-nourished beach profile. The mean high water line had positioned landward of its pre-project location. Petitioner has failed to show that the PEP reef does not fall within the conditions of Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Federally protected and endangered marine species have attached themselves to and/or now reside in the PEP reef, complicating the removal of the PEP reef. In order not to disturb or disrupt this marine life, Respondent has expressed a desire in relocating the structure to a position further offshore.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources 7/ enter a final order DENYING an extension of Permit No. 86-155PB. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of April 1994. ERROL H. POWELL 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 21st day of April 1994.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1988 Harry B. Williams made application to the Department of Natural Resources for permission to construct a single-family dwelling with appurtenant structures at 2831 Ponte Verda Boulevard South, South Ponte Verda Beach, Florida. The permit sought was a coastal construction control line permit which would allow construction seaward of that line in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of that permit application may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 2. Associated with the permit application was a description of the plans related to the dwelling and other structures. This application was received by the Department February 11, 1988. Following a review of the permit application the Department deemed it complete as of February 22, 1988. A site inspection was made of the property and a report was prepared by an employee with the Department, a Mr. Partel. The report may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 4, which includes photographs of the prospective building site, together with the surrounding property to include dwellings to the north and south of the lot where the Williams home would be built. As commented on by Mr. Partel the applicant had intended at that time to construct a single-family dwelling a maximum of 75 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although this evaluator, Mr. Partel, felt that the applicant had requested the right to construct a dwelling which was in line with existing construction, he felt that it could be moved further landward and that it could be limited in deck size and that a cantilevened form of construction was preferable to the concrete called for in the plans set out in the application information. It was also suggested that the sea oats that were in the way of the construction should be relocated seaward on a dune face slope where a denuded area is found. In this connection, the Department is empowered to make suggestions to the applicant concerning the minimization of the adverse impacts on the beach-dune system. Following the site visit of February 26, 1988 the Department wrote the applicant on March 11, 1988 and indicated concerns about the proximity of the dwelling to the crest of the dune. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 5. In the correspondence the Department asked the applicant to move the proposed dwelling 10 feet landward and that the 10 foot wide concrete patio, on the seaward side, be modified to a 10 foot wide wooden deck. The letter told the applicant that the approval would be conditioned on the sea oats and other dune grasses that would be disturbed by the proposed structures being replanted seaward of the project in the denuded areas of the dune. The applicant agreed to these changes. The relocation of the structure 10 feet landward took it away from the beach- dune system. The modified site plan that was brought about by the suggested changes is found Department's Exhibit Number 6, a copy of that amended site plan. With the relocation the construction would be 66 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. An aerial photograph of the site location reference the basic design of the dwelling and the proximity to the relevant or existing coastal construction control line is found as Department's Exhibit Number 3. In responding to the suggestions to the change in location the modified site plan which moved the dwelling 10 feet landward was received by the Department on August 1, 1988. Under this arrangement the applicant had agreed to waive the requirements of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes pertaining to the obligation by the Department to review and decide its action of grant or denial within 90 days of date of receipt of the application. With the changes being made to the location of the proposed dwelling and associated structures and the type of construction materials used in the patio on the seaward side, together with the relocation of the plant life, the impact on the beach-dune system and adjacent property is acceptable. There is no adverse impact on the beach-dune system or on the adjacent properties. The location of the proposed dwelling and its associated structures as it relates to the 30-year erosion projection under the terms of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, in this instance, shows that the dwelling would be approximately 55 feet landward of the 30-year erosion projection and not at risk. Calculations related to this finding may be found within Department's Exhibit Number 7. The existing coastal construction control line dates from January 28, 1988. Although the original application referred to the previous line of 1978 in describing the site plan and survey, the reason for this