The Issue The appellant contends that the Planning Commission "did not base its decision on specific standards or criteria [set forth in the zoning regulation] as required. Nor was there any competent substantial evidence presented that would support the Planning Commission's findings."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence of record submitted with this appeal, the findings of fact of the Planning Commission are rejected and the following substituted: The proposed use constitutes a marina pursuant to section 9.5-4(M-5) of the Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations, and it must, therefore, be reviewed as a major conditional use. The proposed development complies with all applicable Monroe County land development regulations. The proposed development is limited to two fueling docks, one 9' x 16'4" and the other 13' x 12'8", and one fueling pump. The proposed development does not include provisions for boat storage, boat ramps, or liveaboard docking. The proposed development is not expected to generate additional vehicular traffic nor, as a result, demand additional on-site vehicular parking due to its exclusively water-oriented nature. The proposed development does not include provisions for additional outdoor lighting. The proposed development includes provisions for a five-year water quality monitoring program which contains adequate recommendations for spill containment, including provision of a containment kit and use of absorbent carpeting on the dock surface, as well as corrective measures to be undertaken by the applicant in the event of water quality deterioration. Coordination with the United States Environmental Protection Agency is necessary to insure that the proposed water quality monitoring program follows the guidelines of this agency. The proposed development is located in the vicinity of a designated critical habitat of the American crocodile, and the presence of the West Indian manatee in the area is documented. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have offered recommendations to mitigate the secondary impacts of the proposed development on these species of endangered wildlife, including the installation of an educational display and restrictions on the provision of additional marina facilities. Additional conditions and restrictions are appropriate and may be imposed pursuant to sections 9.5-61 and 9.5-63 of the Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations. Limitations are particularly necessary to minimize the impacts of the proposed development upon neighboring residential uses and the canal, in consideration of the water-oriented nature of the use.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Water Use Permit (WUP) Application Number 20009478.005 meets the conditions for issuance as established in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes (2001), Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-2.301 (April 2001), and the District’s Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Alan Behrens, owns real property and a house trailer located at 4070 Southwest Armadillo Trail, in Arcadia, Florida. Behrens uses a two-inch well as the primary source of running water for his trailer. Boran and his family operate a ranch and sod farm in Arcadia, Florida, under the limited partnership of Boran Ranch and Sod, Ltd. Boran uses several different on-site wells to irrigate the farm. See Findings 12-17, infra. The District is the administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its boundaries pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 40D. Permit History Boran’s property is a little over 1,000 acres in size, on which he has raised cattle and grown sod for approximately the past four years. Before Boran owned the property, its prior occupants used the land for growing fall and spring row crops (primarily tomatoes). Boran's cattle and sod farm uses less water than was used by previous owners and occupants. In 1989, the original permit holders could make annual average daily withdrawals of 309,000 gallons but also were allowed a maximum daily withdrawal of 6,480,000 gallons. In 1992, the permitted withdrawals increased to an annual average daily quantity of 2,210,000 gallons, with a peak monthly limit of 3,596,000 gallons per day. On December 14, 1999, Boran received an agricultural water use permit (WUP No. 20009478.004) from the District. This current existing permit expires on December 14, 2009. The current permit grants Boran the right to withdraw groundwater for his agricultural use in the annual average daily quantity of 1,313,000 gallons, and with a peak month daily quantity of 3,177,000 gallons. On September 11, 2000, Boran filed an application to modify his existing water use permit. Modification of Boran's existing permit does not lengthen the term of the permit, and the scope of the District's review was limited to those features or changes that are proposed by the modification. The proposed modification would allow Boran to increase his annual average daily quantity by 175,000 gallons, and increase the peak month daily quantity by 423,900 gallons, for the irrigation of an additional 129 acres of sod. With the proposed increase, the new annual average daily quantity will be 1,488,000 gallons, and the new peak month daily quantity will be 3,600,900 gallons. The proposed modification also provides for the construction of an additional well (DID #6) on the southeastern portion of property, which will withdraw groundwater from the upper Floridan aquifer. The proposed agency action also entails a revision of the irrigation efficiency rating for the entirety of Boran Ranch. Irrigation efficiency refers to the ability to direct water to its intended target, which in this case means the root zone of the sod, without losing water to evaporation and downward seepage. Under the proposed permit modification, Boran will increase the entire farm’s water efficiency from 65 percent to 75 percent. As discussed further in the Conditions for Issuance section infra, the District's AGMOD modeling program uses this efficiency rating as part of its determination of the appropriate quantities for withdrawals. The higher the efficiency rating, the less water received under a permit. Because the efficiency rating increased, the application rate for water decreased from 42" per year to 36.4" per year for the entire Boran Ranch. Boran's Wells There are six well sites (labeled according to District identification numbers, e.g., DID #3) existing or proposed on Boran’s property. DID #1 is an eight-inch well located in the northeastern portion of the property. DID #1 provides water solely from the intermediate aquifer. DID #2 is an eight-inch well located in the middle of the property. DID #2 withdraws water from both the intermediate and upper Floridan aquifers. Both DID #1 and DID #2 were installed in 1968, and predate both the first water use permit application for the farm and the District's water use regulatory system. DID #4 is a twelve-inch well located in the north- central part of the property and solely taps from the upper Floridan aquifer. DID #4 had already been permitted and constructed as of the date of the proposed modification application at issue in this case. DID #3 and DID #5 are twelve-inch wells which have already been permitted for the southern and northern portions of the property, respectively, but have not yet been constructed. Both wells will withdraw water only from the upper Floridan aquifer. DID #6 is a proposed twelve-inch well to be located on the southeastern portion of the property and to irrigate an additional area of sod. DID #3, #5, and #6 will all be cased to a depth of approximately 540 feet, and only open to the upper Floridan aquifer to a depth of approximately 940 feet. By casing the well with pipe surrounded by cement, these wells will be sealed off to all aquifers above 540 feet, including the intermediate aquifer. All the wells on the property are used to irrigate sod. The wells have artesian flow, but utilize diesel pumps to provide consistent flow pressure year-round throughout the fields (some of which can be a mile and a half from a well). Since running the pumps costs money, there is an economic incentive not to over-irrigate. In addition, over-irrigation can lead to infestations of fungi and insects, and eventually cause the grass to rot and die. As a result, the fields receive irrigation only when dry areas in the fields appear and the grass begins to wilt. Boran Ranch Operations and Management Practices Boran Ranch primarily grows three kinds of grasses: St. Augustine Floratam; St. Augustine Palmetto; and Bahia. (Boran also is experimenting on a smaller scale with common paspalum and common Bermuda.) The Bahia grass, which is what also grows in the ranch's cattle pasture, does not require irrigation; the St. Augustine grasses are less drought- resistant and require irrigation at times. The majority of the sod sold to residential installers (who ordinarily work for landscape companies) is a St. Augustine grass. Commercial or governmental roadside installations favor Bahia. Currently, Boran sells more Bahia than St. Augustine. But market demand determines which types of grass are produced on the farm. As residential use and demand for St. Augustine in southwest Florida increases, so would the proportion of the farm used for growing St. Augustine grass. Boran grows sod year-round because of a large demand for the product in Ft. Myers and Cape Coral, and to a lesser extent in Punta Gorda and Port Charlotte. Sod helps control erosion and is considered to have aesthetic value. There also was some evidence that sod lowers the ambient temperatures, as compared to bare dirt; but the evidence was not clear how sod would compare to other ground cover in lowering temperatures. When subsurface seepage irrigation is being used, a sod field must be disked and "laser-leveled" to the proper elevation, with a slight slope created in the field to help ensure proper irrigation and drainage, before it can be used for sod production. The fields are laser-leveled before the irrigation system is installed and the crop is planted. The perforated irrigation supply lines of Boran Ranch’s subsurface irrigation system, also known as the "tile," run the opposite direction of the slope of the field and perpendicular to the main irrigation line. Once the subsurface irrigation system is installed, the field receives sprigs of sod, which are then watered and "rolled" to pack them into the ground. Approximately three months after a field has been rolled, the new sod is then periodically fertilized, sprayed and mowed. Sod takes approximately one year to grow before it may be harvested. The sod at Boran Ranch is harvested via tractor with a "cutter" on its side, which cuts underneath the grass, lifts it up onto a conveyor belt, and then onto a pallet for shipping. There are four different types of irrigation systems used for growing sod in Florida: (1) pivot systems which rely on sprinklers attached to overhead lines that rotate around a fixed point; (2) overhead rain guns which utilize motorized hydraulic pressure to spray a field; (3) above-ground seepage; and (4) subsurface irrigation systems (which can also be used to drain excess water from fields during large rain events). The most efficient