The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Nemi, Inc., should pay a $500.00 administrative fine for maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution (Count I); whether it should pay an administrative fine of $9,500.00 for failing to submit a completed Site Assessment Report (SAR) within 270 days of discovery of the discharge of chemical solvents (Count II); whether it should pay investigative costs and expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 incurred by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department) (Count III); and whether it should take corrective action, as described in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (Notice of Violation) issued on January 23, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Respondent is a for-profit corporation registered to do business in the State. Respondent's president and registered agent is Neil Schuberg, who represented the corporation at hearing. Respondent is the owner of a 1.1-acre parcel of real property located at 6801 Northwest 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The property is situated in what is known as the Gateway Industrial Center just south of the City of Pompano Beach and midway between the Florida Turnpike and Interstate 95. The parcel is rectangular shaped and is approximately 90 feet wide by 180 feet long. The property is further identified by the Broward County Property Appraiser as Parcel Identification Number 494209050040. A one-story warehouse and parking lot are located on the property, which is currently leased by Respondent to a testing laboratory. The evidence shows that for at least since 1981 David R. Ligh owned the property until his death. After he died, his widow, Elsie M. Ligh, sold the property in 1994 to Clayton John Pierce subject to a mortgage in the amount of $167,640.00. Mr. Pierce began operating a business on the premises known as Combined Roof Services, Inc. In 1995, Mr. Pierce decided to sell the property. A potential buyer, S & S Propeller Company, retained the services of Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an environmental site assessment for the purpose of "determining the suitability of property for ownership by [S & S Propeller Company]." When it first inspected the site in July 1995, Buck Eco-Logic, Inc., discovered three thirty-five gallon drums and a twenty-gallon black plastic tub, all labeled "hazardous waste" and reflecting that they had contained tetrachloroethene (also known as perchloroethylene) waste. This is a chemical solvent that is typically used by dry cleaning establishments. The labels carried the name and "EPA ID number" of Family Dry Cleaners located at 6804 Stirling Road, Davie, Florida, an address which appears to be around ten to twelve miles south of the subject property. The three drums were lying on their sides on the northern end of an asphalt parking area beneath overgrown Brazilian pepper trees and were empty; the empty twenty-gallon tub was located inside the building on the property. Soil borings on the property performed by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., revealed concentrations of tetrachloroethene at 10,613 parts per billion, which exceed allowable standards. Tetrachloroethene and its breakdown products are a solid waste, as defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-701.200(113). A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) dated August 13, 1995, was prepared by the consulting firm and sets forth in detail the results of its inspection. See Department Exhibit 2. The sale was never consummated. Later that year, Mr. Pierce engaged the same consulting firm to perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the property. That assessment revealed concentrations in groundwater ranging from 8,840 parts per billion to 173,000 parts per billion of tetrachloroethene, which exceed the State Clean Soil Criteria and State Maximum Contaminant Levels. The report, issued on October 13, 1995, was received in evidence as Department Exhibit 3. On October 30, 1995, a Mr. Pivnick, an attorney with the firm of Dombroff & Gilmore, P.A., which represented Mr. Pierce, notified the Department by letter that the empty drums and tub had been discovered on the property. The letter also attached a copy of the Phase I ESA. Mr. Pivnick was instructed by the Department to contact the local police department to report the incident as well as the state warning system for reporting discharges to the environment. Also, the Department contacted other local agencies and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In October 1995, Mr. Pierce vacated the premises and ceased operating Combined Roof Services, Inc. In January 1996, he began leasing the property to Sun Valley Industries, also a roofing repair business, until that firm vacated the premises in December 1997. With the use of grant monies, the Department engaged the services of International Technology Corporation to prepare a Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) for the property. That report was issued on February 13, 1997. See Department Exhibit The PIR recommended that additional monitoring of the site (through shallow monitoring wells, soil samples, groundwater samples, and groundwater flow direction) be made to quantify the presence of chlorinated solvents. Again with the use of grant monies, in 1997 the Department engaged the services of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., to prepare a Site Inspection Report (Report) for the subject property. The Report was issued in March 1998. See Department Exhibit 5. Excessive tetrachloroethene, Cis-1, 2- dichloroethene, and trichloroethylene were detected in ground water samples, while tetrachloroethene was detected in all seven soil samples. On April 2, 1998, Ms. Ligh assigned the mortgage on the property to Nemi, Inc., for around $100,000.00. Mr. Schuberg explained that he was able to purchase it at a discount because Mr. Pierce had ceased making payments on the mortgage and had warned Ms. Ligh that if she foreclosed on the mortgage, she would be responsible for cleanup costs on the property exceeding a million dollars. While Mr. Schuberg acknowledged that he was aware of a contamination problem on the property, he says the mortgage was purchased as an investment, and he never thought he would actually acquire the property because he believed Mr. Pierce would continue to make the mortgage payments. After failing to make payments on the mortgage, on September 21, 1999, Mr. Pierce executed a Warranty Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure in favor of Nemi, Inc. Based on conversations with Mr. Pierce at that time, Mr. Schuberg says he was under the impression that the spill was much smaller than it actually was, and that it would be cleaned up by the Department. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg characterized Mr. Pierce as "a hustler and a liar." After Mr. Pivnick's report of contamination was received, the Department, along with the Broward County Department of Natural Resource Protection, initiated an investigation (probably in late 1995 or early 1996) in an attempt to verify the source of the contamination. Because Family Dry Cleaners "was on the top of [its] list," the Department first sought to determine whether that firm had actually deposited the drums and tub on the subject property. It learned that in 1994, or a year before the contamination was reported to the Department, Family Dry Cleaners had been evicted by its landlord, Lincoln Park. According to the Department, this "led to a dead- end" as far as Family Dry Cleaners was concerned. However, that business had been replaced by another tenant, Liberty Dry Cleaners. The Department then attempted to ascertain whether Lincoln Park or the new tenant might have been responsible for transporting the drums and tub to the subject property and dumping the waste. However, the Department was unable to confirm that either of the two had done so. Photographs of the drums and tub were made by Buck Eco- Logic, Inc., when it conducted an assessment in July 1995. Because the empty drums and tub were later removed from the site by unknown persons, the Department was only able to review the photographs when it conducted its investigation. Photographs of the drums indicated that they were larger than the twenty-gallon drums normally used by a dry cleaning establishment, and the labels on the drums were not perforated or dot matrix, which are more typical of those used by dry cleaners. For this reason, and because the empty tub was found inside the building on the property, the Department attempted to determine if Mr. Pierce had purchased the contaminants for use in his operations; it was not able to confirm this fact. The Department also contacted local law enforcement officials to see whether a criminal investigation could be launched. As noted above, however, the drums and tub had been removed by unknown persons while Mr. Pierce still had possession of the property and there was no forensic evidence for law enforcement officials to examine. The result of the investigation was that the Department was unable to determine who deposited the drums on the site or the exact location where the contents were first dumped. Although Respondent contended that the Department could have easily determined who removed the empty drums and tub from the subject property by examining the manifests of the carriers who engage in that type of business, the Department investigator did not attempt to do this since the yellow pages in the telephone directory reflected at least six pages of transporters in this type of business. Further, there is no evidence that a commercial transporter was even involved. For all of these reasons, the Department looked to the current owner of the property, Respondent, as the entity responsible for site rehabilitation since there were, and still are, contaminants leaching into the groundwater and aquifer system. Specifically, as of 2007, or twelve years after the discharge occurred, the groundwater on Respondent's property was still contaminated with tetrachloroethene, trichloroethylene, and cis-1, 2-dichloroethene exceeding the Department's groundwater standards. Also, the same contaminants exceeded the Department's soil cleanup target levels based on ground water criteria. Because rainfall and surface water continue to come into contact with the contaminated soil, and there is no liner or impervious cap in place, the installation is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution. On September 12, 2001, the Department sent a letter by certified mail to Respondent advising that contamination was present on the property, that there were "possible violations of law for which you may be responsible," and that a Preliminary Contamination Assessment (PCA) must be filed within sixty days from the date of the letter. See Department Exhibit 6. Although a meeting of the parties was held on October 4, 2001, a PCA was never filed. 