was that the site plan and survey were prepared prior to the establishment of the January 28, 1988 line, as allowed. In the course of the hearing appropriate reference was made to the January 28, 1988 line as it relates to the anticipated location of the dwelling and other structures as modified at the instigation of the Department. As contemplated by Section 161.053(5)(f), the Department required the applicant to provide mitigation of the- effects of the construction as a condition to a grant of the permit. Those permit conditions may be found in the Department's Exhibit Number 8, a copy of a proposed final order. Included within those would be the requirements for erection of a temporary construction fence on the site to protect existing native dune vegetation from the impacts of that construction, in addition to the requirement of the dune vegetation relocation. This would involve the irrigation and application of fertilizer to those plants with the expectation that a certain percentage would survive over time as described in this special condition. This project will not pose a hazard to the sea turtle and its hatchlings and habitat for the sea turtles and hatchlings. Ms. Butler, Petitioner in this cause, has a beach home which is north of the Williams property separated by a 10 foot easement between those properties. In mid July, 1988 Ms. Butler offered a written statement in opposition to the placement and size of the proposed dwelling together with other remarks and asked that the Department provide her information and documents pertaining to the application under the authority of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. On August 10, 1988 the Department dispatched a letter of inquiry to surrounding property owners to include Ms. Butler and solicited remarks concerning the Williams application to be provided on or about August 20, 1988. Ms. Butler had received certain documents from the Department concerning the application sometime in the middle of August 1988. On August 18, 1988 Butler made known her objection to the project on the grounds that the concerns about the 30-year erosion line and the size and placement of the dwelling. On September 2, 1988 the Department informed Ms. Butler of the intent to grant the permit to Mr. Williams. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5. This led to a timely request for hearing by Ms. Butler stating her opposition to this project. The request was received in accordance with the Department's advice that the request must be filed by September 26, 1988. Based upon the prehearing conference and the discussion of those issues which would be allowed for consideration as stated in the request for hearing and the statement of particulars that attend the request for hearing, commented on by the hearing officer at the commencement of the final hearing, and found within the transcript and further stated in the issues portion to this Recommended Order, this case has been carried forward. The presentation made by the Petitioner, after the Department and applicant had offered their cases, was through her testimony and that of employees of the Department together with exhibits she offered. The testimony of the Department employees concerned the procedural techniques that the agency pursued in reviewing the application at issue. Ms. Butler described her concern for her property, and the area between her property and the Williams property. This is the 10 foot easement area which is sparsely vegetated and low. As a consequence she was concerned that her property might be destroyed with the advent of the Williams construction. She has no expertise in her own right nor did she present expert opinion from other witnesses which would tend to bear out her concern. She also expressed the concern that the Williams home, in its dimensions, was too large and that it should be relocated an additional 10 feet back from the adjusted placement following the Department's criticism of the original application. In effect, she would have the house placed 20 feet away from the sea as compared to the original site plan submitted with the application on February 10, 1988. Again, there is no competent evidence presented which would support her theory that this further relocation was needed. Her expression of concern for the sea turtles and their hatchlings and habitat was not well founded. Turtles are known to nest on the sandy flat beach area and the construction of the Williams property will not interfere with that area adjacent to the ocean.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order which grants a coastal construction control line permit to Harry B. Williams, Jr., based upon his modified plan required by the Department and upon the special permit conditions announced in the proposed final order, a copy of which is found as Department's Exhibit Number 8. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 27th day of April, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondents' File No. 76-3-V-90, is an application by J. Edwin Chancey for a variance from the coastal construction setback line in Walton County in an area referred to as Grayton Beach. The application for variance involves approximately 450-470 feet of open beach which the applicant proposes to divide into nine 50-foot wide lots upon which he proposed to construct dwelling houses. As shown by Exhibit 5 the proposed dwellings would be no less than approximately 150 feet and no more than approximately 300 feet seaward of the coastal construction setback line previously established by the Department of Natural Resources for Walton County and the subject beach area. The Department of Natural Resources' staff has recommended to the Governor and Cabinet as the Department of Natural Resources that the variance be granted subject to eight stated conditions set forth in Exhibit 2 of this proceeding. These conditions include the following: "1. No construction will be more than 150 feet gulfward of the most upland property line. All building structures will be constructed on open piling foundations with floor elevations above 14.5 feet mean sea level and pile tip penetration below 5 feet mean sea level. * * * The variance, if approved, will cover the construction of nine 50 foot lots in accordance with the subdivision plans on file in this office. . . . Construction plans on each lot will be submitted individually for staff review and if approved will be issued a variance placard for construction. The placard will be valid for construction commencing within six months and completion within 18 months. In the event septic systems are used, these systems will be installed on the landward most portion of the lots." On July 15, 1975, the Department of Natural Resources approved a variance from the coastal construction setback line requirements for a development with 30 lots proposed for the land involved in this application and an additional and contiguous 930 feet of beach. However, the developer experienced financial difficulties and as a result deeded away approximately two-thirds of the beach front property involved in that variance and abandoned the variance. The developer in that instance was J. Edwin Chancey. The land involved in this proceeding is generally open beach dunes interrupted by lakes. The engineer for the Department of Natural Resources estimated that the elevation of the subject property for which a variance is sought ranges from +3 feet mean sea level to +7 feet mean sea level except for the remnants of several large dunes which range from +10 feet mean sea level to +13 feet mean sea level. The area was somewhat higher prior to Hurricane Eloise which caused the dunes to recede on the average 55 feet and reduced 20 foot dunes to their current elevation of +10 feet to +13 feet mean sea level. Several hundred yards east of the subject property there is a large body of water known as Western Lake. Western Lake is connected directly to the Gulf by an open water course presently located 200-400 feet east of the subject property. This natural water course historically migrates to the west from its present general location in a series of migrations. As its length increases its efficiency decreases so that periodically it moves back to the east to begin again its western migration. This natural water course, in its western migration, has, in the past, encroached on the property for which a variance is herein sought. It appears that, absent an artificial barrier, this natural water course is likely in the future to migrate westward to the subject property. This water course is sometimes deep enough to accommodate an outboard boat and can be 150 feet or more wide. During Hurricane Eloise, the construction site on the property for which the variance is sought had approximately 3 feet to 4 feet of standing water. The Applicant has not provided the Department of Natural Resources with evidence of his ownership of the property for which he seeks a variance. It appears from the evidence presented that the Applicant is not the sole owner of the property, but may be a part-owner with three other persons. The Applicant has not provided the Department of Natural Resources with a duly executed statement from the owners of record consenting to the work, activity, or construction for which the variance has been requested. No statement of the specific reasons why the Applicant feels that the variance should be granted has been received by the Department of Natural Resources. There have been communications between staff members of the Department and the Applicant or his representatives, but apparently these communications dealt with the details of the requested variance rather than the reasons why the variance should be granted. The Department of Natural Resources has not received a recent topographic survey showing the plot plan of the proposed construction. The Department has received a topographic survey and a plot plan showing the position of the proposed nine lots. (See Exhibits 5 and 9) Exhibit 5, on Lots 1, 2, 6 and 8 does show what appears to be the plot plan of some structure, though apparently, the Applicant does not necessarily intend to construct dwellings in accordance with those drawings. The Department of Natural Resources has not received construction plans showing cross sections of all sub-grade construction or excavation, elevations of the lowest floor and the first dwelling floor, or the details and justification for any proposed waste water discharge unto, over, under or across the beach and/or dunes. The Applicant has verbally communicated to the Department that if septic tanks are used on the subject property they will be located as far landward as possible with no discharge toward the Gulf. No further details of this proposed wastewater discharge have been submitted to the Department. According to the engineer for the Department there will be sub- grade construction. However, the plot plan (Exhibit 5) showing the location of the proposed nine lots is apparently the only plan received by the Department with regard to this request for a variance. No evidence was presented showing that the Department has waived any of the requirements for an application for variance