irrigation system used for sod in Florida is the subsurface irrigation system. Boran Ranch first started the subsurface irrigation system approximately four years ago. Since that time, Boran Ranch has converted almost all its fields to the subsurface irrigation system, at a cost of approximately $1150 to $1350 per acre. As a result of this conversion process, Boran Ranch now uses less water per acre of sod. The subsurface irrigation system delivers water from a well to a water control structure (also known as the "box") via the imperforated main irrigation line. The perforated lines of the "tile" are connected to this main irrigation line at a 90-degree angle. The largest portion of the "box" sits underground. Once the water in the main irrigation line reaches the "box," water builds up behind removable boards contained in the box, creating the backpressure which forces water out into the tile. Water flows out from the tile to maintain the water table level at or near the root zone of the sod. Subsurface irrigation systems only function on property that has a hardpan layer beneath the soil. The hardpan layer acts as a confining unit to minimize the downward seepage of water, thereby allowing the subsurface irrigation system to work efficiently. Behrens questioned whether Boran Ranch has the necessary hardpan based on Todd Boran's reliance on hydrogeologists for this information. But the expert testimony of Boran's hydrogeology consultant and the District's hydrogeologist confirmed Todd Boran's understanding. Typically, the highest board in the box has the same height as the top of the field. Once the water level inside the box surpasses the height of the last board, water will spill over that board into the remainder of the box and then out another main irrigation line to the next box and set of tiles. By removing some of the boards in the box, Boran can bypass irrigating certain sections of his fields in favor of other areas. Excess water from the fields flows into field ditches which lead to wetlands on the property. If water leaves the wetlands during episodes of heavy rains, it flows downstream to the Peace River. Conditions for Issuance Boran Ranch is located in southwestern DeSoto County, in an area designated by the District as the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). The District created the SWUCA, which covers 5,000 square miles, after first determining that the groundwater resources of eastern Tampa Bay and Highlands Ridge regions were stressed and creating the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (ETBWUCA) and Highlands Ridge Water Caution Area (HRWUCA). Both the ETBWUCA and the HRWUCA are contained within the larger boundaries of the SWUCA. Within the ETBWUCA is an area along the coasts of portions of Hillsborough, Manatee, and Sarasota counties known as the Most Impacted Area (MIA). Special permitting rules exist for new projects located within the ETBWUCA, HRWUCA, and MIA, but not within the remainder of the "undifferentiated" SWUCA. Boran Ranch is located in this "undifferentiated" area of the SWUCA. Behrens took the position that Boran should not be permitted any additional water use until special permitting rules are promulgated for the "undifferentiated" SWUCA. But Behrens could cite no authority for such a moratorium. Meanwhile, the more persuasive evidence was that no such moratorium would be reasonable or appropriate. The evidence proved that the quantities authorized by the proposed modification are necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand, as required by Rule 40D- 2.301(1)(a). Boran sought additional water quantities through the permit modification application in order to irrigate an additional 129 acres of its sod farm. The application reflects a need for additional water, associated with additional acreage added to the farm. Boran used the District's AGMOD spreadsheet model, which is based on a mathematical methodology known as the modified Blainey-Criddle method, to determine the reasonable quantities for Boran's specific agricultural use. AGMOD inputs into its computations the following variables: (1) geographic location of the proposed use; (2) type of crop grown; (3) irrigation (efficiency); (4) pump capacity; (5) soil type; and (6) number of acres to be irrigated. AGMOD is a generally accepted tool used for determining the allocation of water quantities for agricultural use. In the instant case, the AGMOD calculations incorporated 87 years of rainfall data and its results reflect the quantities necessary in the event of a two-in-ten-year drought. Similarly, the AGMOD calculations in the instant case take into account the change in irrigation efficiency from 65 percent to 75 percent. Behrens suggested that Boran should not be allowed to use any more water until minimum flows and levels are established for the intermediate aquifer in the vicinity. However, Behrens could cite no authority for imposing such a moratorium. Meanwhile, the more persuasive evidence was that no such moratorium would be reasonable or appropriate. See Finding 49 and Conclusion 86, infra. Behrens also suggested that inputs to AGMOD should assume more Bahia and less St. Augustine grass so as to reduce the resulting amount of reasonable demand. He also suggested that Boran's reasonable demand should not take into account possible future increases in St. Augustine grass production based on possible future market demand increases. But it does not appear that the District requires an applicant to differentiate among various types of grasses when inputting the crop type variable into the AGMOD model for purposes of determining reasonable demand. See Water Use Permit Information Manual, Part C, Design Aids (District Exhibit 2C), Table D-1, p. C4-9. The evidence proved that Boran demonstrated that the proposed use will not cause quantity or quality changes that adversely impact the water resources, on either an individual or cumulative basis, including both surface and ground waters, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(b). Data from water quality monitoring reports indicate that water quality at Boran Ranch and in the region has remained fairly consistent. There were no statistically significant declining trend in water levels in the region. Behrens admitted that water quality in his well has been consistently good. One apparent increase in total dissolved solids and chlorides in DID #1 was explained as being a reporting error. Boran inadvertently reported some findings from DID #2 as coming from DID #1. Until the error was corrected, this made it appear that water quality from DID #1 had decreased because, while DID #1 is open only to the intermediate aquifer, DID #2 is open to both the intermediate aquifer and the upper Florida aquifer, which has poorer water quality. Both Boran and the District used the MODFLOW model, a generally accepted tool in the field of hydrogeology, to analyze withdrawal impacts. The purpose of modeling is to evaluate impacts of a proposed use on the aquifer tapped for withdrawals, and any overlying aquifers including surficial aquifers connected to lakes and wetlands. MODFLOW uses mathematics to simulate the different aquifer parameters for each production unit determined from aquifer performance testing. During the permit application process, both Boran and the District conducted groundwater modeling by simply adding the proposed new quantities to models developed for Boran's permit application in 1999. The models were comparable but not identical; the District's model was somewhat more detailed in that it separated predicted drawdowns into more aquifer producing units. Both models satisfied the District that the proposed modification would have no adverse impact on water resources. After the challenge to the Proposed Agency Action, the District created a new model to assess the impact of only the additional quantities requested by the modification. This new model added some aquifer parameters obtained from Regional Observation Monitoring Program (ROMP) well 9.5, which was constructed very close to the Boran Ranch in 1999. (Information from ROMP 9.5 was not available at the time of the earlier models.) The new model allowed the District to limit the scope of its review to those changes proposed by the modification. The results of this model show that impacts are localized and that most are within the confines of Boran’s property. The greatest impacts resulting from the proposed modification would occur in the Suwannee Limestone producing unit (the upper-most portion of the upper Floridan aquifer), the unit to be tapped by DID #6. The confining unit above the upper Floridan aquifer in this region of DeSoto County is approximately 300-400 feet thick, and impacts on the intermediate aquifer, which is above this confining unit, are much less. When the District's new model was run for peak monthly withdrawals (423,900 gpd for 90 days), the model's 1.0 foot drawdown contour was contained within the confines of Boran’s property, and the 0.1 foot drawdown contour extended only approximately two miles out from the well node of DID #6. Atmospheric barometric changes can cause fluctuations in aquifer levels that exceed a tenth of a foot. As minimal as these modeled impacts appear to be, they are larger than would be expected in reality. This is because, for several reasons, MODFLOW is a conservative model- -i.e., impacts modeled are greater than impacts that would be likely in actuality. First, MODFLOW is a mathematical, asyntopic model. This means it models very gradually decreasing drawdowns continuing over long distances as predicted drawdowns approach zero. This tends to over-predict impacts at greater distances from the withdrawal. In reality, the heterogeneity or discontinuity of confining units cuts down on drawdown effects. The steepest drawdowns occur at a well node and then decline relatively rapidly with distance. Second, several model inputs are conservative. The annual average quantities for water use generated under the AGMOD methodology is based on a two-in-ten-year drought year. The peak month quantity applies to the three driest months within the two-in-ten-year drought period. The MODFLOW model applies this 90-day peak usage continuous pumping under AGMOD and conservatively assumes no rainfall or recharge to the aquifers during this period. Both of these are extremely conservative assumptions for this region of Florida. The District's determination of reasonable assurances "on both an individual and a cumulative basis" in water use permit cases only considers the sum of the impact of the applicant's proposal, together with all other existing impacts (and perhaps also the impacts of contemporaneous applicants). The impacts of future applicants are not considered. This differs from the cumulative impact review under Part IV of Chapter 373 (environmental resource permitting). See Conclusions 80-84, infra. Modeling is a component of the District’s assessment of impacts on a cumulative basis. In addition, the District reviewed and assessed hydrographs of the potentiometric surface from nearby ROMP wells, water quality data, permit history of the Boran site, and regional hydrologic conditions. The hydrographs represent the accumulation of all impacts from pumpage in the area and show stable groundwater levels in the