Findings Of Fact The subject property Petitioners, Michael and Janice Rush, are the owners of a single family residence located at 3032 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Such residence lies seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and is therefore subject to the permitting jurisdiction of respondent, Department of Natural Resources (Department). Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. The first application In April 1991, Petitioners filed a permit application (Permit File No. BO-267) with the Department for permission to renovate their home and construct a swimming pool. That application was found to be incomplete, and by letter of April 17, 1991, the Department notified petitioners of the information required to complete their application. Following receipt and review of the requested information, the Department, by letter of July 26, 1991, advised petitioners that, as proposed, their application to construct a pool and renovate the home would have to be denied. Pertinent to the proposed pool, such letter observed that a portion of the pool would be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection which is prohibited 1/, the general construction line of major structures would be advanced further seaward, adverse impacts to the beach/dune system during a major storm event could be expected, and cumulative adverse impacts could be expected. Thereafter, by letter of August 14, 1991, the Department was advised that petitioners were submitting new house plans for the subject property, and that the request for leave to construct the pool had been removed from their application. 2/ On December 23, 1991, the Department issued a final order in Permit File No. BO-267 which authorized the petitioners to remodel their home. Such final order observed: . . . The direct and cumulative impacts to the beach and dune system that will be caused by both the seaward location and shore- parallel width of the proposed construction represent the maximum such impacts that are acceptable to the Department. Therefore, future construction on the site seaward of the coastal construction control line shall not extend further seaward of, or increase the shore- parallel coverage occupied by, the proposed structures approved pursuant to this permit. The pool, which petitioners had initially proposed to construct seaward of the home, but subsequently deleted from their plans, constituted a major structure, albeit nonhabitable. Rule 16B-33.002(54)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners were expressly advised by the Department of their right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the provisions of the final order. No such contest was filed. 3/ The pending application On February 20, 1992, petitioners filed a new application (Permit File NO. BO-289) with the Department for permission to construct the swimming pool on their property. As proposed, the pool would be located in the beach-dune system seaward of petitioners' home, as well as seaward of an existing retaining wall on the petitioners' property. The pool would measure 16.0' x 35.7' externally, be constructed of reinforced gunite, and be supported by ten piles. The alignment of the pool would be in the shore parallel direction, rather than the shore normal direction as proposed in the prior application, thereby placing the pool landward of the 30-year erosion projection. By letter of March 8, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their application was incomplete, and requested additional information. Petitioners submitted the final information necessary to complete their application on July 21, 1992. By letter dated October 7, 1992, received by petitioners' representative on October 13, 1992, the Department issued a public notice as follows: The referenced application for a permit pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, has been placed on the agenda of the head of the Department of Natural Resources (Governor and Cabinet). The application will be reviewed by the Cabinet Aides in the Cabinet Meeting Room on the lower level of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 14, 1992. The application will then be heard by the Governor and Cabinet in Room LL03 of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 20, 1992. You may attend these meetings if you desire. The recommendation [for denial] shown on the enclosed agenda item has been made to the head of the Department by the Executive Director. This represents an agency determination. . . . The notice, consistent with the provisions of Rule 16B-33.012(8), Florida Administrative Code, further advised that any substantially affected person had the right to request a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within 21 days of receipt of the notice, and that "If the decision of the Governor and Cabinet is different from the staff recommendation as noticed . . ., then the applicant or any substantially affected person shall have 21 days from the date of the Governor and Cabinet's announcement of their decision in which to petition the agency for a hearing." The basis for the Department's denial of petitioners' application to construct the swimming pool was stated as follows: The proposed swimming pool is not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available. For example a similar structure could be sited in a less impactive location landward of the single-family dwelling on the southwest corner of the property. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Paragraph 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Rule 16B-33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shore line fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion. The proposed swimming pool is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system. * * * 8. The proposed project is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. The Department, therefore, may not authorize the construction of the pool. On October 13, 1992, petitioners requested that their application be removed from the agenda, and be rescheduled for "a later date to be determined." The rationale for petitioners' request was to afford "an opportunity for the permittee and staff to meet in Tallahassee in early to mid November and reach a design for a pool which can be recommended favorably by staff." By letter of October 14, 1992, the Department granted petitioners' request and the item was removed from the agenda for the Governor and Cabinet meeting of October 20, 1992. Such letter further provided that although the Department was willing to meet with petitioners to discuss the staff concerns about their application, that it "must caution you . . . that at this time I do not anticipate that a swimming pool, as you requested, can be satisfactory [sic] located seaward of your home." Petitioners and the Department were unable to resolve their dispute. Accordingly, petitioners filed a petition on November 2, 1992, to contest the proposed denial of their application. By letter of November 13, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their request for formal administrative hearing was inadequate, but accorded them 14 days from receipt of such letter to submit an appropriate request. Petitioners timely submitted an appropriate request for hearing on November 30, 1992, and the matter was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 4/ The merits of the pending application As heretofore noted in the findings of fact, the Department enunciated seven reasons to support its denial of petitioner's application. The first basis for denial was the Department's assertion that the proposed swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available." In this regard, it is observed that Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: . . . Establishment of a coastal construction control line . . . does not preclude all development of or alteration of coastal property seaward of such lines. However, activities seaward of a coastal construction control line . . . shall be limited and the necessity of such development, construction or alteration shall be stated and clearly justified by the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid rule does not further explain what is contemplated by the requirement that the applicant clearly justify the "necessity" of the proposed development; however, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary. 5/ In this regard, "necessity" is defined to mean "something that cannot be done without." Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary. It is also defined as "something needed for the existence, effectiveness, or success of something (a requirement)," and "the state or fact of being required or unavoidable." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Here, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct the swimming pool since it fails to credibly support the conclusion that such construction is required for the effective or reasonable use of petitioners' property or that such construction is essential for the well-being of its occupants.6/ To the contrary, the petitioners' decision to construct the pool is merely a matter of personal preference or convenience. Moreover, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct a pool of the size and configuration proposed (16' x 35.7' with a maximum depth of 8') or of the materials selected (reinforced gunite supported by piles). Indeed, a pool of a different configuration or size could be located elsewhere on the property and the pool could be constructed on a base slab foundation or of vinyl to alleviate the adverse effects of its current design, discussed infra. 7/ As further reasons for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade"; Rule 16B-33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties"; Rule 16B- 33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion"; and Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, "to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system." Pertinent to the aforesaid reasons for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, the "Department Policy Statement on Permits," provides: Seaward of the coastal construction control line . . ., special siting, structural and other design considerations are required: (a) for the protection of the beach-dune system; * * * (c) for the protection of adjacent properties. And, Rule 16B-33.007, Florida Administrative Code, the "Structural and Other Requirements Necessary for Permit Approval," provides: The proposed structure or other activity shall be located a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve the dune stability and natural recovery following storm induced erosion . . . . All structures shall be designed so as to minimize any expected adverse impact on the beach-dune system or adjacent properties and structures and shall be designed consistent with Section 16B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code. Relevant to such rules, the proof demonstrates that the frontal dune on the subject property appears to have been leveled at an elevation of approximately +12.0 feet NGVD, and petitioners' home is located on top of the crest of the frontal dune. The seaward slope of the frontal dune begins at the seaward face of the house and slopes down to the beach. Approximately 12 feet seaward of the house is an existing retaining wall. The proposed pool will be sited immediately seaward of such wall and therefore on the seaward slope of the frontal dune. The proposed pool is a pile supported concrete swimming pool with exterior dimensions of 16.0' shore-normal by 35.7' shore-parallel, and a maximum depth of 8.0'. The foundation is specified to be auger-cast piles, which will penetrate to an elevation of -23.0' NGVD or 3' embedment where a rock layer is encountered. The elevation of the pool is proposed at +13.0' NGVD, with a bottom elevation of +4.0' NGVD. As designed and sited, construction of the pool would destabilize the dune, hinder its function of protecting upland development during a storm event, and adversely affect natural shoreline fluctuation and recovery following storm induced erosion. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the location of the pool seaward of the existing retaining wall would interrupt the natural continuity of dune formation because sand would accumulate seaward of the pool in a less stable location and would impede the accumulation of sand on adjacent properties. Construction of the pool, as designed and sited, would also induce scour during the course of a storm event impacting the structure. Such storm- induced scour, in addition to erosion, would cause the loss of additional sand at the vicinity of the structure, robbing the beach-dune system of additional sand necessary to protect upland structures, and would also contribute to the potential failure of the structure itself and other upland structures. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that approximately 1,000 cubic yards of sand would be lost on petitioners' section of the beach in the event of a 10-year storm. Additionally, structure-induced scour of 77.5 cubic yards from the ten piles, 120.4 cubic yards from the pool shell, and 15.8 cubic yards from the "end effects" of the pool (the amount of structure-induced scour from the ends of the structure) might reasonably be anticipated in the event of a 10-year storm. If the pool were to be impacted by a higher frequency storm, such as a 20-year or a 100-year storm, scour and erosion would increase. 8/ As an additional basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, "because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area." Here, the proof supports the Department's conclusion. As its final basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, "because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event." Pertinent to the aforesaid basis for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site; however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event . . . . Here, petitioners' project is expected to have significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system as a consequence of its design and siting. Accordingly, the provisions of Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant. Moreover, there was no proof concerning any similar structures along the coast, existing or proposed, that would contribute to or intensify the degradation of the beach-dune system occasioned by the proposed project. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that cumulative impact is a relevant issue in these proceedings. While cumulative impact is not relevant to the pending application, the other reasons advanced by the Department for denial of the application have, as heretofore found, a rational basis in fact. Under such circumstances, petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioners' application to construct seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November 1993.
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Petitioner should be granted an exemption to construct approximately 2,100 linear feet of seawall along the western and southwestern shorn of Fisher Island, located in Biscayne Bay, Florida. In the alternative Petitioner seeks to obtain a permit for such construction nod accompanying fill in the event that it does not qualify for an exemption. At the final hearing Petitioner called as witnesses John f. Guttman, Jon Staiger, J. Van De Kreeke and Howard Teas. Tee Respondent called as witnesses Richard E. Walesky and Jeremy Allen Craft. The Petitioner offered and had admitted into evidence 93 exhibits. The Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence 7 exhibits. Subsequent to the final hearing the parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are inconsistent with this order, they are rejected as being unsupported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact At the final hearing the parties stipulated to certain facts and based upon that stipulation those facts are found as follows: Petitioner FISHER ISLAND, a Florida limited partnership, owns the entire western and southwestern shore of the artificial spoil island known as Fisher Island, located between Virginia Key and the southern tip of Miami Beach, immediately south of the Port of Miami facilities, in Sections 9 and 10, Township 54 South, Range 42 East, in Dade County, Florida. FISHER ISLAND owns the submerged lands lying between the existing seawall and the line of mean high water. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Fund) sold the lands in question in 1920, and FISHER ISLAND has purchased those lands along with most of the island. The lands owned by FISHER ISLAND are set forth in the legal descriptions contained in Deed Nos. 16,336, 16,336c, and 18110 from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and in two deeds dated October 31, 1979, from Fisher Island Associates, Inc., and Cocolobo Corporation to Island Developers, Ltd. Acting through the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Board has admitted FISHER ISLAND'S ownership of the submerged lands that Petitioner proposed to fill and reclaim, and the Board and DNR have raised no objection to Petitioner's application for a permit to restore a seawall. On or about October 27, 1981, FISHER ISLAND applied to Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a dredge and fill permit to restore an existing seawall and thereby bulkhead about 2 100 linear feet of the southwestern shoreline of the island at a distance of IS feet or greater from the shoreline. FISHER ISLAND initially asked that DER approve the proposed project as exempt from the requirements for a dredge and fill permit, under the exemption contained in Section 403.812(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes and Rule 17-4.04(9)(h) of the Florida Administrative Code. On December 9, 1981, Richard Walesky and