set out in Section 16B- 25.05, F.A.C. The engineer for the Department whose responsibility it was to initially review and make recommendations with regard to the application for variance testified that he did not believe that he had the authority to waive the above requirements and that he did not know who, if anyone, within the Department had that authority. He did not make any recommendation that the requirements be waived and did not know if the requirements had been waived. The application for variance which is the subject of this proceeding was received by the Department of Natural Resources no earlier than November, 1975, and was given the Department File No. 76-3-V-90. The application is a series of documents rather than a formal application. The Applicant had sought variances for a larger piece of property which included the subject property which variances would have allowed up to 128 dwelling units. Those requests for variances predated that which is the subject of this proceeding and were apparently given different file numbers by the Department of Natural Resources and were considered separate applications. The Petitioners, W. A. Covell and Bonnie Covell, own property in the community of Grayton Beach upon which there is a house. Their property is approximately 700 feet or more from the open beach property for which a variance is sought and does not abut the subject beach property. The Covell's think that construction of the nine dwelling units which would be allowed by the variance would lower the value of their property. Petitioners Jennings N. Byrd and Mrs. J. N. Byrd own property in the community of Grayton Beach upon which there there is a dwelling house. Their property is approximately 750 feet to 800 feet from the beach property for which a variance is sought. Mr. Byrd testified that he felt his interest in objecting to the variance was the same as that of any other Florida citizen. He further testified that he did not mind his view being obstructed by the dwelling units proposed by the Applicant. All Petitioners and their families have used the open beach area of which the property for which a variance is sought is a part, for many years as a picnic, sunning and swimming area. Petitioners G.A.P. Haynes and Betty H. Haynes own, in the name of Mrs. Haynes, property which is immediately adjacent to Applicant's property. The Haynes own a dwelling house which is located approximately 100 feet from Applicant's property. It is the opinion of the Haynes that the construction of the nine dwelling units in front of their house as proposed by the Applicant would lower the value of their property. The Haynes further indicated their concern that construction on the beach in front of them, because of the apparent inherent instability of the shifting sands, would have an adverse impact upon their house in times of high wind and water. They recounted seeing water standing, as the result of storms other than hurricanes, on Applicant's property and near their house.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Roland Peterson, is the owner of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 7, Vilano Beach, in an unincorporated area of St. Johns County, Florida. Vilano Beach lies just eastward of the City of St. Augustine, Florida, and north of St. Augustine Inlet. The three lots are adjacent to each other. By applications dated June 7, 1985 petitioner sought the issuance of three coastal construction control line permits by respondent, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores (Division), to authorize construction seaward of the coastal construction control line or setback line on Lots 4, 5 and 6. More specifically, petitioner sought approval to construct a beach-side snack bar with associated beach walkover, driveway and attached decks on Lot 4, and single family residences with associated dune walkover; driveway and attached decks on Lots 5 and 6. These applications were assigned Application Numbers SJ 220, SJ 221 and SJ 222 by the Division. They were deemed to be complete on August 6, 1985. After evaluating the three applications, the Division formulated recommendations to deny the requested permits. These recommendations were adopted by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as head of the agency at its November 5, 1985 meeting. Notice of such intended action was previously forwarded to petitioner on October 23, 1985. Said notice prompted the instant proceeding. As grounds for denying the permits the Division concluded that the three projects were located seaward of the seasonal high- water line and were therefore prohibited by a law, the projects lay in an area "highly vulnerable" to a major storm; and the cumulative impact of locating these and other structures further seaward could be expected to adversely impact the beach and dune system of the Vilano Beach area. The parties have stipulated that the Division has properly calculated the seasonal high water line in the questioned area, and that petitioner's three projects lie seaward of that line. The parties have also stipulated that the three projects lie seaward of the frontal dune within the meaning of Subsection 161.053t6)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1985).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that application numbers SJ 220, SJ 221 and SJ 222 filed by Roland Peterson to construct various structures on Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 7, Vilano Beach in St. Johns County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1986.
The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