16. On April 27, 2006, March 12, 2007, and July 3, 2007, the Department issued Warning Letters to Respondent advising that an enforcement action would be initiated unless Respondent provided a SAR within a time certain. See Department Exhibits 7, 8, and 9. (The record is silent as to why no formal activity occurred between October 2001 and April 2006.) Exhibit 8 reflects that on November 21, 2006, "analysis results of sampling of one monitoring well were received by the Department." A meeting was later conducted by the parties on January 16, 2007, at which time Respondent agreed to "draft a suitable letter of [its] intentions with regard to conducting the required assessment and send it to the Department on or before January 31, 2007." There is no record of such a letter being sent. In August 2007, Respondent contracted with Florida Environmental Engineering, Inc., to perform a "limited site assessment report." In March 2008, that firm submitted to the Department a Preliminary Site Assessment Report (PSAR) See Department Exhibit 10. For this service, Respondent paid around $16,000.00. On March 21, 2008, the Department advised Respondent by letter that the PSAR was incomplete and that further information should be provided by April 30, 2008. See Department Exhibit 11. An Addendum to the PSAR was provided on May 5, 2008. See Department Exhibit 12. This report cost Respondent an additional $3,000.00. The PSAR indicated that contaminants (dichloroethene and trichloroethylene) in the water and soil on the property exceeded Department groundwater and soil cleanup target standards and levels. The report concluded, however, that "the discharge to the site is from an offsite source" (west of the property) and that "the property owner is no longer a responsible party." On August 27 and then again on October 22, 2008, the Department issued letters to Respondent advising that "there is not enough data to support the assumption that the discharge is offsite and the contamination is from an offsite source located west of the property." The Department reached this conclusion because, among other reasons, "[t]he contamination does not seem to be delineated towards the northern and southern portions of the site," "[t]here are no horizontal delineation wells to [the] north," the "iso contour maps provided appear to show the vertical delineation of the contamination but not horizontal delineation [of the plume]," "additional monitoring points need to be [added]," and "the onsite monitoring well, MW-2, shows a very high concentration of Perchloroethylene (PCE) at 81,000 ug/L [microgram per liter] and other contaminants, while the MW-1 does not exhibit groundwater contamination to that extent." See Department Exhibits 14 and 15. In plainer language, Respondent's report was deficient in that all contamination sources were not identified; it failed to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of soil and groundwater contamination; and it failed to recommend a remedial action to clean up the contamination. The two letters advised that the site assessment was incomplete and that additional information described in the letters must be submitted by November 14, 2008. To date, Respondent has failed to submit the required information. According to Mr. Schuberg, to perform a study that would supply the additional information requested by the Department would cost him around $100,000.00, an amount he is unwilling to pay. More than 270 days has expired since a discharge was discovered on Respondent's property, and it has failed to submit a complete SAR, as described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-780.600(8). See also Table A, Fla. Admin. Code R. Ch. 62-780, which prescribes the specific time frame (within 270 days after the discharge is discovered) for submitting this report. The Department has incurred expenses in the amount of $1,500.00 while investigating this matter. See Department Exhibit 17. This amount is not disputed. As corrective action, the Department requests that within ninety days of the effective date of this Final Order, Respondent submit a complete SAR which addresses the deficiencies specified in the Department's August 27, 2008, letter. See Department Exhibit 14. To complete the SAR, additional soil and groundwater samples need to be collected to determine the vertical and horizontal extent of contamination, all source areas must be identified, and a remedial action must be developed to abate the contamination. Finally, the contaminated soil must be removed from the property so that it will no longer discharge into the groundwater. The Notice of Violation requests that upon approval of the SAR, Respondent "shall commence and complete in a timely fashion all further tasks" required by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-780. These corrective actions are reasonable and are hereby approved. In calculating the penalty, Respondent has assessed a $500.00 administrative penalty for Respondent maintaining a stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of water pollution without a permit. This is based upon a violation of Section 403.121(5), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful to not comply with a regulatory statute's requirement. Under Section 403.121(6), Florida Statutes, the Department has also assessed a $500.00 per day penalty against Respondent for failing to file a SAR for nineteen days, for a total of $9,500.00. When added to the $500.00 previously assessed, the total administrative penalty is $10,000.00, which is the maximum allowed in this type of proceeding. See § 403.121(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Throughout this process, Mr. Schuberg has contended that the responsibility for cleanup lies with the person or entity actually responsible for placing the drums and tub on the property in 1995. He says that the evidence clearly shows that Family Dry Cleaners is the responsible party. However, the Department and local authorities were never able to confirm who actually dumped the waste on the subject property. Although Mr. Schuberg says it will take "[i]n the hundreds of thousands of dollars" to clean up the site, the evidence shows that when he purchased the mortgage in 1998 and assumed ownership in 1999, he knew the property was contaminated. Mr. Schuberg further stated that because his consultant could never get "answers" from the Department, the consultant was instructed to stop work. However, Mr. Schuberg never contacted the Department to get clarification about what was required. At hearing, Mr. Schuberg also offered a lay opinion that his consultant's report filed in March 2008 proves that in 1995 the contents of the drums and tub were dumped on an offsite asphalt road adjacent to the property, surface water runoff then carried the chemical solvents onto his property, and the empty drums and tub were left in the parking lot. The Department's expert did not agree with this supposition, and there is no expert testimony to confirm the accuracy of this theory. Respondent has also contended that the property should be cleaned up with state funds. As pointed out by a Department witness, however, one problem is that the property does not meet the definition of a dry cleaner and thus cannot qualify for funds under that program. Then, too, a state-funded cleanup is a last resort which is used only after the Department has exhausted all enforcement remedies. Also, in this era of tight budgets, the Department has a finite amount of funds to use for this purpose, and is limited to cleaning up only a few sites per year. Finally, the responsible party must first acknowledge by affidavit that it lacks the necessary resources to clean up the property before the Department "may" seek cleanup funds. Respondent has not yet filed such an affidavit or admitted liability. In terms of mitigating evidence, Mr. Schuberg conceded that he has not done "a whole lot" to address the contamination problem since acquiring the property in 1999. In 2008, he did expend around $20,000.00 in having a PSAR and Addendum prepared for the Department. In all other respects, he steadfastly refuses to spend any more money on assessments or take responsibility for the cleanup since he believes that Family Dry Cleaners is the entity responsible for site rehabilitation.
Findings Of Fact FEC is the owner and developer of the project at issue in this proceeding, an industrial park to be located on 322.1 acres in Section 32, in the Town of Medley, in northwestern Dade County, Florida. Not at issue in this proceeding is the related but separate project planned by FEC for construction in Section 6, an unincorporated area of Dade County, lying immediately southwest of the property at issue. FEC proposes 5,193,570 gross feet of floor space for the project, to be constructed in six phases. Seventy-four percent of the floor area is to be completed or under construction within the first five years of the park's operation. Expected uses of the park, when completed, are expected to fall into four general categories: Distribution, comprising 792,516 square feet; wholesale trade, 2,509,018 square feet; manufacturing, 873,520 square feet; and offices and services of 1,017,515 square feet. There is no specification of what types of industries will be located in the project, or what types of chemicals or materials each may handle. FEC has applied for and received various approvals of the proposed industrial park. On June 6, 1983, the South Florida Regional Planning Council ("RPC") recommended approval of the FEC proposal, with conditions. On August 1, 1983, the town council of Medley adopted Resolution No. C-426, which approved and issued a development order for a development of regional impact for the project. Before the issuance of the Medley development order, Metropolitan Dade County adopted its own development order, Resolution No. Z-114-83, on June 23, 1983, approving the development proposed for Section 6 in the unincorporated area of the county. In September, 1983, DCA appealed the Medley development order. On October 3, 1983, the RPC voted not to appeal that order. The proposed project is located in an industrialized and largely unsewered area. The FEC property surrounds or abuts numerous out parcels within Section No. 32, which are served only by septic tank disposal systems, unlike the sewer system planned for the FEC development. The Northwest Wellfield is located about three miles to the southwest of the proposed FEC industrial park at its closest point to