region. Water quality also is stable, with no declining trends. The permit history indicates that permitted withdrawals on the Boran site have declined. For all of these reasons, the evidence was that Boran's proposed withdrawals would create no adverse impacts on water resources on a cumulative basis. The evidence proved that the proposed agency action will not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, lakes, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(c). Due to the significant confinement between the source aquifers and the surficial aquifer and surface water bodies, the modeling results show no adverse impact to the surficial aquifer, and no adverse impact to wetlands, streams, estuaries, fish and wildlife, or other natural resources. The evidence was that there are no minimum flows or levels set for the area in question. Furthermore, Standard Condition 9 of the Proposed Agency Action requires Boran to cease or reduce withdrawals as directed by the District if water levels should fall below any minimum level later established by the District. The more persuasive evidence was that the requirements of section 4.3 of the District's Basis of Review have been met. (A moratorium on water use permits until establishment of minimum flows and levels would be neither reasonable nor appropriate.) The evidence proved that the proposed use will utilize the lowest water quality he has the ability to use, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(e), because the new withdrawals are exclusively from the upper Floridan aquifer, which has poorer quality than the intermediate aquifer. Deeper aquifers cannot be used because the water quality is poorer than the upper Floridan aquifer, and it is technically and economically infeasible to use it for agricultural purposes. Behrens suggests that Boran should be required to discontinue all withdrawals of higher quality water from the intermediate aquifer as part of the proposed modification. While an offer to do so might be welcomed (as was Boran's offer to install subsurface seepage irrigation and apply the higher efficiency percentage to the entire Boran Ranch), Behrens could cite no authority for imposing such a condition; and the more persuasive evidence was that imposition of such a condition would be neither reasonable nor appropriate under the circumstances of this case. The evidence proved that the proposed use will not significantly induce saline water intrusion, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(f), because the model results show that the drawdown contours do not approach anywhere near the ETBWUCA or MIA areas. Boran's Ranch is located approximately 21 miles from the MIA boundary and 10.8 miles from ETBWUCA boundary. Further, Boran must monitor the water quality in DID #1 and DID #4 and document any changes in water quality as a result of the withdrawals. The parties have stipulated that the proposed use meets the requirements of Rule 40D-2.301(1)(g) and will not cause pollution of the aquifer. The evidence proved that the proposed use will not adversely impact offsite land uses existing at the time of the application, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(h), because the modeling showed no impact to the surficial aquifer or land use outside Boran Ranch. The confinement between the point of withdrawal and the surface is too great to impact offsite land uses in the instant case. The evidence proved that the proposed use will not adversely impact any existing legal withdrawal, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i), based on the ROMP hydrographs and modeling showing minimal drawdowns outside the boundaries of Boran Ranch. Behrens claims that Boran's proposed modification will adversely impact his well, which is approximately 3.5 miles northeast of the northeast corner of the Boran property and over four miles away from DID #6. But the greater weight of the evidence was to the contrary. (The wells of other DCAP members were even further away, making impacts even less likely.) Behrens has no independent knowledge of the depth of his two-inch well but believes it is approximately 150 feet deep, which would place it within the intermediate aquifer. In view of the consistent quality of Behrens' well water, and the nature of his well construction, it is most likely that Behrens' well does not penetrate the confining layer between the intermediate aquifer and the upper Floridan aquifer. If 150 feet deep, Behrens' well would not extend into the deepest producing unit of the intermediate aquifer (PZ-3); rather, it would appear to extend into the next deepest producing unit of the intermediate aquifer (PZ-2). But it is possible that Behrens' well cross-connects the PZ-2 and the shallowest producing unit of the intermediate aquifer (PZ-1). (The evidence did not even rule out the possibility that Behrens' well also is open to the surficial aquifer.) Assuming that Behrens' well is open to the PZ-2 only, conservative MODFLOW modeling predicts no impact at all from the proposed modification. (Behrens' well would be outside the zero drawdown contour.) Meanwhile, hydrographs of PZ-2 from nearby ROMP wells show marked fluctuations (five-foot oscillations) of the potentiometric surfaces in producing units of the intermediate aquifer. These fluctuations appear to coincide with increased pumping out of the intermediate aquifer. These fluctuations in the potentiometric surface are not being transmitted up from the upper Floridan aquifer or down from the surficial aquifer. The potentiometric surface in those aquifers do not exhibit matching fluctuations. It appears that the intermediate aquifer is being impacted almost exclusively by pumping out of that aquifer. (This evidence also confirms the integrity of the relatively thick confining layer between the intermediate and the upper Floridan aquifers, which serves to largely insulate Behrens' well from the influence of pumping out of the upper Floridan.) Behrens seems to contend that, in order to determine adverse impacts on a cumulative basis, the impact of Boran's entire withdrawal, existing and proposed, which is modeled conservatively at approximately 0.3 feet, must be considered. But the District considers an adverse impact to an existing legal withdrawal to consist of an impact large enough to necessitate modification to the producing well in order for it to continue to function as intended. The greater weight of the evidence was that the well on Behrens' property was not designed to be a free-flowing well but was designed to use a pump to operate as intended. At the time Behrens purchased his property, there was a well and a non-functioning pump on the property. Even at the beginning of his ownership, he did not always have running water without a functioning pump. In approximately 1986 or 1987, Behrens installed a new electric pump because it allowed the well to produce more water. After installation of the pump, Behrens raised his trailer an additional five feet (to guard against flooding) which caused it to be approximately ten feet high, meaning the water had to travel that much farther against gravity to reach Behrens' faucets. For most of the time that he has owned the property, Behrens has used a pump on the well. Behrens installed a check valve to allow him to turn off the pump. Sometimes during storm or flood conditions, electric power failed or was cut off, and Behrens was forced to rely solely on artesian flow, which was sometimes adequate in flood conditions during the rainy season. At other times when artesian flow was adequate, Behrens would turn off the pump and rely solely on artesian flow. But it also was sometimes necessary for Behrens to use the pump to get adequate water flow. During the summer of 2001, Behrens' pump failed, and he had to rely solely on artesian flow. As in prior years, artesian flow was sometimes inadequate. In order to be able to get at least some artesian flow for the maximum amount of time, Behrens lowered the spigot on his well by about two feet. Although Behrens is aware that the iron casing of his well could corrode over time, he has never called a licensed well driller or other contractor to inspect his well. Behrens did not test his own well for possible blockage that would result in a lower yield. Furthermore, Behrens admits that his whole outdoor water system needs to be completely replaced. The evidence proved that the proposed use will incorporate water conservation measures, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(k), based on the water conservation plan submitted to the District, installation of a state-of-the-art irrigation system, increase in efficient use of the water, and decrease in the application rate. (Behrens' arguments that Boran has been allowed to use too much water and his question as to the existence of hardpan underlying Boran's fields already has been addressed. See Findings 27 and 35, supra.) The parties have stipulated that Boran has demonstrated that the proposed use will incorporate reuse measures to the greatest extent practicable, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(l). The evidence proved that the proposed use will not cause water to go to waste, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(m), because the irrigation method is the most efficient system that is economically and technically feasible available for sod. (Behrens' question as to the existence of hardpan underlying Boran's fields already has been addressed. See Finding 27, supra.) The evidence proved that the proposed use will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources of the District, as required by Rule 40D-2.301(1)(n), based on the review of all other permit criteria. Propriety of Behrens' Purpose Behrens did not review the District's permit file on Boran's application before he filed his petition. The evidence suggested that he traveled to the District's Sarasota office for that purpose but found on his arrival that the complete permit file was not available for inspection there. Because of the filing deadline, he did not find time to make another attempt to review the permit file of record before he filed his petition. Behrens also did not contact Boran, the District or anyone else with any questions about the proposed agency action before filing his petition. He also did not visit Boran’s property, and made no inquiry as to the irrigation system employed by Boran. Behrens also did not do any additional legal research (beyond what he had done in connection with other water use permit proceedings) before filing his petition. Behrens believed he had all the information he needed to file his petition. Behrens has previously filed at least one unsuccessful petition challenging the District’s issuance of a water use permit. See Behrens v. Southwest Fla. Water Management Dist., DOAH Case No. 00-4801 (DOAH Jan. 29, 2001). DCAP, with Behrens acting as its president, has previously filed at least three unsuccessful petitions challenging the District’s issuance of a water use permit. See, e.g., DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc. v. Farmland Hydro Limited Partnership, DOAH Case No. 02-232 (Southwest Fla. Water Man. Dist. June 25, 2002); DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc. v. Southwest Fla. Water Management Dist., DOAH Case No. 01- 3056 (DOAH Aug. 22, 2001); DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc. v. Southwest Fla. Water Management Dist., DOAH Case No. 01-2917 (DOAH Sept. 24, 2001). However, none of those proceedings involved a project at the Boran site. It is found that, under the totality of circumstances, Behrens' and DCAP's participation in this proceeding was not for an improper purpose--i.e., not primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of Boran's permit modification. While a reasonable person would not have raised and pursued some of the issues raised by Behrens and DCAP in this proceeding, it cannot be found that all of the issues they raised were frivolous or that their participation in this proceeding was for an improper purpose. It appears that Behrens based his standing in part on the requirement in Rule 40D-2.301(1)(i) that Boran provide reasonable assurances that the proposed use will not adversely impact an existing legal withdrawal to be provided "on both an individual and a cumulative basis.” (Emphasis added.) Not unreasonably, Behrens argued that this requirement allowed him to base his standing on alleged injuries from all of Boran's withdrawals, existing and proposed, which would create a 0.3- foot drawdown on his well. While his argument is rejected, it cannot be found to be frivolous or made for improper purpose. Behrens' argument that Boran did not meet Rule 40D- 2.301(1)(i) was based on the 0.3-foot drawdown and his position that his well was designed to be artesian free- flowing. While Behrens' proposed finding was rejected, the position he took is not found to be frivolous or taken for improper purpose. Several other arguments made and positions taken by Behrens have been rejected. See Findings 27, 34, 35, and 51, supra, and Conclusions 86-87, infra. But they cannot all be found to have been frivolous or made and taken for improper purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter an order granting Boran’s water use permit application number 20009478.005; and denying the motions for attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. Jurisdiction is reserved to enter a final order on the part of the motions for sanctions under Section 120.569(2)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 29th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan R. Behrens, President DeSoto Citizens Against Pollution, Inc. 4070 Southwest Armadillo Trail Arcadia, Florida 34266 Mary Beth Russell, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 E.D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987, an application for conditional use approval to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (2COP) was filed on behalf of Leland Farnsworth for property located at 2838 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG) and single family residential (RS-8). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on September 1, 1987. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 4-1 to grant conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioners on September 15, 1987. Petitioners are surrounding property owners whose property is located within five hundred feet of the subject property. With this application, Farnsworth seeks approval for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages since he intends to convert the use of the property from a motel to a restaurant and bar. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of several residences, including Petitioners'.
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Petitioner, Warren M. Briggs ("Briggs"), should be issued a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot with jurisdictional wetlands in Santa Rosa County, Florida, as proposed in his application submission of 1998; and Whether the Department would permit the construction of a single-family dwelling on the subject lot under conditions and circumstances other than those set forth in Briggs' application.
Findings Of Fact Briggs is the owner of Lot 67, Block H, Paradise Bay Subdivision, located in southern Santa Rosa County ("Briggs lot"). Paradise Bay Subdivision was developed in approximately 1980, prior to the passage in 1984 of the Warren Henderson Wetland Protection Act. (Official Recognition of Section 403.918, Florida Statutes). The subdivision consists of modestly priced single- family homes that are attractive to young families because of the quality of nearby schools. The typical non-waterfront home in the subdivision is single story, approximately 2,000 square feet in area, and built on a concrete slab. The typical setback from the road to the front edge of a home is 75 feet. This fairly consistent setback from the road prevents the view from one home into the adjacent property owner’s back yard and, thereby, adversely affecting the neighbor’s property value. The undeveloped Briggs lot was purchased in 1981 for approximately $15,000 and remains undeveloped. Briggs bought the lot, along with three other lots in the subdivision, as investment property. The other three lots have been sold. One of the lots sold earlier by Briggs was a waterfront lot on East Bay located in jurisdictional wetlands. The entire lot was filled pursuant to a permit issued by the Department. The Briggs lot is 90 feet wide by 200 feet deep. It is located on the south side of Paradise Bay Drive. The lots on the north side of Paradise Bay Drive are waterfront lots on East Bay. To the rear (south) of the Briggs lot and other lots on the south side of Paradise Bay Drive, is a large swamp that eventually discharges into East Bay. The major connection between the Briggs lot and East Bay is through a culvert under Paradise Bay Drive. The Briggs’ lot consists of 2,914 square feet of uplands and 15,086 square feet of state jurisdictional wetland, with all of the uplands located in the northern half of the lot. Converted to acres, the Briggs lot consists of 0.067 acres of uplands and 0.347 acres of state jurisdictional wetland. Lot 66, immediately east of the Briggs lot, has been cleared and is about half tietie swamp with the remainder consisting of uplands and disturbed wetlands. Some fill has been placed on the lot. Lot 68, immediately west of the Briggs lot, is undeveloped and consists of all tietie wetlands. Lots 69, 70 and 71 of Block H of the subdivision are undeveloped and consist primarily of wetlands. The Department issued a permit on October 31, 1996, that allowed the owners of Lot 71 to fill 0.22 acres (9,570 square feet) of wetlands. The fill is allowed to a lot depth of 145 feet on the west side, and to a width of 73 feet of the total lot width of 90 feet. The fill area is bordered on the east and west by wetland areas not to be filled. The Department issued a permit on November 13, 1997, that allowed the owner of Lot 61 to fill 0.26 acres (11,310 square feet) of wetlands. Fill is allowed over the entire northern 125 feet of the 185 foot-deep lot. On April 28, 1998, Briggs applied to the Department for a permit to fill Lot 67. The Department, in its letter of August 7, 1998, and its permit denial of September 2, 1998, erroneously described the project as consisting of 0.47 acres of fill. The entire lot consists of only 0.41 acres, of which 0.067 acres is uplands, leaving a maximum area of fill of 0.343 acres. If Briggs’ residential lot is to be used, some impact to the wetlands on the lot is unavoidable. Alternatives discussed by Briggs and the Department, three of which are still available for Briggs to accept, included the following: One hundred feet of fill with a bulkhead separating the fill from the wetland area, with no off-site mitigation; Fill pad could be placed on property with the remainder of the wetlands on the site to remain in their natural state with no backyard, with no off-site mitigation required; One hundred feet of fill with a bulkhead separating the fill material from the wetland, with a small back yard, with no off-site mitigation required. Briggs did not accept any of the foregoing alternatives or proposed acceptable mitigation measures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the permit application, provided that the parties may reach subsequent agreement regarding proper mitigation in order to make the construction of a single-family dwelling possible on the Petitioner’s property in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ DON W. DAVIS 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 19th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collette, Esquire Lucinda R. Roberts, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Jesse W. Rigby, Esquire Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry Bond and Stackhouse 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 Post Office Box 13010 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3010 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this appeal is whether to sustain the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Board (the Board) to deny Thomas Nott a conditional use permit to sell pre-owned motor vehicles at his business at 700 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Thomas A. Nott owns Lots 6 and 7, Gould & Ewing's Plat 2nd Addition. The street address is 700 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, Florida. This property is on the northeast corner of Cleveland Street and East Avenue. The property is in the Core-2 (C-2) subdistrict of the Urban Center (UC) zoning district. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan states in pertinent part: An extremely important aspect of the way Downtown Clearwater functions and is perceived involves transportation within and into the Downtown. If the traffic flow into Downtown is efficient and the entryways are attractive, Downtown Clearwater is more likely to be frequented by citizens and visitors. If traffic flow is congested and the roadsides are unappealing, the Downtown is less likely to be a place where people visit, live and shop and where entrepreneurs invest money. * * * Cleveland Street is the single most important roadway in Downtown Clearwater. Due to it[s] "Business S.R. 60" designation, it carries a substantial amount of the traffic heading to Clearwater Beach, as well as the bulk of the office and retail traffic headed for Downtown. . . . In the Downtown Core area, Cleveland Street has been attractively landscaped with paving block and planters. This treatment has greatly improved the appearance of the Downtown along Cleveland Street. However, these efforts are, to some extent, undermined by the poorly landscaped sections of Cleveland Street outside the Downtown Core area. Land uses outside of the Downtown Core along Cleveland Street are relatively unattractive and are poorly landscaped. A remedial landscaping program should be considered as a top priority for improving this important entryway. The City also has adopted Design Guidelines for new construction, building additions, facade alterations, and signage for the Urban Center zoning district. A section on "Landscape and Streetscape Guidelines" suggests the use of different kinds of planters and curb "neck-out" street corners to create larger pedestrian areas that incorporate benches, specialized pavers, and lighted bollards. Landscaping, including shade trees, are suggested to provide separation between people and vehicles. A subsection on "Open