Larry O'Donnell of the South Subdistrict Office in West Palm Beach, submitted their report of a visual inspection of the site made by Mr. Walesky in November, 1981. Mr. O'Donnell did not inspect the site. Mr. Walesky walked along the shoreline and swam over the area just offshore in which the applicant's consulting engineer had plotted the line of the seawall. He took no measurements and no soil, water, or any other kind of samples. He did take panoramic photographs of the shoreline. Mr. Walesky observed in his report that 8 to 10 mangroves were scattered over several hundred feet of the area at issue, along with some Australian pines, and that a large dredging pipe was tied up to the trees along the same portion of the shore. He concluded that because water completely covered the allegedly existing seawall except for some pilings in a line along the northern portion of the southwestern shoreline, waterward of the existing mean high water line, and because he found no other visual evidence of the seawall, it was not "a functional seawall and clearly [did] not fit the requested exemption." On the basis of the report of Mr. Walesky's visual inspection of the site, DER informed Petitioner FISHER ISLAND that its project did not qualify for the exemption. Accordingly, DER proceeded to process the application for a standard dredge and fill permit. On January 4, 1983, Mr. Walesky returned to the site for an inspection of the site's biological characteristics and value and an assessment of the projected impacts of the proposed seawall restoration on the environment. Again, he took no measurements or samples. He did not note the presence of any grass beds, oyster beds, or clam beds. He did take certain photographs of the shoreline. Mr. Walesky noted that cost of the area was sandy and clean, with algae-covered boulders the main form of life present. On the basis of Mr. Walesky's two inspections, DER issued its Intent to Deny the permit requested by FISHER ISLAND, on April 15, 1983. The shoreline along which Petitioner wishes to place the proposed seawall runs primarily along the southwest side of Fisher Island. This area is adjacent to a channel called Norris Cut. The depth of the water along Norris Cut drops abruptly from as little as 2 feet to as deep as 18 feet. Over the past years there has been substantial erosion along this shoreline. However, there is a very gradual slope from the shoreline to a point off-shore where there is an abrupt and steep drop-off into the cut. The point where this drop- off occurs is in a straight line along this shoreline and is in direct line with the old seawall located along the Garwood Estate which is located in part along the same shoreline but east of the proposed seawall area. This area of the shoreline is constantly impacted by strong currents and wave action. Aerial photographs from as early as 1945 reveal that the straight line along which the abrupt drop- off occurs has remained straight and in the same position since 1945. This line and the resulting contours are very unusual along shores of is lands in this area and is consistent with the existence of an artificial structure such as a seawall holding the sand along the shore in place. Typically shorelines in this area which are exposed to this type of tidal, wave and current action have a more gradual slope and a more meandering slope or shoreline. Those same aerial photographs reveal continual erosion along this shoreline and in recent years the rate of erosion has accelerated. This erosion problem would be eliminated by the proposed seawall. There presently remains along the western tip, two rows of tieback pilings, totaling 80 in number. These tiebacks at one time were part of the seawall which was built along this shoreline. Seaward of one of these groups of tiebacks there remains a small area where the pilings and planks of the old seawall are still visible. A second group of tiebacks is located along the southwest shore and number 42. These two groups of pilings appear to be parallel to the line of drop-off and functioned as part of a seawall along this shore. In the early 1960's pilings along the drop-off line extended above water level and were visible along approximately 50 per cent of the area of the proposed seawall. These pilings were a navigational hazard and in 1981 were nipped off at the sand bottom in order to avoid boating accidents. These piles were part of the old seawall. Just east of the area of the proposed seawall there is a marina entrance which has been cut into the shoreline, dredged, and bulkheaded. At one point during the construction of the bulkhead that runs along the shore the contractor veered off course a small amount and hit the remaining portion of the old seawall in that area. The old seawall was stable enough that pilings could not be driven and so the pilings, planks and cables of the old seawall were removed. In order to dredge and clear the entrance to the marina it was also necessary to remove the old seawall located in the entrance area. The various experts called by Petitioner and Respondent gave different definitions of a seawall. John R. Guttman, an expert in civil and coastal engineering, marina planning and seawall construction, testified that the purpose of a seawall is to retain fill and that a "functioning seawall" did not have to be visible above water. Dr. Jacobus Van De Kreeke, an expert and Ph.D. in coastal and oceanographic engineering, testified that the function of a seawall is to retain lands, to prevent land from sliding into the ocean, and to protect, uplands from wave action. Dr. Van De Kreeke based his definition primarily upon the Shore Protection Manual of the Army Corps of Engineers and opined that the structure along the drop-off line in the area of the proposed seawall is still a functioning seawall. Mr. Walesky, who is an expert in marine ecology, testified that a seawall functions to separate the land from the sea. Jeremy Craft, an expert in water quality and marine ecology, argued with the definition of a seawall given by Mr. Walesky. Mr. Walesky and Mr. Craft are employees of the Respondent, DER, and Mr. Guttman and Dr. Van De Kreeke testified on behalf of Petitioner. The term "seawall" is not defined in the DER rules or in the Florida Statutes. Up to some point in time in the past there was a complete and functioning seawall along the shore involved in this application. The subsurface portion of that seawall remains to date and continues to perform the function of that portion of a seawall which lies below the surface and in the soil. The shoreline involved, at one time bad 8 to 10 white mangroves growing in and among the Australian pines which grew along the shore in the same area. The mangroves were in a line no more than one plant deep. Prior to Mr. Walesky's second inspection these mangroves were apparently pulled out by dredge pipes which had been anchored to them by someone other than Petitioner. It is likely that without the Australian pines these mangroves would have been washed away. Of the three types of mangroves the white mangrove lives farther up- shore and is less susceptible to growing or becoming established in the inter- tidal zone. Red mangroves live out in the water, grow farther into the inter- tidal zone and are considered to be of higher value than white mangroves in a mangrove eco-system. A mangrove eco-system is beneficial to the environment. A few singular mangroves do not constitute a mangrove eco-system. Mangroves become established by seedlings becoming trapped along shore and taking root. In this area of the Fisher Island shoreline, the shore is constantly washed by swift currents and tidal and wave action. There are no extended periods of no motion because of the rapid turnover and change in direction of tides in this area. Some of the swiftest currents in the area of Norris Cut and Fisher Island occur directly along and adjacent to this shoreline. The result is that suspended materials such as mangrove seedlings have no opportunity to accumulate along the shoreline. These same factors also result in a very sparse rack line in this area. It is highly unlikely that this shoreline would support a mangrove fringe. In the fall of 1983 when Dr. Howard Teas, an expert marine biology, water quality, and coastal and mangrove ecology, inspected the area involved he found no mangrove seeds along the rack line on Fisher Island when they were present elsewhere in the area. Dr. Teas as well as Dr. John Steiger, opined that this high energy shoreline is not conducive to the establishment of a mangrove fringe and it is highly unlikely that a mangrove fringe will become established along this shore. Mr. Walesky in his inspection prior to the final hearing observed sesuvium grass along the shoreline and saw one red mangrove seedling which had become rooted in the sesuvium grass. Mr. Walesky agreed that this shoreline is a high velocity area, but opined that a number of years from now mangroves may begin to grow