Section 32, and about four miles from the furtherest reach of the park. The wells of the Northwest Wellfield form a line about two miles west of the Florida Turnpike, and four miles southwest of Medley. The wellfield presently comprises 15 wells, each 42 inches in diameter, fully penetrating the Biscayne Aquifer to a depth of about 70 feet. The county has equipped each well with a two-speed pump capable of producing ten million gallons per day (MGD) at low speed, and about 15 MGD at high speed. Current maximum capacity of the wellfield is about 225 MGD. The county holds a valid consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District authorizing an average pumpage of 50 MGD. The county has applied for a permit to increase the pumpage to 180 MGD. The county is presently pumping the wellfield at the rate of 140 MGD to offset the reduction in pumpage from the Hialeah and Miami Springs wellfields as a consequence of the discovery of contamination in those fields. The Hialeah and Miami Springs wellfields are currently pumping at a rate varying from three to ten MGD. The Northwest Wellfield, completed in 1983, at a cost to the public of $38,000,000, is located within the Biscayne Aquifer, which underlies all of southeastern Florida, including all of Dade County, from north of Boca Raton to the northwest area of Monroe County. The Biscayne Aquifer is a highly permeable, unconfined shallow aquifer composed of limestone and sandstone. The aquifer is a regional resource, serving as a sole source of potable water for the approximately 1.8 million residents of Dade County. Because of its cavernous nature, the aquifer has high vertical and horizontal permeabilities, permitting both rapid infiltration of rainfall as recharge to the aquifer, and rapid drainage through canals. Recharge to the aquifer is primarily from rainfall. In the latter part of the dry season, however, the main recharge to the aquifer results from infiltration from canals fed from water conservation areas. Net recharge from rainfall to the aquifer ranges from 8 to 20 inches per year. Because of wide fluctuations in annual rainfall amounts in South Florida, recharge from canals to the wellfield is important. The South Florida Water Management District operates an intricate system of canals, levees, control structures, and large water conservation areas for flood control, water conservation, and salinity control. These systems significantly affect water levels in the Biscayne Aquifer, including the area around the Northwest Wellfield. The levees impound fresh water and prevent overland sheet flow from the Everglades eastward through agricultural and urban areas. The complex system of interconnected canals provides necessary drains for the urban coastal areas in the wet season and transfers water from the conservation areas during the dry season to replenish water in the aquifer removed by various municipal and county wellfields. Water levels in the canals are controlled by opening or closing control structures during the wet season to prevent flooding in urban agricultural areas, and leaving the structures closed during the dry season to conserve fresh water and limit saltwater intrusion. Canal levels usually reach their seasonal lows in May. In the vicinity of the Northwest Wellfield, the system of levees and canals provides a substantial amount of recharge to the wellfield. The canal most significantly affecting water levels in the Northwest Wellfield is the Snapper Creek Canal, a borrow canal running immediately east of and parallel to the Turnpike, about two miles east of the wellfield. The Snapper Creek Canal borders the western line of the FEC property in Section No. 6 and lies about one mile west of Section No. 32. The terms "cone of influence" or "cone of depression" are terms applied to the area around a well from which the well draws water. Before a well commences pumping, ground water fills the pores and fractures in underground rock formations to a water level at which the fluid pressure of the ground water equals the atmospheric pressure exerted from above. Pumping the well reduces the fluid pressure of the ground water in the vicinity of the well, and results in a cone of depression or influence. Viewed from above, a drawing of a hydrologic cone of depression appears roughly circular, centered on the pumping well. A cross section of the cone would show an inverted shallow cone in the upper aquifer, whose lowest point coincides with the intersection of the cone where it enters the well. Pumping the well creates a down gradient for water below the area of the cone to flow toward the well. A "hydrologic cone of influence" is that point marking the outer bounds of the influence of a pumping well at a given point in time. A "regulatory cone of influence" arbitrarily fixes the location of the cone as a zone in which activity is regulated. The extent of a regulatory cone depends upon policy decisions taking into account the margin of safety deemed necessary for the protection of a well, regardless of the actual location of the hydrologic cone and technology available to protect ground water. The generally accepted value adapted by most regulatory agencies for the "regulated cone of influence" of a wellfield is the 0.25 foot draw-down line. This is so because it is also generally accepted that, with proper engineering practices and proper annual inspections, potential contaminants be generated and stored within this regulated cone of influence without inordinate risks of contamination to the underlying aquifer. The extent of a hydrologic cone of influence varies continuously, and is dependent upon the characteristics of the involved aquifer, such as its ability to transmit and to retain water, as well as the pattern and the amount of rainfall in the area, and the effect of nearby streams or canals. In addition, the rate of pumping of a well controls the extent of the cone of influence under any given set of aquifer conditions. Dade County regulates land uses in the area of the Northwest Well field according to whether property falls within the projected cone of influence of the field. In March, 1981, Dade County adopted an ordinance prohibiting the handling, use, transportation, disposal, storage, discharge, or the generation of hazardous materials in an area west of the Florida Turnpike, defined as being within 210 days travel time for a hypothetical particle of contamination to the Northwest Wellfield. That initial protective zone lay entirely to the west of the Turnpike, and included neither Section 6 nor Section 32. As a result of further study and computer modeling, the county subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 83-82 on September 20, 1983, amending the map of the cone of influence for the Northwest Wellfield, and adopting new regulations requiring the use of sewers instead of septic tanks in industrial areas. The amended map projected a cone of influence that greatly expanded the protective zone around the wellfield, and included both Section 6 and Section 32. The regulatory cone of influence selected by Dade County does not conform to the hydrological cone of influence, but excepts instead the area around the well depressed by 0.25 feet or more from the original unpumped surface. The county based its modeling of the regulatory line on an assumed pumpage of 150 MGD for the Northwest Wellfield, which is approximately equal to its present pumpage, and 75 MGD from the Miami Springs, Hialeah, and Preston wellfields, which is approximately ten times the current combined rate of pumpage for those fields. In addition, in running its computer model, the county conservatively assumed the highly unlikely condition for the aquifer--a 210-day period during which the aquifer would receive no recharge from rainfall. This "worst case" condition has never occurred during this century. In addition to this assumption, the county's computer modeling also ignored the substantial contraction of the cone during every wet season because of rainfall recharge, and omitted consideration of recharge to the wellfield from canal systems in the area. Within the line defined by its regulated cone of influence, Dade County currently bans all use, handling, generation, and transportation of hazardous materials. The cone of influence currently contained in the county's ordinances includes all of Section 32, including FEC's proposed project. Dade County Ordinance No. 83-82 is considered an interim regulation, intended to remain in force while Dade County continues to gather information concerning the aquifer in the vicinity of the Northwest Wellfield under pumping conditions. Since the enactment of the wellfield protection ordinance, Dade County has initiated a study to formulate a more detailed management plan for the wellfield. Dade County is conducting the study and generally implementing its environmental regulation and wellfield protection through its Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). DERM's powers extend into municipal areas, such as Medley, as well as throughout the unincorporated area of Dade County. The agency has a budget in excess of $5 million annually. Both within the municipalities and throughout the unincorporated areas of Dade County, DERM reviews building permit applications of all industries expected to potentially discharge chemicals into sewer systems. DERM requires all such industries to obtain an annual permit under Section 24-35.1 of the Dade County Code, and to install pretreatment facilities to ensure that no unsafe chemicals are discharged directly into sewers. In addition, DERM requires that all users or generators of hazardous materials throughout Dade County follow best management practices, including ground water monitoring, when appropriate. A special section of the agency focuses on the enforcement of hazardous materials regulation. In addition, Dade County has initiated a hazardous waste cleanup fund, a liquid waste transporter's permit ordinance, and regulation for underground storage facilities for hazardous materials. Further, Dade County has adopted Resolution No. R-114-84, which incorporates a non-exclusive list of numerous hazardous materials subject to regulation under the wellfield protection ordinance and other regulations. The more credible evidence of record in this cause establishes that even should Dade County remove the current ban on hazardous materials in Section 32, the proposed industrial park, as restricted by the Medley development order, would pose no significant threat of contamination to the Northwest Wellfield. As modeled under realistically conservative assumptions, including pumpage rated far exceeding the presently permitted legal rate of 50 MGD, the Northwest Wellfield hydrological cone of influence would reach