Spaces" states: "Designers of site improvement areas are encouraged to explore opportunities to incorporate usable open space with the project (development) area." Nott's property is in a transition area between the more attractively landscaped City core to the west and the less attractive portions of Cleveland Street to the east. Immediately to the west across East Avenue is the Pinellas Trail. Immediately to the west of the Trail, fronting on Cleveland Street, is the historic United States Post Office building, which is listed on the National Register of historic buildings. (Since it still functions as a working post office, a large number of mail delivery trucks park and operate out of the back of the post office to the north.) The Trickels Jewelers building to the immediate east of Nott's property also is attractively landscaped, especially along Myrtle Avenue. The other properties to the north, east, and south of Nott's property are less attractive. They include: an automobile and marine repair business; a restaurant with little or no open space; an import car repair service business with little or no open space; and a car rental business. Ideally, the City would like Nott's property to become the start of an eastward expansion of the more attractive urban core along Cleveland Street. Nott's property is 0.26 acre in area; its dimensions are 105 feet in width and 109 feet in depth. Unlike most properties in the downtown urban core, the building on Nott's property is set back quite a distance from the streets. The building has one story and is just 1500 square feet. In the past, the property has been used as an automobile gas and service station and as a car rental business. Before Nott bought the property, the building was in disrepair and in decline. Approximately four years ago, Nott was considering relocating from South Beach in Miami, where he was in the business of selling pre-owned motor vehicles. Initially, he investigated relocating to Dunedin, but an official with Clearwater's redevelopment agency persuaded him to take advantage of Clearwater's commitment to redevelop the downtown urban core, as well as interest-free financing available through the agency to improve the property. Nott bought the property, borrowed approximately $50,000 interest-free, and invested that and an additional $50,000 of his own money to improve the property. His plan was to conduct two businesses at the property: a roller skate and bicycle rental business catering to users of the Pinellas Trail; and a pre-owned motor vehicle sales business. Due to family priorities, Nott had to delay his departure from Miami and only was able, with the help of a nephew, to open the skate and bicycle shop. The 121 square feet of storefront planned for the vehicle sales business was used as storage space for the skate and bicycle shop pending opening of the vehicle sales business. The skate and bicycle shop, called Fritz's Skate Shop, had been operating for approximately three years when Nott became ready to open his pre-owned vehicle sales business. When he went to get an occupational license towards the end of 1998, Nott learned that a conditional use permit would be required. In discussions with staff of the City's Planning and Zoning Board, Nott also was informed that a new zoning code was going into effect which would prohibit vehicles sales at Nott's property and that he would have to expedite his application for it to be considered under the existing zoning regulations. Nott filed an application for a conditional use approval on or about January 12, 1999. At the time, Nott was not familiar with Clearwater's zoning regulations and did not address some zoning requirements. Specifically, while the sketch Nott drew by hand to approximate scale to serve as the required site plan met the minimum requirements as to form, it only showed a three-foot grass buffer along Cleveland Street and a three-foot buffer of shrubs along East Avenue, while the City's development code required at least a ten-foot landscaped buffer along Cleveland Street and at least a five-foot landscaped buffer along East Avenue. The sketch also showed parking that would obstruct vehicle flow in the parking lot and failed to show a large oak tree on the site. Finally, the sketch showed parking for the display of vehicles for sale along Cleveland Street. Nott's application was set for hearing at the Board's last scheduled meeting on March 2, 1999, just six days before the new zoning and development code would take effect. Nott still did not know all of the applicable regulations under the existing code. For some reason, Nott did not obtain a complete set of the City's zoning and development regulations until approximately February 17, 1999. Nott blamed the delay on foot-dragging by the Board's staff, and he questioned whether the staff was being uncooperative to undermine his application. Nott testified that he did not get a complete set of the applicable zoning and development regulations until after he sent a letter of complaint to the staff director on February 13, 1999. The staff denied any intention to delay Nott's application or be uncooperative. The staff blamed some of the delay on the time it took for Nott to prepare and submit an acceptable site plan. It appears that Nott entered into the application process thinking that there would be no problem meeting the City's requirements and expecting the Board's staff to walk him through the process. When Nott's expectations were not met, he perceived that the staff was treating him unfairly. But it is found that Nott's evidence did not prove unfair treatment. In fact, due to Nott's inexperience, the staff was required to give Nott more assistance than usual. For his presentation to the Board, Nott had a consultant use a photograph of the site to create a computer- visualization of the proposed vehicle sales business. The photograph depicted one vehicle parked in front of the building, as well as four vehicles parked along Cleveland Street and one parked along the east property line in two of the areas identified on the site plan as parking for the display of vehicles for sale. The visualization did not add any landscaping. At the time, Nott thought the concern was adequate parking; he did not know at the time that landscaping also would be important to his application. When Nott got and reviewed the applicable zoning and development code provisions and the staff's report, he realized that he had not addressed the landscaping buffer requirements. He had his consultant further modify the computer-visualization to add a landscaping buffer. This visualization was presented at the Board hearing on March 2, 1999. However, the visualization still depicted vehicles parked along Cleveland Street and was not clear as to the width of the landscaping buffer. The site plan was not modified, so the extent of the proposed landscaping buffer could not be ascertained from the site plan. At the Board hearing, Nott stated that he would be willing to do whatever the City said was necessary in order for him to receive a conditional use permit. But Nott made no specific proposals. Essentially, Nott was asking the City to formulate an acceptable application for him. The staff report indicated that an on-site traffic circulation problem could be cured by eliminating two customer parking spaces in front of the building. But it was impossible to determine from the evidence in the record how a wider landscaping buffer would impact either traffic circulation in the parking lot, parking, or the large oak tree. The staff report pointed out that Nott's application proposed to maintain minimal (7%) open space on the site. The neighbor to the immediate east (Trickels Jewelers) has 30-35% open space, including attractive landscaping along Myrtle Avenue. At the Board hearing, Nott claimed "open space" credit for the shade canopy provided by the large oak tree on-site and contended that the credit would increase his "open space" to 30-35% as well. But even if open space credit can be given for shade canopy over a parking lot, Nott's testimony was insufficient to prove the extent of the tree's shade canopy. Besides, it could not be ascertained from the record whether the tree would have to be removed to meet landscaping buffer, traffic circulation, and parking requirements. Nott testified at the appeal hearing that, after he proposed and depicted parking of vehicles for sale along Cleveland Street, the "Division of Motor Vehicles" advised him that it would not allow him to display vehicles in that location. Nott testified that he would simply eliminate the display parking spaces along Cleveland Street and limit the display of vehicles for sale to 12 at any one time in parking spaces adjacent to the building and along the east property line. But it was not clear from the record whether all of the remaining spaces depicted on the site plan for display parking would remain available for that purpose after adding landscaping buffer, and also maintaining adequate traffic circulation and customer parking. In addition to agreeing to meet the perimeter landscape buffer requirements, Nott also agreed to condition approval on: (1) operating his vehicle sales business only 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday through Saturday; (2) not using windshield advertising, flags, or banners; (3) only selling vehicles with a retail value of $10,000 or more; and (4) not operating a "buy here-pay here" used car lot.
The Issue Whether Appellant was wrongfully denied a variance of 21.33 feet to construct a second floor deck at 673 Bay Esplanade, Five Palms Motel Condo, Clearwater, Florida.