along this shoreline. Some grass beds do appear in the inter-tidal area which would be filled under this application. These grass beds cover about 3.8 to 4 per cent of the total area involved. These beds are sparse with very low density. Haladule and halophila are the grasses found along this shore. The numerous photographs and aerial photographs presented in evidence revealed no human activities or construction along this shoreline which could have prevented the establishment or growth of these grass beds in this area over the last three or four years. Both haladule and halophila can become established in one year. Brownish algae also appears along this shoreline and forms a thin felt-like mat in the areas where it appears. The water in this area is very turbid and there are no oyster or clam beds. The number and density of organisms along this shoreline are both very low. The area along this shoreline is one of poor productivity. Samples taken by Petitioners expert in the vicinity of this shoreline had a density of organisms approximately 1710 the absolute density of typical areas of Biscayne Bay. The soil along the shoreline involved is primarily sandy silt. This type of soil has some cohesiveness but not very much. Neither party in the Instant case did testing to determine the specific cohesive properties of the soil along Fisher Island and Norris Cut. The proposed seawall will begin at a point approximately 70 to 100 feet west of the marina entrance. Approximately 500 to 530 feet of the westernmost portion of the proposed seawall will be located beyond or outside of the boundary of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The seawall will be constructed of a slab and pile concrete system. This construction approach is an acceptable method of constructing a seawall in this area and is identical to the structure that was permitted by DER in 1979 for another area of shoreline of Fisher Island. There is a cap along the top of the proposed seawall which will prevent stormwater runoff from the island into the adjacent waters of Norris Cut.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the exemption of Petitioner's seawall as requested. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day July, 1984. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy A. Smith, Esquire 1401 Brickell Avenue, PH-1 Miami, Florida 33131 Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether Permit Number 9330008850 (a building permit for the construction of a single-family residence and swimming pool) issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Fred Snowman is inconsistent with Monroe County's setback requirement pertaining to beach berms that are known turtle nesting areas.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Petitioner has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern. Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, and 380.07, Florida Statutes. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. Monroe County issued the development order that is the subject of this appeal. Respondent Fred Snowman is a general contractor and is the owner of real property known as Lot 75, Matecumbe Ocean Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in Monroe County, Florida. The subject property is a residential lot that measures 100 feet by approximately 225 feet and was acquired by Mr. Snowman in September 1992. The subject property is bounded on the landward side by U.S. 1 and fronts the Atlantic Ocean. Respondent's lot is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On September 30, 1993, Monroe County issued building permit, Permit Number 9330008850, to Fred Snowman as Owner and General Contractor. This building permit is a development order in an area of critical state concern and is the subject of this proceeding. As reflected by the approved site plans, the permit authorizes the construction of a 2,472 square foot single-family residence with 1,568 square feet of porches, a 1,435 square foot storage enclosure below base flood elevation, and a swimming pool on the property. As permitted, all construction will be setback at least 75 feet from the mean high water line. There is no dispute between the parties as to where the mean high water line is located. Sections 9.5-335 through 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, are land development regulations that contain certain environmental performance standards relating to development. The purpose of these standards is "to provide for the conservation and protection of the environmental resources of the Florida Keys by ensuring that the functional integrity of natural areas is protected when land is developed." See, Section 9.5-335, Monroe County Code. Included in the environmental standards of the land development regulations is Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, entitled "Environmental design criteria," which provides, in relevant part: Disturbed Lands: All structures developed, used or occupied on land which are [sic] classified as disturbed on the existing conditions map shall be designated, located and constructed such that: * * * (3) On lands classified as disturbed with beach berm: * * * f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds; There is little dispute that Lower Matecumbe beach is an active nesting area for marine turtles. Loggerhead turtles, the primary marine turtles which nest on Atlantic beaches in the Keys, are a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. There are thirty beaches in the Florida Keys which consist of loggerhead nesting habitat. The beach that fronts Mr. Snowman's property on Lower Matecumbe Key is a known turtle nesting beach that is ranked as the second most heavily nested beach in the Keys. The Monroe County comprehensive plan recognizes the beaches on Lower Matecumbe Key as known loggerhead turtle nesting beaches. Pursuant to the comprehensive plan, the County has prepared endangered species maps as a tool to be utilized in identifying known turtle nesting areas. At the time Mr. Snowman obtained approval of his permit application from Monroe County, the County's endangered species maps omitted an approximately 1.5 mile stretch of Lower Matecumbe Beach, including Mr. Snowman's property, from its map designation of a known nesting habitat. However, since that approval, the map, which is subject to periodic updates, has been updated by the County to reflect that all of Lower Matecumbe Key, including Mr. Snowman's property, is considered by the County to be known turtle nesting habitat. Mr. Snowman did not rely on the designation on the endangered species map in making his decision to purchase the subject property or in designing the improvements he seeks to construct on the property. Surveys of turtle nesting behavior in the Florida Keys are accomplished through a network of volunteers. The nesting survey information obtained from this volunteer network provides very general locations with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the number and ability of the volunteers and the extent to which they can obtain access to privately owned beach front property. Because of the limitations in the survey data, is it generally not possible to determine whether turtles have nested on a particular lot. There was no evidence that turtles actually nest on Mr. Snowman's property. Marine turtles most commonly nest within the first 50 feet landward of the mean high tide line, although they have been known to go farther upland. Because of the compressed beach and berm habitat in the Keys, loggerhead turtles have been known to nest in grassy vegetation and woody vegetation more than 50 feet landward of the mean high water line. Mr. Snowman's property is properly designated as "Disturbed Lands" and there exists on this property a "beach-berm complex" which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles within the meaning of Section 9.5- 345, Monroe County Code. The setback requirement found in Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, applies to this development. Consequently, no construction of any structure may be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion the beach- berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles. There was a conflict in the evidence as to how much of Mr. Snowman's property should be considered to be a beach-berm habitat. The County has identified the landward extent of the beach-berm to be twenty-five feet from the mean high water line, so that the setback would be to a point at least 75 feet from the mean high water line. The Department has identified the landward extent of the beach berm to be 80 feet from the mean high water line so that the setback would be to a point at least 130 feet from the mean high water line. Section 9.5-4(B-3) contains the following definition that is pertinent to this proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. There are two distinct ridges located on the Snowman property. Beginning at the