into Section 32 for no more than one or two months per year, at the end of the dry season. For most of the year, the Snapper Creek Canal will act as a natural recharge boundary for the Northwest Wellfield. The canal would normally carry sufficient water northward from the Tamiami Canal to maintain a pressure head in the canal, driving water into the aquifer on both sides, replenishing the water drawn by the wellfield in the area west to the canal, and holding the cone of influence at the west side of the canal. On the east side of the canal, ground water would resume its natural flow to the southeast or east, unaffected by pumping in the Northwest Wellfield. During the dry season, the recharge mound in the Snapper Creek Canal would diminish, and the cone of influence could gradually expand, possibly recharging Section 32 for a month or two at the end of the dry season. As soon as the rainy season commenced again, however, the canal would fill up rapidly and resume its function as a recharge boundary. The more credible evidence establishes that it is highly unlikely that ground water contaminants originating from Section 32 would ever reach the Northwest Wellfield. Ground water moves only a few feet or even inches per day in the Biscayne Aquifer. Because Section 32 is located three to four miles from the Northwest Wellfield, the gradient to the wells in the cone of influence in Section 32 is extremely slack. In the driest of droughts, a hypothetical plume of contaminants beneath Section 32 would move only slightly towards the wellfield. At the return of the wet season, the gradient draining ground water from Section 32 eastward to the Miami Canal would be very steep and would rapidly flush any contaminants away from the wellfield and its cone of influence. The Medley development order imposes several restrictions on the development which protect the Northwest Wellfield from any threat of potential contamination from the proposed industrial park. The development order requires the removal of all exotic vegetation and the planting of native species to reduce the demand for water and the use of fertilizer, a potential contaminant; restricts irrigation in the project to the use of non-potable water from onsite lakes and wells; obligates FEC to construct, or provide $600,000 to the Dade County Fire Department for construction of, a fire station according to county specifications within the primary response district for Section 32, to improve the fire department's capability to respond quickly to any spill of hazardous materials; requires FEC to submit to the RPC, Dade County and Medley a detailed management operation plan within six months of the date of issuance of the development order; and further requires that FEC submit a hazardous material spill contingent fee and response plan to the RPC, Dade County, and Medley within one year of the date of the development order. The development order contains detailed criteria for the management/operation plan, including inspections, monitoring, and the use of best management practices designed to minimize the risk of contaminating ground water. Further, these requirements include approval of specific standards for hazardous materials accident prevention, mitigation, and response; adequate pre-treatment facilities to assure segregated retention of hazardous waste and their removal and disposal in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements; that all facilities be readily open for inspection by Medley and DERM; and appropriate storage and accurate labeling of hazardous materials. The order also requires that FEC receive review and approval of its plans by the RPC, Medley, and Dade County. The RPC will, if deemed appropriate, in the course of review, impose its customary policy of ground water monitoring for a project using or generating hazardous materials. The development order provides that whatever wellfield protection regulations Dade County might adopt after further monitoring of the Northwest Wellfield will apply to the FEC project in Section 32. The RPC compiled, and Medley adopted, in the development order, "Table 22" as a tool for determining the types of land uses that should be excluded from locating in the proposed industrial park. In the event Dade County were to remove the present ban on hazardous materials in Section 32, the Medley development order requires that every firm and industry listed in Table 22 desiring to locate in the development to apply to RPC, Dade County, and Medley for a waiver of restriction on hazardous materials, based upon the tenant's demonstration that its use of appropriate best management practices or other measures will adequately protect the environment. These applications would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the adequacy of proposed protected measures. This condition is imposed in the development order in addition to existing local, state, and federal permitting requirements. Further, Dade County also independently requires the use of best management practices, including monitoring when appropriate, by any industry using hazardous materials in Dade County. In summary, the evidence in this cause establishes that the current ban imposed by Dade County on the use, handling, generation, and transportation of hazardous materials in Section 32, when viewed in the context of the existing hydrological system in the area and the conditions imposed upon FEC in the Medley development order, combine to demonstrate the lack of a permanent ban on hazardous materials in Section 32 will pose no significant threat to the Northwest Wellfield. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding to demonstrate that the proposed project is in any way inconsistent with an existing state land development plan, any local land development regulation, or the regional planning council report.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On March 26, 1991 Venice applied to the Department for a CCCL permit to construct a 475 foot wooden retaining wall seaward of the coastal construction control line and to place a shell road immediately adjacent to, and landward of, the retaining wall from approximately 100 feet south of Granada Avenue to approximately 50 feet south of Ocala Street on Venice's right-of-way of The Esplanade in Venice, Florida. The Petitioners Roy B. and Patricia B. Olsen are residents of Venice, Florida and reside at 304 Ocala Street. They own Lot 1, The Esplanade, which is immediately east and south of the southern terminus of the proposed retaining wall. Petitioner, Nina Howard is a resident of Venice, Florida and resides at 721 Ocala Street. Ms. Howard's residence is located to the south and across Ocala Street from the site of the proposed retaining wall. Intervenors, Roger and Irene Fraley are residents of Venice, Florida and reside at 221 The Esplanade South, which is immediately landward (east) of the site of the proposed retaining wall. Intervenors, Howard and Evelyn Barbig are residents of Milton, Florida but are owners of lot 4, The Esplanade South, located north of the Fraleys' property and immediately landward (east) of the site of the proposed retaining wall. The Petitioners oppose the granting of the CCCL permit. The Petitioners have expressed their opposition to the granting of the CCCL permit based upon their belief that the construction of the proposed retaining wall will have adverse impacts to the beach dune areas and to the adjacent properties. Specifically, it is their belief that the construction of the proposed retaining wall will accelerate the erosion of the beach dune areas and the adjacent properties. The Petitioners disagree with the conclusion reached by the Department in the final order that, "the activities indicated in the project description are of such a nature that they will result in no significant adverse impacts to the beach dune areas or to the adjacent properties." Intervenors, Fraley and Barbig are in favor of the issuance of the CCCL permit because it will prevent seasonal erosion which results in exposure of, and damage to, the sewer line along The Esplanade, and will provide public access over the shell road within the right-of-way of The Esplanade for those properties between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street that do not have public access from time to time due to the seasonal erosion. On April 17, 1991 the Department advised Venice that the CCCL permit application was determined to be incomplete, and advised Venice of those things needed to make the application complete. Subsequent to this letter, the Department determined that, although the application was not an emergency, it did deserve "fast tracking", and assisted Venice in bringing the application to a "complete" status. On April 25, 1991 the Department issued a Final Order administratively approving CCCL permit number ST-820 for the construction of a wooden retaining wall and shell access road as described in Venice's application. On April 26, 1991 the Department issued a Notice to Proceed Withheld to Venice, which advised Venice not commence construction of the project authorized by the permit until certain permit conditions had been met. This notice also gave notice to those whose substantial interests would be affected by the proposed project of their right to a formal hearing. An engineering assessment was made for this project, and although not a formal written engineering assessment, the engineering assessment did consider all conditions of adverse impacts. In making this assessment, the Department considered and reviewed available aerial photographs, photographs taken of the area of the proposed project site and erosion tables concerning the area. A formal written engineering assessment is not required by statute, rule or Department policy. This assessment also indicated that there are severe impacts due to winter storm events which contribute to the seasonal profile changes. The seasonal beach profile is depicted by the build up of the beach (sand) during the summer months and the removal (erosion) of beach (sand) during the winter months. However, due to an inlet, a major rock-out cropping and the rock grain structures located in the vicinity of the proposed site, there is a limitation on the natural movement of sand along the coast which prevents natural renourishment and results in severe erosion in the area of the proposed site during the winter months. This erosion during the winter months causes the sewer pipes along The Esplanade to be exposed and sometimes broken, and prevents access over the right-of-way of The Esplanade to certain properties located along The Esplanade between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street. The wooden retaining wall is designed to retain sand just