Findings Of Fact John Shaw, a resident of Massachusetts, purchased the condominium for which the variance is here requested in December, 1988 without first visiting the property or inquiring about zoning restrictions. The unit purchased is on the second floor of a two story building earlier converted from a hotel or motel into condominiums. The seller told Shaw he could construct a deck over the existing deck on the ground floor condominium below the unit purchased by Shaw. While the construction of this deck was in progress it was discovered no permit had been pulled for the project and the work was stopped. The subsequent application for a permit was denied because the proposed deck encroached some 21.33 feet into the setback area. The application for a variance was denied by the Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board and this appeal followed. The two buildings comprising this complex were erected many years ago and are non-conforming, i.e., the buildings themselves violate the current Development Code. An existing deck extending into the setback area was constructed on the unit directly below the condominium purchased by Shaw and a similar deck extending to the seawall was constructed on an adjacent building. No permits are on file for those decks. Construction of the proposed deck would improve the livability of the condominium greatly by expanding the area usable for looking seaward. The condominium has been used without this deck for many years. This property is zoned CR-24 and the setback requirement is 25 feet from the water's edge.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 13, 1986, Petitioner applied to Respondent for a conditional use permit to allow the package sale of alcoholic beverages in a convenience store at 410 through 422 North Belcher Road, Clearwater, Florida. The property is located in a general commercial district. On or about April 15, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Clearwater denied Petitioner's application and on April 28, 1986, Petitioner timely appealed that decision. Petitioner's property is immediately adjacent to Faith Bible Church which operates Suncoast Christian School with approximately 120 students through the sixth grade, and the property is across the street from Trinity Baptist Church which operates a school with approximately 200 preschool through first grade students. The subject property is within 500 feet of the property of both of these churches, and there are two additional churches in the neighborhood. Richard Tobias, property appraiser, testified that convenience stores such as the one Petitioner proposes do not enhance the properties in their immediate vicinity, although they are generally an asset to the neighborhood as a whole due to the convenience of local shopping. Public witnesses expressed concern about the proximity of the proposed convenience store to churches and schools because of litter problems which they feel could develops as well as public drinking in the store parking lot. The use and enjoyment of such church and school properties will be adversely affected if the conditional use is approved, accordingly to the testimony and evidence presented by public witnesses. Petitioner, as property owner, plans to lease the subject property to Carlos Yepes, President of Clay Oil Enterprises, for the operation of the convenience store. Yepes operates seven other stores which sell beer and wine, and according to Denise Williams, leasing agent, there have been no neighborhood or police complaints concerning Yepes' operations.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether to approve an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) modification for the construction of a surface water management system, to be issued to Respondent, Miromar Lakes, LLC (Miromar), which will serve a 29.08-acre single- family residential development known as The Peninsula Phase IV (Phase IV) located in Lee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Miromar is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns property in the Miromar Lakes community in Lee County on which a development known as Phase IV will be constructed. Miromar is the applicant for the Phase IV permit. The District is a government entity with the power and duty to exercise regulatory jurisdiction over the proposed project pursuant to part IV, chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code. In implementing this power and duty, the District has adopted the Applicant's Handbook (AH) to provide standards and guidance to applicants. Alico is a Florida limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Myers, Florida. It is the owner of property immediately adjacent to and north of Miromar's property. Respondents have stipulated to the facts necessary to establish Alico's standing. The Conceptual Permit This case concerns Miromar's application to modify a conceptual permit issued by the District more than 15 years ago. On June 10, 1999, the District issued ERP Permit No. 36-03568-P, a conceptual approval permit for the development of a large, mixed-use residential development with a golf course, known as Miromar Lakes, that lies east of Interstate 75 (I-75), south of Alico Road, and north of Florida Gulf Coast University. The permit also approved a surface water management system designed to serve a 1481.1-acre mixed-use development within Miromar Lakes. Alico asserts that the permit is so vague in future development details that it is impossible to determine whether Phase IV is consistent with its terms and conditions. However, the 1999 permit was not contested, and any attempt in this proceeding to challenge that permit, or subsequent modifications to the permit that are now final, is untimely. A conceptual permit is available to applicants who wish to have their design concept approved for a master plan or future plan. So long as the future phases are consistent with the conceptual permit and there are no changes to applicable state water quality standards or special basin criteria, the applicant does not need to reapply under the current rules for subsequent phases. Instead, it allows an applicant to take advantage of the rules in effect at the time of the original permit issuance. A conceptual permit typically leaves construction details to future development decisions. As District witness Waterhouse explained, this is "the nature of a conceptual permit." Because the landowner does not know the precise manner in which the property will be developed years down the road, "it doesn't make sense to force the landowner to pretend that they do because it's a pretty good bet that those things are going to change to some extent in the future." By way of example, Waterhouse noted that "[a]s long as it's single family proposed then and it's proposed now, I would characterize that as sufficient detail." It is not surprising, then, that the 1999 permit contains very little detail regarding the existence, location, or development of roads, lots, a stormwater management system, or grading, and that the construction permit for Phase IV has far more detail than the conceptual permit. Even Alico's expert agreed that there is no requirement that a conceptual permit include the details of each subsequent construction phase. A fair inference to draw is that the District intended for the developer to have considerable latitude in developing the large tract of undeveloped land, phase by phase, over the life of the conceptual permit. The 1999 permit has been modified over 60 times since its issuance, and to date, significant portions of Miromar Lakes have been constructed. Except for the current, on-going feud between Miromar and Alico over several recent or pending applications (see Case Nos. 15-1050, 15-3937, and 15-5621), none of these modifications were contested. The Property at Issue Phase IV is a 29.08-acre subdivision within an area of the Miromar Lakes community known as the Peninsula. Located within Basin 6, Phase IV is the last phase of development approved by the conceptual permit for residential development in the Peninsula. All prior Peninsula phases have been permitted and developed, or are in the process of development. Prior phases were permitted based on their consistency with the conceptual permit, and none were challenged by third parties. The area under Miromar's requested permit in the instant case was conceptually authorized for single-family residential development. This is confirmed by language in the 1999 permit, which describes the conceptual proposal for Basin 6 as "includ[ing] 639.7 acres of residential, golf course, and mixed-used [sic] development." Jt. Ex. 3, p. 275. The permit also provides that each of the four sub-basins in Basin 6 should "have a water quality structure that provides treatment for the first one inch of stormwater runoff from the sub-basin . . . and that attenuation for Basin 6 is achieved onsite via the proposed sub-basin lakes and also by an existing 244.2-acre borrow lake." Id. While the 1999 permit establishes standards for flood control elevations, minimum lot elevations, and discharge rates, more specific development guidance is not provided. When the conceptual permit was issued, Basin 6 contained one former mining pit dredged from uplands to be used as a man-made lake for recreational purposes. A second mining pit, later converted to a lake, continued mining operations until 2006. The following year, the District authorized the two borrow lakes to be connected by a series of channels and canals, forming a privately-owned, 660-acre waterbody now known as Lake 5/6. Alico's property includes Lake 5, which makes up the northern portion of Lake 5/6, while Lake 6 to the south, owned by the Miromar Lakes Community Development District, is surrounded by Miromar's development. Alico has an easement over portions of Lake 6 for recreational uses under a Lake Use Agreement. Because the two connected lakes are to be used only for recreation and attenuation purposes, Lake 5/6 is designated as Class III waters and cannot be used for stormwater treatment. It is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or an Impaired Florida Waterbody. Lake 5/6 discharges over a control weir into an un- channeled slough system known as the Stewart Cypress Slough. The water travels several miles through the slough system, passes several intervening properties that also discharge waters into the slough, and then runs underneath I-75. It eventually reaches the Estero River, an OFW and Impaired Florida Waterbody, which flows into the Estero Bay, an OFW. There is no direct discharge of waters from Lake 5/6 to the Estero River. The evidence shows that the project will not increase the overall discharge rate from the control weir for Lake 5/6. In February 2013, the District approved another Miromar application, known as Phase III, which authorized the third phase of development within the same peninsula where the Phase IV project will be located. That development contains two wet detention structures (Lakes 1 and 3) that will also service the Phase IV project. The Phase III permit was issued using the 1999 rules and regulations and was not contested. The Application The Original Application On November 25, 2014, the District issued its notice of intent to issue Miromar a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a stormwater system serving 29.08 acres of residential development that included multi-family residences, single-family residences, 49 boat slips, and road construction. Phase IV is a very small portion of the 1,481-acre development approved in the conceptual permit. The project is located on Via Salerno Way and Via Cassina Court within Basin 6. Construction was originally proposed in Sub-Basins 1 and 3. There is an approved Master Plan for stormwater management facilities within the project area. The site was previously cleared and filled and no wetlands are located on the site. The original construction in Sub-Basin 1 consisted of a roadway, 22 single-family residential lots, and stormwater conveyance facilities. Also included were shoreline contour shaping, placement of rip-rap on portions of the Lake 5/6 shoreline to enhance stability, enhanced littoral zones, and boat docks. Stormwater within that Sub-Basin flows via sheet flow and interconnected inlets to the existing wet detention area (Lake 1) located in Phase III north of the site. The wet detention area provides the required water quality treatment volume for the project prior to discharge to Lake 5/6. The original proposed construction in Sub-Basin 3 consisted of a roadway, 11 single-family residential lots, and 16 multi-family buildings with associated internal roadway, parking areas, and stormwater treatment, storage, and conveyance facilities. Also included within the original plans were shoreline contour shaping, placement of rip-rap on portions of Lake 5/6 shoreline to enhance stability, enhanced littoral zones, and boat docks. Stormwater runoff within Sub-Basin 3 flows via sheet flow and