mean high water line, there is an area of sandy beach followed by a ridge (the first ridge) that levels off approximately 25 feet from the mean high water line. Behind this first ridge is another ridge that levels off approximately 80 feet landward of the mean high water line. This second ridge contains the highest elevation point on Mr. Snowman's property, with the crest of the second ridge corresponding with the 5.9 foot elevation reflected on Respondent's site plan. There is no vegetation on the beach, which is an area of sandy substrate, until the landward downslope of the first ridge, where vegetation in the form of grasses and sea oats appear. Grasses and sea oats extend approximately 30-40 feet landward into the beginning of the second ridge. Behind the grasses and sea oats is woody vegetation, Bay Cedar, and shrubbery typical of beach front property. Also found on the property and landward of the first ridge are sea grape, wild sage, gray nicker pod, and prickly pear cactus. Monroe County considers this first ridge to be the extent of the beach berm complex on the Snowman property. The County identifies the back of the berm on the subject property as measuring 25 feet landward of mean high water and applied the 50 foot setback requirement from that point. The determination of the extent of the beach berm by the County is consistent with the definition of the term "beach berm" contained in Section 9.5-345(3)f, Monroe County Code, and is supported by the greater weight of the evidence presented at the formal hearing. Consequently, it is found that the beach berm complex on the Snowman property extends 25 feet landward of the mean high water mark so that the setback requirement was properly applied when the development order was issued. The Department asserts that the second ridge should be considered to be part of the beach berm. The Department's determination of the extent of the beach berm is bottomed on a more expansive definition of the term "beach berm" derived from its interpretation of various portions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Code. Inexplicably, the Department's interpretation of what should be considered to be included as part of the "beach berm" ignores the definition contained in Section 9.5-345(3)f, Monroe County Code. The Department interprets the term "beach berm" to include not only the initial increase and decrease in elevation near the shoreline, but also those areas of calcareous substrate that form the second ridge and include the highest elevation on the subject property. The Department considers the beach berm to terminate 80 feet from the mean high water line where the elevation of the second ridge decreases and levels off to a more consistent grade. The Department characterizes the first ridge as a primary dune the second ridge as a secondary dune. In support of its position, the Department cites the discussion of beach berms in the Florida Keys contained in Volume I of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. That discussion describes a berm in the Keys as the "higher, mostly vegetated dense-like sand ridges." According to the Comprehensive Plan, the biota characteristics of beach systems in the Keys occur in up to four distinct generalized zones or associations, assemblages of plants and animals that have adapted to the environmental conditions of that zone. The zones on Keys beaches are described by Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: The strand-beach association is dominated by plants that are salt tolerant, root quickly, germinate from seed rapidly, and can withstand wave wash and shifting sand. Commonly found species include Sea Purslane, . . . Beach Grass, . . . Sea Oats, . . . [and] Bay Cedar. On most Keys beaches this association occurs only atthe base of the berm since the beach zone is very narrow. These plants also occupy themost seaward portion of the berm and continuesome distance landward. * * * The next zone, "strand-dune" association,begins with a steep and distinct increase inslope upward from the beach. . . . The bermmay be elevated only several inches or as much as several feet above the level of the beach and may extend landward hundreds of feet as a flat-topped plateau or beach ridge. The foreslope of the berm, or beach ridge, is vegetated primarily by the above-listed species of the beach association. Grasses and herbaceous plants, which serve to stabilize this area, are most common. Proceeding landward, these pioneer species are joined by other species. * * * The strand-scrub association is generallyconsidered a transition zone between strand-dune and hammock forest. Shrubs and occasional trees occur more frequently here and become more abundant as one proceeds landward. Species often found include Seagrape, . . . Wild Sage (Lantana involucrata), [and] Gray Nicker. . . . The most landward zone on the berm is occupied by tropical hardwood hammocks. The term "berm" is identified in the Monroe County comprehensive plan as . . . a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. A berm is higher in elevation than both the beach and the area landward of the berm. * * * The height and width of berms in the Keys is highly variable. They may range in height from slightly above mean high water to more than seven (7) feet above mean sea level. The width of berms in the Keys varies from tens of feet to more than 200 feet. Despite the support the Department found in the Comprehensive Plan for a more stringent setback requirement, the Department is not at liberty to ignore the definition of the term beach berm contained in the land development regulations. While both ridges that exist on the Snowman property may be considered berms or dunes, only the first should be considered a beach berm. The first ridge is ". . . a bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand" within the meaning of Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code. The second ridge is above the vegetation line and is not ". . . a bare, sandy shoreline" within the meaning of the definition of beach berm contained in the Monroe County land development regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and denies the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs as to building permit number 9330008850 issued by Monroe County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7165DRI The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, and 33 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 23 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 24, 28, and 31 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 19 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence and as a misconstruction of the cited testimony. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 20, 22, and 34 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 30 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since the setback is from any portion of the "beach berm complex" and not from any area that may be considered to be turtle nesting habitat. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are summaries of testimony that are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence and contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 and 8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Nicholas W. Mulick, Esquire 88539 Overseas Highway Tavernier, Florida 33070 Randy Ludacer, Esquire Monroe County Attorney Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Mr. Fred Snowman Post Office Box 771 Islamorada, Florida 33035 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council Suite 140 3400 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) should approve a permit for the applicant, Indian River County (County), to install a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef) off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving permits such as the one at issue. The County is a governmental entity and is the applicant which has requested a permit for an experimental project to be located in Vero Beach, Florida. The Petitioners oppose the proposed project. The project at issue is the installation of a PEP reef system to be located between approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-80 to approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-83, in Indian River County, Florida. Because of the uncertainty as to the performance of the proposed project and the potential that it may cause adverse impacts to the coastal system, the Department classified the project as experimental pursuant to Chapter 89-175, Section 27, Laws of Florida. In making its preliminary approval for the permit, the Department required special permit conditions to safeguard the coastal system and marine turtles. Additionally, the Department specified both preconstruction and post installation monitoring and testing. The term of the permit is limited to five years, including three years to monitor the project's impacts. A PEP reef is a prefabricated erosion