landward of the wall and allow a shell access road to be placed on the right-of-way of The Esplanade. The wooden retaining wall will be constructed as follows: (a) 8" x 20' wooden piling will be placed on 6' center and driven to an approximate depth of -14.00 (NGVD); (b) 2" x 8" planking will be attached to the landward side of the piling from the top of the piling (+7.0 NGVD) to a depth of appropriate 7 feet (0.00 NGVD); (c) with a filter "x" cloth covering the planking on the landward side. At the time of the application, the existing beach was +5.0 (NGVD) which would leave approximately 2 feet of the retaining wall exposed on the seaward side. The purpose of the retaining wall is to protect the shoreline in the immediate vicinity of The Esplanade and thereby protect the sewer line and access road which are landward of the seaward (west) right-of-way line of The Esplanade. The proposed wooden retaining wall is to be located as far landward as possible, and will be the minimum size and configuration to protect the sewer line and the shell access road along The Esplanade right-of-way. The retaining wall is designed to be temporary in nature in that its design will not allow it to survive under a major storm event. In that regard, the retaining wall comes within the definition of a minor structure as defined by rule and does not require a formal written review. The access road will enable Venice to establish a public road on public right-of-way for ordinary and emergency utilization by the residents and Venice. Previous attempts by Venice to protect the sewer line by "shoring up" the area with sand bags have proven unsuccessful. A wooden retaining such as the one proposed would be the next logical step to prevent the exposure and damage to the sewer line and still be consistent with the coastal armoring policy adopted by the Governor and Cabinet in December 1990. Dr. Al Deveraux, Bureau Chief, Control Engineering, personally viewed the site prior to approval of the project and waived compliances with certain provisions of the application. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that: erosion is occurring in the area of the proposed site without the presence of the proposed retaining wall; without the proposed retaining wall, Venice will be unable to prevent that erosion, particularly during the winter storm events, which will result in exposure and damage to the sewer line and lack of public access to certain properties located along The Esplanade between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street; and upon construction of the retaining wall, the beach dune area and the adjacent properties to the south of the proposed project will experience some increase in erosion above that presently occurring, but it will be minimal and will not have a significant impact on the area. The application submitted by Venice was processed and approved in accordance with statutes, rules and Department policy. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that granting CCCL permit number ST-820 and constructing the retaining wall and access road as set forth in Venice's application would be in the best public interest. The Petitioners' expert witness on coastal engineering concluded that there would be substantial erosion of the beach dune area and adjacent properties south of the proposed retaining wall as a result of constructing the retaining wall. However, this conclusion was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Special permit condition 1 requires Venice to provide the Department with a Sea Turtle Protection Plan approved by the Florida Marine Research Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida. This special condition takes into account the Department's policy for the protection of sea turtles as described in Rule 16B-33.005(9), Florida Administrative Code. The project is consistent with the thirty-year erosion projection and is not located seaward of that line.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, accordingly recommended that the Department enter a Final Order issuing CCCL permit number ST-820 to the City of Venice, Florida subject to all the special conditions contained therein, and adding one other special condition requiring the City of Venice, Florida to monitor the beach dune system and adjacent properties south of the project site on a semi-annual basis for a period deemed necessary by the Department, and report any accelerated erosion that might occur in that area to the Department for review and action. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral argument adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts: In November of 1983, the Captiva Erosion Prevention District (CEPD) submitted an application from the DER to construct an experimental "on-site stabilization system along 650 feet of Captiva Erosion Prevention District. The application listed Petitioner Arthur Learned, president, Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. as authorized agent. Drawings attached to the application show a location plan, a site plan and a plat. Each drawing is on Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. letterhead and is signed by Arthur Learned. The application noted that the project was "ex* NOTE: The continuation of words on this paragraph line are unreadable as viewed in the original document on file in the Clerk's Office and therefore not available in this ACCESS document. judged harmful, can be undone." 3. A Joint U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application Appraisal was performed* NOTE: The continuation of this paragraph along with pages 3 and 4 of the original document on file in the Clerk's Office are not available therefore not included in this ACCESS document. limitations of authority of resident project representative." Petitioner notes in a letter to the CEPD that said duties are in addition to those normally provided by the Engineer as Owner's representative during construction. Among the listing of the duties of a Resident Project Representative (RPR) is a provision which states that through more extensive on-site observations of the Work in progress and field checks of materials and equipment by the RPR and assistants, ENGINEER shall endeavor to provide further protection for OWNER against defects and deficiencies in the Work; but the furnishing of such services will not make ENGINEER responsible for or give ENGINEER control over construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures or for safety precautions or programs, or responsibility for CONTRACT0R's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. At some point in February of 1986, the DER discovered that concrete had been used in a portion of the stabilizers. Petitioner met with the DER staff concerning this permit violation, and explained that concrete, rather than sand, was placed in the bags due to changed conditions. Petitioner was told that any change in design needed approval from the DER. By letter dated February 28, 1986, Petitioner requested a modification of the permit to include the substitution of concrete intersection as stabilizer tie-in and filler. The after-the-fact permit modification was granted by letter dated May 26, 1986, addressed to the petitioner. The modification allowed the use of concrete-filled bags to construct the most landward portion of the six permitted groins to a maximum length of 13 feet from the landward connection. It did not permit concrete bags beyond the 13 foot distance. On or about March 6, 1986, petitioner completed a Certificate of Substantial Completion for the Sand Core Filter Beach Stabilizers, indicating the date of substantial completion to be February 16, 1986. Prior to the modification authorized on May 26, 1986, the petitioner received a letter from DER dated March 24, 1986. This letter notified Mr. Learned that the permit did not authorize placement of concrete within the permitted sand bags, and that, in order to correct the outstanding violations, the concrete material must be removed from the sand bags. Petitioner was request to remove all sand bags that contained cement within fourteen days. Based upon DER's prior correspondence with petitioner Learned during the permitting process, as well as its investigation, on-site inspections, meetings, telephone conversations and a sworn affidavit from the Chairman of the CEPD regarding the CEPD's lack of knowledge of noncompliance with the conditions of a similar Department of Natural Resources' permit, DER staff believed that petitioner Learned (along with the contractor) was the responsible party in the decision to use concrete in the sand bags and that the CEPD relied upon the petitioner and the contractor to adhere to permit conditions. The DER did not review the contract documents regarding petitioner's services to the CEPD prior to instituting proceedings against the petitioner. On August 5, 1986, the DER issued a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action against Erosion Control Systems, Inc. and Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. The Findings of Fact contained therein recite that Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. and Erosion Control Systems, Inc. are the agent and contractor respectively for the CEPD. Violations of Chapter 403 were found and specific corrective actions were proposed. The corrective action to be taken was the removal of all concrete bags waterward of the 13 foot mark, the refilling of said bags with sand, the removal of any bags containing asphalt and the return of all disturbed areas to pre-removal conditions. Learned Engineering and Erosion Control Systems were also to make payment to the DER in the amount of $392.60 for expenses incurred in investigating the matter. On March 16, 1987, DER issued an Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action. This document named the Captiva Erosion Prevention District, Erosion Control Systems, Inc. and Learned Engineering and Development, Inc. as respondents, and noted that CEPD was the permittee, that petitioner Learned was the authorized agent on the project for CEPD and that Erosion Control Systems was the project contractor employed by CEPD. The Amended Notice is substantially similar to the initial Notice, but adds a further violation regarding the use of turbidity curtains during construction. It also adds a Count charging that Respondents Learned and Erosion Control conducted dredging and filling activities without a valid DER permit. The Orders for Corrective Action are identical to the initial Notice. DER subsequently resolved its dispute with the CEPD and, on March 11, 1988, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal as to Erosion Control Systems and petitioner Learned Engineering. At the time of the initial Notice Of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action, petitioner was a for-profit corporation under the laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Venice, Florida. Due to financial difficulties caused, at least in part, by the DER's actions in the enforcement proceeding described above, Arthur Learned, President of Learned Engineering, closed the Florida office, semi-retired and moved to Georgia. Learned Engineering relocated to Georgia on January 1, 1987, and now has its principal place of business in Blairsville, Georgia. It does still maintain contacts in Florida and has recently performed other work in Florida. At all relevant times, Petitioner has had less than 25 employees and a net worth of less than $2,000,000.00. Petitioner incurred attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $5,127.07 in defense of the administrative proceedings described above.