interconnected inlets to the existing wet detention area (Lake 3) located in Phase III north of the site. The original application included a request to increase the surface area of Lake 3 by approximately 0.1 acre and to construct three dry detention areas within the multi-family development area. The wet and dry detention areas provide the required water quality treatment for the project prior to discharge to Lake 5/6. The Revised Project After the case was referred to DOAH, by letter dated June 8, 2015, Miromar's project engineer provided the District with proposed changes to the site plan, to be used at the final hearing then scheduled to begin on June 24, 2015, which include the replacement of 16 multi-family buildings and driveways on Via Cassina Court with 23 single-family residential lots; removal of the 16 multi-family boat docks located at the southern end of Via Cassina Court; reducing the number of boat docks to 45 single-family docks; relocation of the three dry detention areas shown on the proposed site plan; and clarification of the lot grading cross-section to ensure that stormwater runoff from the development will be directed to the stormwater management system and not Lake 5/6. Updated plans, drawings, and specifications, and new water quality calculations accompanied the letter and were intended to replace original Exhibits 2.0 and 2.3 of the permit. See Jt. Ex. JA-1, pp. 244- 257. The changes resulted in a continuance of the final hearing and Alico's filing of an Amended Petition. By amendment at final hearing, Miromar removed the 45 single-family docks. The June 8 letter states that the changes will not increase pollution or reduce the efficiency of the stormwater management system. Miromar acknowledges that some of these changes were to resolve concerns raised by Alico. Miromar now seeks approval of the Phase IV permit, incorporating the changes proposed by the June 8 letter and those agreed to at the final hearing. Because there was no requirement to provide a site- specific nutrient loading analysis when the 1999 permit was issued -- this analysis was not yet formally developed -- the District did not require, and Miromar did not submit, such an analysis with its application. Under the conceptual permit, Miromar was required to provide treatment for one inch of stormwater runoff in Basin 6. Relying on this condition, Miromar applied that treatment to the Phase IV permit. This results in the treatment of 7.09 acre- feet of stormwater for the basin. After the construction shown in the permit, the stormwater management system will treat 9.21 acre-feet, or more than is required under the 1999 permit. The District established that new flood routing calculations for the project were not necessary because Miromar has set elevations for the water control structures in Lakes 1 and 3 at the same level as the road elevations, and the project connects to an existing surface water treatment system. This provides reasonable assurance that the project will not cause flooding despite having no calculations from the applicant. Alico's Objections Although couched in different terms, Alico's concerns can be generally summarized as follows. First, it contends the application should be treated as a major modification of the conceptual permit and that Miromar must satisfy current rules and regulations, and not those in effect in 1999. Second, it contends both the original and revised applications are inconsistent with the conceptual permit and must be treated as a new design, subject to all current rules and regulations. Third, even though Miromar agreed at hearing to revise its permit to address certain errors/deficiencies identified by Alico's experts, Alico contends no revisions can be made at this stage of the proceeding, and that a new application must be filed with the District and the review process started anew. Is the Application a Major or Minor Modification? If the modification is minor, Miromar is required only to satisfy applicable rules for issuance of a permit when the conceptual permit was issued. Rule 62-330.315 and AH section 6.2.1 provide guidance in resolving this issue. Rule 62-330.315(2)(g) defines a minor modification as one "that do[es] not substantially alter the permit authorization, increase permitted off-site discharge, increase the environmental impact of the project, decrease required retention, decrease required detention, decrease required flood control elevations, or decrease pollution removal efficiency." The rule also provides that the "factors that will be considered in determining whether a change is minor are described in section 6.2.1 of Volume I [of the Applicant's Handbook]." Section 6.2.1(d) lists a series of 14 factors to be considered in determining whether a modification will cause more than minor changes under rule 62-330.315(2). None of the factors is dispositive alone, and the presence of any single one of the factors does not necessarily mean that a modification is major. All 14 factors are considered together in determining whether a modification is major. Using the factors set forth in rule 62-330.315(2), in conjunction with section 6.2.1, the District reviewed the application to determine whether it was a minor modification. Based on these criteria, the District determined that the application qualified as a minor modification of a conceptual permit and that it satisfied applicable rules for issuance of a permit for this subsequent phase of the project. Alico contends that the initial review by a District staffer was only cursory and was in no way a meaningful assessment. Even if this is true, subsequent reviews by District staff, including witness Waterhouse, who supervises the ERP Bureau, was a signatory on the 1999 permit, and has reviewed thousands of ERP applications, confirmed that the application, as revised on June 8 and at final hearing, meets the criteria for a minor modification. The testimony of District witnesses Waterhouse and Waters has been accepted as being the most credible on this issue. In its review of the original application, the District considered the inclusion of boat docks as the only aspect of the application that made the project a major modification. In all other respects, the District determined that the modification would not cause more than minor changes. With the removal of the boat docks, the District concluded that the application did not substantially alter the design of the activities or the conditions of the conceptual approval permit. Alico's expert, who has never performed a similar consistency analysis on any project, testified that several of the 14 factors in section 6.2.1(d) might be affected. But he opined with certitude that factor 2 is implicated by the Phase IV permit. Factor 2 comes into play when there is an "[i]ncrease in proposed impervious and semi-impervious surfaces more than 10 percent or 0.5 acres, whichever is less, unless the activities were permitted with stormwater treatment and flood attenuation capability sufficient to meet the permitting requirements for the proposed modification." By citing only one factor, the expert implicitly conceded that the other 13 factors are not present, thus weighing towards a finding of consistency. Alico's expert focused only on the first part of factor 2 by calculating the impervious area of the project, as he did not believe the conceptual permit approved a master stormwater management system capable of sufficiently meeting the treatment and attenuation requirements for the Phase IV project. However, the more persuasive evidence is that the Master Plan in the 1999 permit is capable of meeting the treatment and attenuation requirements for the project. Therefore, factor 2 is not implicated by the Phase IV permit. Even if the factor were present, it would be insufficient to outweigh the other 13 factors and render the project a major modification of the 1999 permit. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the District may consider as minor the revised application. Consistency with the Conceptual Permit A consistency analysis is conducted under two related rules. First, rule 62-330.315 identifies when a subsequent permit is either a major or minor modification of a prior conceptual permit. As found in the previous section of this Recommended Order, the modification is minor. Second, rule 62- 330.056 provides a rebuttable presumption that subsequent consistent development phases are likely to meet the applicable rules and regulations if the factors listed in subsections (7)(a) through (7)(d) are met. The primary factors for consistency comparison are identified in subsection (7)(a) as "the size, location and extent of the activities proposed, the type and nature of the activities, percent imperviousness, allowable discharge and points of discharge, location and extent of wetland and other surface water impacts, mitigation plans implemented or proposed, control elevations, extent of stormwater reuse, detention and retention volumes, and the extent of flood elevations." Subsections (7)(b) and (c) provide that in order to have consistency, there can be no changes to state water quality standards, in this case the standards for Lake 5/6, or special basin criteria. There is no evidence that applicable state water quality standards or special basin criteria have changed. Finally, subsection (7)(d) requires that there can be no substantive changes to the site characteristics. Except for the conceptual permit, there is no requirement that the District compare the Phase IV permit with any other permit. The District views the location and the land use type of the project as the two most important criteria for determining consistency. As required by the rule, the District also compares the environmental impacts of the modification to the conceptual permit, control elevations, and discharge rates. The District credibly determined there is no inconsistency. While some site characteristics in Basin 6 have obviously changed over the last 16 years, the District's review found no substantive changes that would affect whether the design concepts approved in the conceptual approval permit can continue to be reasonably expected to meet the conditions for authorizing construction of future phases. The District credibly determined that the activities in Phase IV, as revised, were similar to or less intensive than those authorized in the conceptual approval permit and may actually provide a net benefit to Lake 5/6. Alico contends that a meaningful consistency analysis was not conducted by the District staffer who reviewed the original application. But subsequent reviews by witnesses Waterhouse and Waters confirmed that Phase IV, as revised, is consistent with the conceptual permit based upon the rule and AH criteria. Besides the District's review, Miromar's expert testified that Phase IV is consistent in land use as a single- family residential development. He also testified that the Phase IV permit was consistent with the 1999 permit in size and location; it maintained the same allowable rate of stormwater discharge; and it maintained required flood control elevations. He further testified that the Phase IV permit did not change the mitigation plans, permitted stormwater reuse, flood routings, or storm stages provided by the 1999 permit. This testimony has been credited in resolving the issue. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Phase IV land uses are the same as contemplated in the conceptual permit and the already-approved prior phases of Miromar Lakes, and the new permit is consistent with the conceptual permit. Therefore, Miromar is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that it meets the applicable rules and standards in place when the 1999 permit was issued. Alico failed to rebut this presumption. Revisions and Amendments at the Final Hearing During the final hearing, Alico's experts identified several errors and/or deficiencies in the design of Miromar's project, described below, that should be addressed before a permit can be issued. Miromar agrees with some of these concerns and asks that they be addressed through revisions incorporated into its permit. The District also concurs with these changes. The record shows that they are appropriate, minor in nature, and do not change the character of the permit. There is no evidence that Alico is prejudiced by allowing these revisions. Alico's expert testified that the Phase IV permit does not provide sufficient information regarding the soils on the Phase IV site. At hearing, Miromar agreed that any unsuitable soils discovered during construction would be excavated and removed and correctly disposed of in a landfill or other uplands. This is the common method of dealing with soils in Lee County, where it is not unusual to find unsuitable soils during construction. A special condition to this effect should be included in the final permit to ensure clarity. Through a series of treatment ponds, Miromar proposes to treat nearly all stormwater that falls on-site prior to its discharge to off-site properties. Alico's expert testified that the lot grading detail drawings inaccurately reflect the elevations of certain portions of the lots and can result in runoff from some lots being routed to Lake 5/6, instead of Lakes 1 and 3. Miromar agrees with this concern and represented that the intent of the June 8 letter is that drainage for all lots, except for the portion of lots within the 20-foot Lake Maintenance Easement (LME), which surrounds the project on three sides, be directed to the front of the lots toward the street, and then to the treatment ponds. Water that falls naturally within the LME will be treated by attenuation in Lake 5/6 prior to off-site discharge. Miromar also agrees to submit new Tabular Lot Grading Revisions and a new Typical Lot Grading Detail and to update its June 8 plans to reflect proposed lot grading elevations consistent with the lot detail. Alico's expert acknowledged that roof gutters are an additional solution, and they should be installed on all roofs in order to direct runoff to the front yards and then to the stormwater system. Finally, to ensure proper lot drainage, Miromar agrees that the secondary drainage pipes to convey runoff from roofs, gutters, and grassed areas will have a minimum size of six inches. The District agrees that these changes will improve water quality and ensure that all stormwater is properly captured and directed into the stormwater system. A special condition requiring these revisions should be included in the final permit to ensure clarity. Alico's expert also testified that the plans should include a requirement that Miromar follow best management practices (BMPs) for the replacement of a control structure in Lake 3, which serves as a stormwater treatment pond. General Condition 3 already addresses this issue by requiring Miromar to use BMPs that prevent adverse impacts to the water resources and adjacent lands. In addition, the June 8 letter provides plans for BMPs for work at the site, including Lake 3. Although the District found that reasonable assurances were provided by General Condition 3 and the June 8 letter, to ensure clarity, a special condition should be included in the final permit that requires the use of BMPs for all construction, including the replacement of an old boat ramp and the control structure in Lake 3. Miromar and the District agree that this revision is appropriate. Alico's expert opined that control structures CS-1 (Lake 1) and WQS-1.3 (Lake 3), which have a circular bleeder orifice with a four-inch diameter, should be limited to a bleeder orifice of 3.7 inches in diameter. Although the District found reasonable assurances existed with four-inch bleeder orifices, Special Condition 3 should be modified to reflect a 3.7-inch bleeder for these control structures. This will ensure that before being discharged, the water leaving the two control structures receives the appropriate amount of water quality treatment. Both Miromar and the District agree that this revision is appropriate. With the removal of all docks and an old boat ramp, Special Conditions 2, 10, 11, and 13 through 17 require modification, or deletion if necessary, to eliminate obsolete language relating to the docks and ramp and to add language to provide that construction and operation of the docks shown on the plans, specifications, and drawings are not authorized. Miromar and the District agree to these revisions. Other Concerns Alico's expert contended that under current District rules, Miromar is required to provide stormwater treatment equal to the greater of (a) one inch multiplied by the total project acreage, and (b) 2.5 inches multiplied by the project's impervious area. However, Alico did not pursue this issue in its PRO, probably because its expert agrees that the current design of the project meets District rule criteria for one inch of water quality treatment. Alico's expert also contends that Miromar is required to provide an additional 50 percent of stormwater treatment above the one-inch requirement. This is contrary to the conceptual permit, which does not require additional stormwater treatment. Also, the requirement does not apply when there is no direct discharge of stormwater into an OFW. Even so, Miromar voluntarily agreed to increase the stormwater treatment capacity for Phase IV, which results in excess treatment in Basin 6 greater than 50 percent above the treatment required for the Phase IV area. Alico argues that the additional treatment is illusory, as it relies on additional treatment from an adjoining phase, and not Phase IV. Even if this is true, Alico's expert admits that the current one inch treatment meets the requirements of the rule for issuance of a permit. Alico's expert contended that the Phase IV permit allows the bulkhead to be developed on more than 40 percent of total shorelines, in contravention of AH section 5.4.2, Volume II, which restricts a bulkhead to no more than 40 percent of the lake perimeter. However, Miromar's expert established that the Phase IV hardened shorelines would comprise less than 40 percent of the total shoreline in the Phase IV area and therefore comply with this requirement. His testimony was not credibly refuted. Even though there is no direct discharge from the project into the Estero River or Estero Bay, and the project will not result in higher discharge rates from the overall system outfall from Lake 5/6, based on water samples taken in August 2015, Alico's expert opined that the project will cause a discharge of excess nutrients into an OFW. The evidence shows, however, that these water samples were taken after heavy rains when the expert observed water flowing upstream from the slough into Lake 5/6, rather than downstream. The expert also admitted he had done no testing, analysis, or modeling demonstrating that any pollutant would even reach the Estero River. He failed to take a baseline sample of water quality for any nutrients for which the slough, Estero River, or Estero Bay may be impaired, and he conceded that it was possible that there was no net discharge from Lake 5/6 into the slough during the time of his testing. There is insufficient evidence to sustain this allegation. Other alleged deficiencies or errors in the application, as revised, that are not addressed in this Recommended Order have been considered and found to be without merit. ERP and Public Interest Criteria The criteria the District uses when reviewing an ERP application are contained in the AH and rules 62-330.301 and 62-330.302. In addition, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. § 373.414, Fla. Stat.; AH § 10.2.3. Alico failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Miromar has not provided reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the ERP comply with all applicable ERP permitting criteria. Alico failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Miromar has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving Miromar's application, as revised, for a permit modification, subject to the following additional conditions: That the plans, drawings, and specifications submitted with the June 8 letter that appear in Joint Exhibit JA-1, pages 244-53, be used as Exhibit 2.0 of the permit. That the water quality calculations submitted with the June 8 letter that appear in Joint Exhibit JA-1, pages 254-57, be used as Exhibit 2.3 of the permit. That Special Conditions 2, 10, 11, and 13 through 17 be revised or eliminated to remove obsolete language relating to the removal of the boat docks and boat ramp. That Special Condition 10 be revised to require that all construction, including the removal of the boat ramp and replacement of Control Structure No. 3, be conducted using BMPs. That a new special condition be added to reflect that the construction and operation of docks will not be authorized by the permit. That a new special condition be added with new Tabular Lot Grading Revisions and a revised Typical Lot Grading Detail and address the following: the project shall be constructed to ensure that stormwater from the project, except stormwater from within the LME, is routed to the stormwater treatment system prior to discharge to Lake 5/6; the lot grading on all lots shall be in accordance with the revised lot grading to reflect the high point of the lots located adjacent to the LME to ensure that runoff from the lots is directed to Lakes 1 and 3; that the revised lot grading require the installation of six-inch secondary drainage pipes; and that roof gutters be installed on all roofs to ensure that runoff from the residential lots is directed to the stormwater treatment system. That a new special condition be added to address unsuitable soils encountered during construction and to ensure that they are removed and disposed of in an appropriate manner. That Special Condition 3, relating to discharge facilities, be revised to reflect that a 3.7-inch circular orifice will be installed in Sub-Basins 1 and 3, rather than a four-inch orifice shown in the existing plans. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 27th day of January, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter Antonacci, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 620 101 Riverfront Boulevard Bradenton, Florida 34205-8841 (eServed) Brian J. Accardo, General Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Keith L. Williams, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 (eServed) Martin L. Steinberg, Esquire Hogan Lovells US, LLP Suite 2700 600 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-3085 (eServed) Timothy J. Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed)