prevention product installed as a breakwater off the shore. In this case, the product measures approximately twelve feet long and six feet high. The base of the product (which is conically shaped) is approximately 15 feet tapering to a one foot crest at the top. The PEP unit is a proprietary product of a company called American Coastal Engineering (ACE). The County proposes to contract with ACE for the manufacture and installation of the units. It is proposed that the PEP units would be installed in an alignment parallel to the beach for a total, though not continuous, length of 3000 feet. The proposed location for the PEP reef in Vero Beach is in an erosion area as identified by the Department's Beach Restoration Management Plan. Historically, the subject beach has experienced a steady and continuous erosion which has been exacerbated during storm conditions. The proposed site is suitable for the experimental nature of this project. At least one past storm event caused substantial damage to the beach front at the project site. Walkways, utilities, and other public improvements were substantially damaged. Past efforts to curb the erosion have proved unsuccessful. Such efforts included beach renourishment, and the installation of seawalls or bulkheads. Future beach renourishment is undesirable for the project site due to the lack of compatible sand, and its high cost. More important, however, are concerns over the negative environmental impacts to nearshore reefs which could result from a large scale renourishment project. For over ten years the County has sought a solution to the erosion that has plagued the project site. To that end, the County established a special committee, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, to review options available and to recommend long-term solutions to the County. In June, 1993, the County contracted with Petitioner Walther to prepare a map of the nearshore hardbottom reef and to evaluate alternatives for beach restoration at the project site. Such work was completed, and recommendations from Mr. Walther were not incompatible with the installation of the proposed reef. The proposed installation should not adversely affect the hardbottom reefs which are in the vicinity of the PEP units. Such hardbottom is considered environmentally sensitive; however, no PEP unit will be placed on the hardbottom or so close to it that it will disturb the organisms located within the hardbottom community. In December, 1993, the County submitted an application for an experimental coastal construction permit to install the PEP reef which is at issue. The PEP units are to be placed in seven to ten feet of water. The PEP reef is designed to reduce wave heights, particularly during a storm event, which should reduce the wave energy and currents in the lee of the structure. While it is hoped the units will deter erosion, they may also cause some accretion to the beach. Whether such accretion would be temporary or long- term is uncertain. As a result of studies performed by the University of Florida under the direction of Dr. Dean, and supported by the County's coastal engineer Mr. Donaldson, it was determined that the PEP units should be installed in shorter lengths (than originally designed) with gaps between each segment. Consequently, the installation proposed by the County is not continuous but is staggered and gapped. The installation proposed by the County is unique in that the coastal characteristics of the area and the proposed design should produce results different from past installations of reef structures in Palm Beach County, Florida. As a result, studies performed by Dr. Dean in connection with a reef installed in Palm Beach County have been discounted as dissimilar to the one proposed in this case. In reviewing the subject permit application, the Department requested additional data which the County retained Dr. Zarillo to gather. Dr. Zarillo performed numerical modeling for the proposed reef system. Based upon Dr. Zarillo's work it is expected that the PEP reef system will have a positive benefit in that wave height and energy is likely to be reduced by the installation of the units. The site for the installation is suited for the proposal and is not within an area that is considered environmentally sensitive. Moreover, the PEP reef itself will add to the development of species since it should develop into a nursery habitat for young fish and other marine organisms. The installation of PEP reefs at other locations have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful. Having considered the studies performed by Dr. Bruno, an expert in coastal engineering and in measuring/modeling coastal processes, it is likely that the proposed project will be similar enough in design to installations reviewed by Dr. Bruno to allow the proposed project to be compared. Dr. Bruno has monitored three installations at three different sites in New Jersey. Each site had different results based upon conditions of each location. One site, expected to be most like the proposed site in Vero Beach, has experienced a reduced rate of erosion. Based upon Dr. Bruno's "real life" experience it is expected that the proposed installation will result in a reduction of wave height on the order of 10 percent to 20 percent. Consequently, the proposed installation should provide a benefit to the control of erosion. The reduction of wave height leads to a reduction in the erosive power of the wave field. Therefore, it is expected to result in a reduced erosion rate behind the PEP reefs. Additionally, Dr. Bruno's assessment of Dr. Zarillo's modeling work suggests that "in theory" the proposed site should experience a reduction in wave height as a result of the proposed installation. As a result, both scientific methods support the proposed project. No scientific study can, however, assure the success of this project. In fact, success may be derived from the value of the data which will be gathered during the monitoring period. Such data may assist in the future design of structures to reduce wave energy. The County's proposed monitoring plan contains detailed and adequate performance criteria to assure that the PEP reef system will be fully evaluated. The County has provided adequate assurance that it will comply with the permit conditions, including the modification or removal of the reef system if directed by the Department. All installation and monitoring as well as removal is to be performed at the County's expense. The PEP reef system will have no appreciable adverse impact on marine turtles. Construction is prohibited during nesting season under the terms of the permit. The PEP reef system will have no adverse impact on swimmers or boaters. The units are to be clearly marked and identified under the terms of the permit. No adverse impacts to Petitioners Walther and Clemens should be incurred as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the permit requested by the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4045 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Walther: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 29, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, and 60 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation is hearsay as it relates to the record cited; however, although not stipulated, the record most likely supports the paragraph in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the factual conclusion that because another permit holder has failed to remove a reef that the County will similarly default on its obligation to do should the agency order the PEP reef removal. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant if it purports to suggest the contracting was improper; this proceeding does not consider the propriety of the contracting process. With the deletion of any emphasis and the last sentence which are rejected as argument, paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted that Mrs. Clemens opposed the permit and requested a hearing. Paragraph 27 is rejected as an incomplete statement and therefore not supported by the total weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 30 through 33 are rejected as law not statements of fact. Paragraph 34 is accepted in general terms but not as to the specific measurements cited. Paragraphs 35 through 38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. It is determined that the site is suitable for a non-biased, comprehensive analysis of the project. Paragraphs 39 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 45, it is accepted the reefs may settle but such is expected to be unlikely to impair the overall performance of the structure; therefore, the paragraph, as drafted, must be rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as unclear or incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 58 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 61, it is accepted that Dr. Dean envisioned a current being created that would run parallel to the shoreline as a result of the reef installation but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 62, such statement is generally true; however, Dr. Dean did not conduct any sediment transportation test to verify that the structure in an open setting (as opposed to the experimental tank) would transport sediment as inferred. Paragraphs 63 through 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is accepted as accurate but the agency did not express, and the record does not establish, that there is a concern that the County may not honor its agreement to remove the PEP reef if directed to do so. Paragraph 69 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Clemens: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent Department: All proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department as listed are accepted. See comments below as to rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the County. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent County: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 through 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that an extensive renourishment program might damage the sensitive nearshore hardbottom community; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 16, with the deletion of the word "significantly" in the second sentence and the last sentence which are rejected as irrelevant, editorial comment, argument or not supported by the total weight of credible evidence, it is accepted. With regard to paragraph 18, the first sentence is accepted. As to the balance of the paragraph, with the deletion of the word "significantly" and the substitution of "might" for "could", the paragraph is accepted. Otherwise rejected as an inaccurate characterization of the weight of the record. With regard to paragraph 19, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as a compound statement of proposed fact some of which are accurate but which taken in whole constitute argument, unnecessary, irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 31, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence three, the paragraph is accepted. With regard to paragraph 32, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence two, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 35, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 36 through 38 are rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. The proposed PEP reef should not adversely impact the Vero Beach shoreline. Paragraph 44 is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraphs 47 through 53, it is accepted that the Petitioners did not establish that they will be substantially affected by the proposed project; however, their conduct does not rise to the level to establish participation in the administrative process was for an improper purpose. Consequently, the paragraphs are rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Lewis, Esquire John W. Forehand, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Michael P. Walther 1725 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Adele Clemens 3747 Ocean Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Dana M. Wiehle Assistants General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherall Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether a permit should be issued to Petitioner Theodore B. Meadow to construct a dwelling on the Gulf Coast of Florida as requested in his application filed with Respondent Department of Natural Resources.
Findings Of Fact Having considered the evidence and argument of counsel, the Hearing Officer finds: In July of 1979 Petitioner filed an application for a permit to build a duplex dwelling seaward of the coastal construction setback line on a parcel of land bounded by the theoretical extension seaward of the north/south boundary line of Ponce de Leon Street in Yon's Addition to Beacon Hill on St. Joe Beach, Florida. The parcel of land is 70 feet in width and approximately 175 feet in depth to the high-water line of the Gulf of Mexico and lies between State Road 30 (US Highway 98) and the Gulf of Mexico at St. Joe Beach in Gulf County, Florida. The application, Department of Natural Resources File #79-P-283, was filed pursuant to Rule 16B-25.05, Procedure to obtain variance; application, Florida Administrative Code, which had been promulgated under the authority of Sections 161.052, 161.053 and 370.021(1), Florida Statutes. Attached to the application was a copy of a deed to subject property to Albert H. Hinman dated December 12, 1977; an undated authorization from the owner of the property to Petitioner Meadow to apply for a variance and if granted to construct a building on the property; a survey of the property; a floor plan of the building with a typical wall section; and a topographical plat of the lot involved. In response to Rule 16B--25.05(1)(d): "Statements describing the proposed work or activity and specific reasons why the applicant feels the variance should be granted." Petitioner stated, in part, "...the reason that the permit should be granted is because applicant does not have sufficient space on property he is purchasing from A. H. Hinman to construct said building outside of the DNR Coastal Construction Control Line." The survey shows that 14 to 15 feet of the property lies landward of the Department of Natural Resources' setback line. At the time of the hearing no purchase had been made, but there is no dispute regarding the authorization of the owner to allow Petitioner to build if a variance is granted. After filing the application Petitioner consulted with the staff of the Department concerning the construction seaward of the setback line. The Chief Engineer of the permitting section of the Bureau of Beaches and Shores, who is responsible for accepting, evaluating and making recommendations for permits for construction, inspected the site of the proposed structure on October 11, 1979. He took a copy of the plans and specifications for the structure, a plot plan, and the engineering statement which accompanied the plans to review on the site. After the inspection he made a determination that the structure was appropriately designed for the hazard environment and located in such a position as to offer the least potential adverse impact to the beach in the area. Recent topographic changes, topographic data including that submitted by Petitioner, and other historical information was used to assess and evaluate the project. Thereafter, the engineer consulted with the Executive Director of the Respondent Department and gave a favorable recommendation in terms of minimal impact. The Executive Director determined that the structure was designed and located to have the minimum adverse impact on the beach, and that the structure was adequately designed to resist natural forces associated with a hundred-year storm surge (Transcript, pages 52-56). At the formal hearing the Executive Director stated that he based his recommendation for approval by the Executive Board on the precedence of previous action of the Executive Board and because he found that the Petitioner had his application in order. Petitioner Meadow has followed the guidelines of the administrative rules and submitted all required information. He has provided his reason for requesting a variance and believes the information furnished compels the Respondent Department to grant the waiver inasmuch as no modification was requested and he cannot build the structure he desires on the 14 to 15 feet of land he is authorized to use which lies landward of the 1975 setback line. The immediate area involved in this proceeding is relatively undeveloped beach property approximately one (1) mile in length at St. Joe Beach, Gulf County, Florida some twenty-nine (29) miles to Panama City and six (6) miles to Port St. Joe. The real property has been divided into fourteen (14) lots more or less similar to the lot on which Petitioner seeks to construct a duplex (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Transcript, page 137). No structures except one multifamily dwelling have been constructed on any of the fourteen (14) lots. Most the construction along the nearby coastline was completed prior to March 21, 1975, the date the Respondent Department established a coastal setback line under the then applicable statutes and rules. Beacon Hill is a subdivision about a mile and a half from the subject area on the coastal western edge of Gulf County. The structures are close together, the majority of which were constructed prior to 1975 without a permit from the Respondent Department. Historically, the area would have had a similar topography and beach conditions to the subject area, but because of structures built on the beach vicinity the primary dune system has been eradicated, the beach is narrow in that vicinity, and there is virtually no vegetation (Transcript, pages 135-136). It has been found that any construction, particularly