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Larry C. and Jan D. Giunipero, reside at 2345 Tour Eiffel Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. On February 29, 1984, they obtained a building permit from Franklin County to construct a single-family dwelling on their lot in Alligator Point, Franklin County, Florida. The Giuniperos engaged the services of a professional engineer to design their beach house. In so doing, the engineer designed the structure so as to comply with the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) guidelines, which are minimum building requirements established by the Federal Insurance Administration to qualify for federal flood insurance. These guidelines have been adopted by the Franklin County Planning and Zoning Department, and insure that the structure can withstand winds of 110 miles per hour. Even before the Guiniperos obtained their permit, respondent, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), was in the process of adopting new Rule 16B-26.14, Florida Administrative Code, which would establish a coastal construction line for Franklin County. Under the proposed rule, a coastal construction control line on Alligator Point would be established, and any excavation or construction activities thereafter on property seaward of the control line would require a permit from DNR, and have to be in conformity with all structural requirements set forth in Rule 168-33.07, Florida Administrative Code. Because the Guiniperos' lot lies on the seaward side of the control line, they were obviously affected by the rule. The rule adoption process was quite lengthy and well publicized. It began in October, 1983 when a public workshop was held in Apalachicola and aerial displays of the control line were placed in the courthouse. Further public hearings were held in Tallahassee in February, March and April, 1984. These hearings were the subject of numerous notices and advertisements in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Tallahassee Democrat, Apalachicola Times, Panama City News Herald, and Franklin County News. Clearly, the agency met all legal requirements in advertising the rule. However, for some reason, neither the Giuniperos or their professional engineer were aware of the pending rule change. Similarly, the Franklin County planner failed to advise them of the imminent rule change even though aerial displays of the proposed line were in the courthouse when the permit was issued. Rule 168-26.14, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted by the Florida Cabinet on April 5, 1984, and eventually became effective on April 30, 1984. As of that date, any construction or excavation work seaward of the control line required DNR to issue a permit unless a dwelling was already "under construction" in which case the project was grandfathered in. The parties agree that petitioners do not fall in this category since the dwelling was not "under construction" within the meaning of DNR rules. A few days before the rule became effective, a DNR engineer met with the Franklin County planner to review all building permits issued since September, 1983 for construction on the seaward side of the control line. The engineer did this so that he could inspect all building sites after the line became effective and determine which, if any, were "under construction" and therefore exempt from DNR permitting requirements. Because of the volume of permits issued to persons seeking to beat the April 30 deadline, and his unfamiliarity with alligator Point, the planner was unable to give the DNR engineer the precise location of petitioners' lot. On or about May 1, 1984, the engineer visited the general locale of petitioners' lot. There was no activity on petitioners' lot, and no permit posted on the site. Accordingly, he assumed a recently completed beach house some 300 feet east of petitioners' lot was actually the Giuniperos' house. Since it was already completed, he merely filed a report the following day indicating that "if the location referenced above is accurate, the structure appeared to be completed at that time." On July 6, 1984, petitioners proceeded to install twenty-three 8" by 8" pilings on their lot at a cost of $1,760. DNR discovered this construction activity a few days later and notified petitioners by telephone that such activity was illegal without a permit. A formal cease and desist order was sent on July 11, 1984, and no activity has taken place since that time. An application for a permit remains in abeyance pending the outcome of this proceeding. The structural requirements of DNR are more stringent than those previously required by Franklin County and FEMA. Indeed, the FEMA guidelines are not a part of a coastal construction regulatory program but are merely minimum standards to meet federal flood insurance criteria. Therefore, while the Guiniperos' proposed dwelling is designed to withstand a windload of 110 miles per hour DNR requires a structure to meet a windload of 140 miles per hour. DNR also recommends that larger and more expensive pilings be used, and that the structure be designed to adequately resist a 100 year return interval storm event. Because the DNR requirements are more stringent, petitioners estimate they will incur total costs of $8,890 just to pull out the old pilings and install larger ones. 1/ Additional costs may be incurred to redesign and build the structure to withstand a wind velocity of 140 miles per hour. By rule, DNR does not grant a waiver of its permit requirements except where a building is already constructed and an applicant desires to make "minor additions" to existing nonconforming structures. The Giuniperos do not qualify for such a waiver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioners' request for a waiver from the permitting requirements of Rule 16B-33.07 be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 11th day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's after-the-fact modification application for construction activities seaward of the coastal construction control line in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In 1984, Petitioner, Thomas R. Sweeney, purchased a home at 5917 South Atlantic Drive, New Smyrna Beach, Florida. At that time, the home was approximately 3,000 square feet in size. The home sits seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL) and thus any construction activities on the premises require the issuance of a CCCL permit from Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In 1987, Petitioner constructed a first floor porch, second story addition, and wooden deck at the site without first applying for and obtaining a CCCL permit from the Department of Natural Resources, which was subsequently merged with DEP. After the construction was completed, Petitioner submitted an after-the-fact application for a CCCL permit for those structures. Before being issued Permit Number VO-423, Petitioner was required to pay an administrative fine. Among other things, Permit VO-423 approved an already constructed wooden deck on the eastern side of the home which approximated 840 square feet in size. Petitioner was also given approval for a wooden walkway with stairs that provided access to the beach. On June 1, 1995, Petitioner filed a second CCCL application with DEP to add a 20-foot first and second story addition with a deck to the south side of the home. After reviewing the application, on November 9, 1995, DEP issued CCCL Permit Number VO-627 authorizing the scope of work identified in the permit application documents. Notwithstanding the limited amount of work authorized by the permit, Petitioner constructed a third story addition to his home. He also removed the original wooden deck on the eastern side of the home, and he constructed spread footers and a foundation on top of the rock revetment for a new and much larger deck. The new deck is approximately 2,100 square feet, or more than 1,200 square feet larger than the original permitted deck. In its present state, the home is approximately 5,600 square feet, and the existing eastern deck is larger than any permitted deck on any other single-family home in Volusia County. On September 9, 1996, DEP discovered the third story addition and the much larger wooden deck with appurtenant structures. Presumedly at the behest of DEP, on November 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted an application for an after-the-fact modification of CCCL Permit Number VO-627 to authorize the previously completed, unauthorized work. On April 23, 1997, DEP issued CCCL Permit Number VO-627 After-the-Fact. The permit approved the third-story addition to the home together with a 10-foot wide wooden deck on the seaward side of the entire third story and a 12-foot wide wooden deck on the landward side of the third story. DEP denied, however, authorization for Petitioner's new wooden deck on the first floor with a tiki hut and sundeck on the ground those structures violated Rule 62B-33.005(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that any new construction seaward of the CCCL "minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm." The issuance of the proposed agency action prompted Petitioner to initiate this proceeding. On November 3, 1997, DEP entered a Final Order directing Petitioner to pay a fine because he illegally constructed structures seaward of the CCCL. The order was never appealed, and thus the time to challenge the order has elapsed. As of the date of hearing, Petitioner had not paid the fine, and a statutory lien has been placed on the property. The Storm Surge Elevation at this site for a 100-year storm event is 10.7 feet N.G.V.D. The Breaking Wave Crest- Elevation for a 100-year storm event at this site is 14.9 feet N.G.V.D. Part of the new eastern deck is located below an elevation of 14.9 feet N.G.V.D. The builder who constructed the additions, Edward Robinson, characterized them as "above average to superior" in quality. To minimize the possibility of the deck washing away during a storm event, he used the "best" nails, bolts, and concrete available. In addition, the new decking was rested upon concrete footers for support. The footers, however, are on top of a rock revetment, and Robinson conceded that such footers are not as stable as a pile foundation. Petitioner used coquina rock (with a low unit weight) for his revetment. It was established that the rocks on which the footers rest are not permanent, and they can shift during a large storm event. In fact, shifting can occur even during a ten-year storm, and there will be a total failure of the revetment during a thirty-year storm event. Once the stones move, an erosion process begins, and the deck will fail. The accompanying high winds will then lift the wooden debris in an airborne fashion. Depending on the strength of the storm, the airborne debris will be a threat not only to Petitioner, but also to his neighbors. Therefore, it is found that the existing construction for the eastern deck does not minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm, and it thus violates Rule 62B-33.005(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the proposed agency action denying in part the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for an after-the-fact amended CCCL permit to construct an expanded eastern deck with a tiki hut and sun deck on his property at 5917 South Atlantic Avenue, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, and approving the application for the structures previously authorized by the Department in its Final Order issued on April 24, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas H. Dale, Esquire Post Office Box 14 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas I. Mayton, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File following the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by the Petitioner. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(c) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. Final Order No. DCA10-GM-056 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned designated Agency Clerk, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this 23-4 day of March, 2010. U.S. Mail: The Honorable D.R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Melvin Wolfe, Esq. Town of Medley 7777 N.W. 72nd Avenue Medley, Florida 33166 Jeffrey S. Bass, Esq. Shubin & Bass, P.A. 46 S.W. First Street, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Hand Delivery: Richard Shine, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Paula Ford Agency Clerk Douglas M. Halsey, Esq. White & Case, LLP Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131 Barbara J. Riesberg, Esq. 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33131
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: l. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for receiving applications for, and the issuance of, general permits for the construction and operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility in the State of Florida. Petitioner Frank Strout, submitted an application for a General Permit for the construction and operation of a Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility with the Department dated April 26, 1995, which was received by the Department on May 2, 1995. On May 16, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Denial to Use a General Permit advising the Petitioner that his request for operation of a construction and demolition debris disposal facility did not qualify for a general permit based on the information submitted by Petitioner in his application dated April 26, 1995, and received by the Department on May 2, 1995. The property upon which the proposed construction and debris disposal facility was to be placed is located at 11163 Agnes Avenue, Southwest, Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida, and is owned by Petitioner Frank Strout. This location is the same as the location of the construction and demolition debris facility owned by Petitioner that previously operated under a permit issued to Petitioner in April, 1990, which expired due to Petitioner's failure to timely file for an extension of that permit with the Department. However, the disposal area will not cover the entire area of the disposal area of the previous permitted facility. The Notice advised Petitioner that he had not provided the Department with supporting information demonstrating compliance with the construction demolition debris disposal requirements of Chapter 62-701, Florida Administrative Code, as follows: The prohibitions of Rule 62-701.300(2), Florida Administrative Code, have not been addressed. Documentation indicating that the site does not violate these prohibitions was not provided. The airport requirement of Rule 62- 701(12), Florida Administrative Code, was not addressed. Information indicating the location of airports within a 5 mile radius of the site was not provided. A site plan which meets the requirements of Rule 62-701.803(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, was not submitted. A geotechnical investigation which meets the requirements of Rule 62-701.420, Florida Administrative Code, was not submitted as required by Rule 62-701.803(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A description of facility operations (operations plan) was not submitted as required by Rule 62-701.803(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. A boundary survey was not submitted as required by Rule 62-701.803(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Closure plans and cross section details of the final cover which meets the requirements of Rule 62-701.320(7)(f), Florida Administrative Code, were not submitted as required by Rule 62- 701.803(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. The Department has received a copy of a letter from Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) to the applicant, dated May 23, 1995, which indicates that the District is concerned about the proximity of the C&D debris to on- site wetlands. The letter from District, dated March 13, 1990, provided an exemption from surface water permitting requirements based on the District's understanding that the proposed operation would not change surface water drainage patterns, stormwater runoff quantities or quality. However, site inspections by the Department and District staff have indicated that surface water drainage patterns have been changed by the operation at the site. Therefore, a copy of a permit for stormwater control issued by the Department or the District shall be required pursuant to Rule 62-701.803(4), Florida Administrative Code. Information indicating the availability of equipment for the temporary storage of unacceptable wastes at the site, and segregation methods were not submitted as required by Rule 62-701.803(5), Florida Administrative Code. Compaction procedures and equipment were not described as required by Rule 62- 701.803(6), Florida Administrative Code. A description of access control methods and devices was not submitted as required by Rule 62-701,803(7), Florida Administrative Code. A description of waste inspection procedures was not submitted as required by Rule 62-701.803(8), Florida Administrative Code. The facility's operating hours were not provided to ensure compliance with Rule 62- 701.803(9), Florida Administrative Code. The closure plan submitted as required by Rule 62-701.803(10), Florida Administrative Code, is insufficient. Pursuant to Rule 62-4.070(5), Florida Administrative Code, the Department shall take into consideration a permit applicant's violation of any Department rules at any installation when determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that Department standards will be met. Reasonable assurance that Department standards will be met has not been provided. Pursuant to Rule 62-701.803(10), Florida Administrative Code, final cover and vegetation shall be established on each disposal unit within 180 days of final receipt of wastes for that unit. Since waste has not been disposed at the site since approximately March, 1993, and the area has not been closed, the requirements of Rule 62- 701.803(10), Florida Administrative Code, has not been met. There is pond on the Petitioner's property which is located to the north of both the existing and proposed disposal areas. The pond is located within 200 feet of the proposed disposal area. The pond is contained completely within the boundaries of the disposal site and on at least one occasion has discharged to surface waters. However, there is no evidence to show that there was at least a 25 year/24 hour storm event on the occasion when the pond discharged to surface waters. Petitioner has failed to furnish the Department with the necessary information for the Department to determine if the pond discharges from the site to surface waters in a 25 year/24 hour storm event. Likewise, Petitioner has failed to provide the Department with either a copy of a storm water permit or documentation that a storm water permit was not necessary Wetlands are located along the southern boundary of Petitioner's property upon which the proposed construction and debris disposal facility will be located. These wetlands are located within 200 feet of the proposed disposal area. Petitioner has offered to reconfigure the disposal area to meet the 200 feet setback. However, Petitioner has not submitted a site plan to demonstrate the manner in which compliance with the 200 feet setback would be achieved. There is a potable water well located on Petitioner's property upon which the proposed facility is to be located which is located within 500 feet of the proposed disposal area. The permit application proposes a maximum elevation of 84 feet for the disposal area with a 3:1 slope for the entire disposal area. Petitioner has not furnished the Department with the existing elevations within the proposed disposal area. Without these elevations the Petitioner cannot show how he would comply with the proposed maximum elevation while maintaining the required 3:1 slope. Likewise, without these elevations, the Department would be unable to determine if Petitioner is complying with the proposed maximum elevation while maintaining the required 3:1 slope. Petitioner has not provided the Department with a geotechnical investigation so as to allow the Department to determine if the site's subsurface features would adequately support the proposed disposal area. The evidence in the record shows that Petitioner has not addressed all of the Department's concerns set out in Finding of Fact 4 (a) through (o). However, based on the testimony of Petitioner and Robert Butera, the Department's witness, it appears that the Department would consider the concerns set out in Finding of Fact 4 (b), (e), (f), (k), and (m) to have been adequately addressed by Petitioner. Petitioner has failed to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that the construction or operation of the facility would be in accord with applicable laws or rules.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a permit for the construction and operation of a demolition and debris disposal facility. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3760 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 Petitioner and the Department in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are set out in three unnumbered paragraphs which shall be considered as proposed findings of fact 1 through 3. Proposed findings of fact 1-2 are not supported by evidence in the record. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 14. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 12 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Frank Strout, Pro se 11163 Agnes Street, Southwest Arcadia, Florida 33821 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses alleged in the three administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a general contractor by the Petitioner. Respondent was issued license number CG C010162 in 1975 and has held that licensure ever since. The first complaint against Respondent’s licensure, like the three complaints at issue in this proceeding, arose from a post-Hurricane Andrew contract. That complaint was resolved by stipulation of the parties. Respondent did not admit to wrongdoing in his stipulation. Respondent was financially unable to comply with the terms of the settlement. Consequently, his license was suspended at the time of the formal hearing. There was no explanation as to why this complaint, which occurred at approximately the same time as the three contracts at issue in this proceeding, was prosecuted separately. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for Allstate Construction Management, Inc. (Allstate), a Florida corporation. THE RODRIGUEZ CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4580) On March 17, 1993, Allstate entered into a contract with Anthony Rodriguez to build a garage at 15525 SW 209th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $16,250.00, which included “plans, permit and cleanup.” Allstate was paid the sum of $4,062.50 on March 17, 1993. Allstate obtained the Dade County building permit for the project on March 26, 1993. Allstate was paid the sum of $5,593.75 on April 5, 1993, after the concrete blocks were installed. On April 8, 1993, Allstate requested a tie beam/reinforcing inspection from the Dade County building department. In response to that request, Antonio Varona inspected the project on April 12, 1993. The inspector noted that the project was not ready for inspection because no truss plans were available. Respondent testified, credibly, that he had to construct the roof conventionally because of the difficulty in obtaining pre-fabricated trusses; however, that testimony does not explain why there were no truss plans available for inspection. Appropriately engineered truss plans are required for a roof to pass inspection. Despite the failure of the project to pass inspection, Mr. Rodriguez accepted the roof and paid Allstate $4,968.75 on May 21, 1993. As of May 21, 1993, there remained a final payment of $1,625 on the contract. After May 21, 1993, Respondent and Allstate left the Rodriguez job. There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether Mr. Rodriguez fired Allstate or whether Allstate abandoned the project. This dispute is resolved by finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Allstate abandoned the Rodriguez project. When Allstate left the Rodriguez job, there were sufficient funds remaining unpaid to complete the project. Because he had obtained the initial building permit, it was incumbent upon Respondent to either obtain a final inspection of the project or notify the building department that his company had been terminated by the owner. Respondent did neither. THE ELLIS CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4581) At the times pertinent to this proceeding, William R. Ellis owned the Arleen House, which is an apartment building located at 2191 N.E. 168th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. This building suffered damages from Hurricane Andrew. On September 11, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Ellis inspected the building and Respondent prepared an estimate as to the items that had been damaged by the hurricane and other non-hurricane related repairs that should be made. The mansard roof for this building had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew to the extent that it contained gaping holes. Shortly after that inspection, Mr. Ellis met with his insurance adjuster who gave him a check in the amount of $13,000 to repair the roof. It was necessary to dry in the roof and repair the mansard as soon as possible to avoid additional damage to the building from rains. While there was a dispute as to the extent of the services Allstate was to provide Mr. Ellis, the record is clear that Respondent, on behalf of Allstate, agreed to undertake the roof repair for the sum of $13,000. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that his company had a roofing crew ready to begin work on the roof repairs as soon as Mr. Ellis paid the sum of $13,000. Between September 11 and September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Allstate a check in the amount of $13,000 with the understanding that the check he had received from the insurance company had to clear before his bank would honor the check he was giving to Allstate. Immediately thereafter1 Allstate sent a roofing crew to the project for the purpose of temporarily covering exposed areas. Despite having been told by Mr. Ellis that the check he was giving Allstate would not be good until after the check for the insurance proceeds had cleared, Allstate did not wait to deposit Mr. Ellis’ check. Respondent was promptly notified that the check Mr. Ellis had given him would not be honored by Mr. Ellis’ bank. Respondent immediately thereafter withdrew the roofing crew from the project. The roofing crew had made only minor repairs at the time they were withdrawn from the project. Respondent knew, or should have known, that the building was vulnerable to further damage from rain. On September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Respondent a second check in the amount of $13,000. This check cleared the banking process on September 18, 1992. Mr. Ellis made repeated efforts to have Allstate send a crew to repair the roof. After it withdrew the crew that had been sent to the property when Allstate received the first check, Allstate did not take action to protect the property by repairing the exposed areas of the roof. Towards the end of September 1992, a heavy rainstorm caused additional damages to Mr. Ellis’ building. Allstate did not send a crew to the project again until October 6, 1992. Mr. Ellis hired this crew away from Allstate. He testified he did so because the crew complained about Allstate not paying for the materials they were using to repair the roof and because the workmen were threatening to file liens against the property. Mr. Ellis paid this crew the sum of $3,400 to temporarily repair the roof. He then entered into a contract with another contractor to complete the roofing repairs for the sum of $17,500. Mr. Ellis demanded the return of the $13,000 he paid to Allstate, but, as of the time of the formal hearing, he had not been repaid. THE KUCHENBACKER CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4582) On November 6, 1992, Allstate entered into a contract with Carl F. Kuchenbacker to repair his residence at 18500 SW 88th Road, Miami, Florida. Mr. Kuchenbacker’s residence had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew. The initial contract price was $33,375.00. Respondent secured the building permit and Allstate began work on the project. During the course of the work, additional work was added to the contract, which raised the total contract price to $38,015.00. In late February or early March, 1993, Allstate abandoned the project without just cause and without notice to the owner. At the time it abandoned the project, Allstate had been paid the sum of $26,620.00. Allstate failed to pay all of the subcontractors and materialmen who had performed work or provided material for the Kuchenbacker job. As a result of that failure, valid liens were recorded against Mr. Kuchenbacker’s property. The following liens were recorded: Rite-Way Plumbing and Plastery, Inc. in the amount of $3,520.00; Commercial Lighting and Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $1,835.00; and Scott Bornstein Plumbing, Inc., in the amount of $798.00. Allstate had received sufficient funds from the owner to pay these liens, but neither Respondent nor Allstate paid these liens. Mr. Kuchenbacker and Petitioner’s expert witness testified that the value of the work performed by Allstate before it abandoned the job was $21,000.00. Mr. Kuchenbacker also testified as to the items that remained undone and as to the percentage of the work that had been completed. From that testimony and from the testimony as to the estimated costs of completing the job, it is found that the sum of $11,395.00, which was the difference between the total contract price and the total amount that was paid to Allstate, was sufficient to complete the project and pay off the liens on the property. Respondent did not call for a final inspection of the property and he did not advise the Dade County Building Department that he was abandoning the project. Allstate abandoned the Kuchenbacker project because it went out of business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner impose fines totaling $5,000 against Respondent’s licensure as follows: For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count IV of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $250. For the violation established by DOAH Case 96-4581, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $750. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. For the violation established by Count III of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found in DOAH Case 96-4581, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found DOAH Case 96-4582, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years, to run concurrently with the suspension recommended for DOAH Case 96- 4581. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1997