of a building, generally has an adverse impact on a beach dune system (Transcript, pages 149, 161). The "setback line" defined in the 1975 statutes and rules was established March 21, 1975 (Transcript, page 169). Thereafter, in 1978 the legislature amended Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and ordered the Respondent Department to establish a "coastal construction control line" to replace the setback line, but said line has not yet been established, although at the hearing a member of Respondent's engineering staff stated that a study was in progress. Neither Petitioner Meadow nor Mr. Hinman, the owner of subject property, requested the Respondent Department to review the setback line or establish a coastal construction control line prior to filing of the application in 1979 for a variance of the 1975 setback line (transcript, page 93). "Setback line" and "coastal construction control line" are not synonymous. The setback line set a seaward line for construction, and the coastal construction control line defines the impact of a 100-year storm surge or other predictable weather condition (Transcript, page 179). An engineer on the Respondent Department's staff who qualified as an expert was of the opinion that the coastal construction control line, when established, would be landward of the setback line established in 1975 (Transcript, page 198). There have been two (2) hurricanes which have impacted the Gulf Coast since the setback line was established, one in September of 1975 and one in September of 1979. These storms had relatively little visual impact on the subject beach area except for erosion of the fore dune, but the storms substantially impacted the accretion of the coastline (Transcript, pages 189- 195). At the final hearing Ms. Sally Malone, a resident living one block from the proposed structure of Petitioner Meadow, protested the proposed construction on the beach and in general the removal of trees. The evidence shows she has a legitimate concern for the effect through erosion the construction might have on the beach near her home. Petitioner Meadow and the Respondent Department submitted proposed findings of fact and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended by the Hearing Officer that the application of Theodore B. Meadow for a waiver or variance be denied without prejudice to his refiling an application after the coastal construction control line is established as required by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, supra. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire 413 Williams Street Post Office Drawer 98 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioners are entitled to a coastal construction control line permit to build a single-family residence in Volusia County with a structural elevation of 19 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum, not 24 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum, as required by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own an undeveloped lot located at 4279 South Atlantic Avenue in the Wilbur-by-the-Sea subdivision in unincorporated Volusia County. Mr. Humphries' family has owned the lot for 50 years. The rectangular lot is 210 feet deep and 50 feet wide. The narrower end abuts the Atlantic Ocean on the east and South Atlantic Avenue on the west. The south boundary of Petitioners' lot abuts a developed lot. The house located on this lot has a finished- floor elevation of 26.15 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). This is consistent with the structural elevations of most of the residences in the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lot. Even though the seaward extent of Petitioner's proposed structure is roughly in a line with the seaward extent of the nearby homes, the issue in this case is the structural elevation. The north boundary of Petitioners' lot abuts the 50- foot-wide right-of-way of Major Street. In 1984, a wooden walkway was constructed in the southern half of the Major Street right-of-way to allow pedestrians access to the beach. By that time, Major Street was no longer open for vehicular access. However, the construction and maintenance of Major Street may have contributed to the lower elevations on the north boundary of Petitioners' lot, as described below. Nearly all of the lots in the vicinity of Petitioners' lot have been developed; most, if not all, of them contain single-family residences. Petitioners, who are nearing retirement, wish to construct a house that would accommodate them in their later years when they expect their mobility to be reduced. Petitioners' house will sit atop a prominent secondary dune, as do all of the other oceanfront homes in the immediate vicinity. The house will also be confined roughly to the landward half of the lot. These factors mean that the relatively short driveway leading from South Atlantic Avenue to the garage will be relatively steep. Petitioners proposed a reduction in the top of the dune to reduce the steepness of the driveway and the difference in finished-floor elevations between the garage and the house. Generally, the south side of Petitioners' lot is higher than the north side. The seasonal high water line is 8.4 feet NGVD. The lot's east boundary, which is 7-8 feet landward of the seasonal high water line, is about 11.5 feet NGVD. The elevation of the south boundary rises to 28.5 feet NGVD, at a distance slightly east of the most seaward extent of the 10-foot wooden deck that is the most seaward structure proposed by Petitioners. The elevation of the north boundary does not rise much; over the same distance, it reaches only 12 feet NGVD. Proceeding westward, toward South Atlantic Avenue, the south boundary drops from its 28.5-foot elevation. Parallel to the proposed house, the boundary remains at about 25 feet NGVD, except it drops to about 20 feet at the point where the house would meet the garage. For the length of the 26-foot garage, the south boundary drops to 18.5 feet NGVD. For the length of the 30-foot section of driveway between the garage and the west boundary, the south boundary drops from 18 feet NGVD to 17 feet NGVD. The north boundary rises to its highest point, 20.6 feet NGVD, at a point just landward of the point along the boundary closest to the junction between the proposed wood deck and the house. Running parallel to the proposed house, the north boundary drops to about 18 feet NGVD (directly across from a point along the south boundary that reaches about 25 feet NGVD) and then to about 17.5 feet NGVD, at a point just landward of the point closest to the junction of the proposed house and garage. The proposed house would occupy elevations, prior to proposed site preparation, of about 28 feet NGVD at the seaward side, 22-26 feet NGVD at the midpoint, and no more than 21 feet NGVD at the landward side. The proposed deck, house, and all but a sliver of the garage lie seaward of the coastal construction control line. The northeast corner of the proposed house is 72 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. The dune is largely vegetated. The vegetation includes sea oats, shrubs, and some palm trees, although Brazilian pepper, a nuisance exotic, also vegetates part of the dune. Just seaward of the southeast corner of the proposed deck is a hole, perhaps from past excavation, about ten feet deep and occupying 8-10 percent of the lot. This is the only portion of the lot significantly below-grade. Overall, the dune is functional and healthy. To the extent that it has been disturbed in the past, the dune seems to be recovering vigorously. On or about July 21, 1999, Petitioners applied for a permit to construct a residence seaward of the coastal construction control line. In their application, Petitioners proposed a structural elevation of 19 feet NGVD. The structural elevation, which is about two feet lower than the finished-floor elevation, is the lowest portion of the effectively horizontal structural elements supporting the floors and walls of the structure. Respondent's examination of the application raised concerns about the proposed structural elevation of 19 feet NGVD. The greater elevation of much of the dune under the footprint of the house would necessitate the relocation of dune materials on the lot or removal of dune materials off the lot. However, discussions between Respondent's representative and Mr. Bullard, Petitioners' engineer, failed to identify design modifications upon which both sides could agree. Thus, on June 5, 2000, Respondent issued a Final Order and Notice to Proceed Withheld (Final Order). The Final Order states that Respondent found that Petitioners' application was complete on March 6, 2000. Although the Final Order generally contemplates that construction will eventually proceed, Special Permit Condition 1 prohibits construction until Respondent issued a written notice to proceed. Special Permit Condition 2 warns that Respondent will not issue a notice to proceed until Petitioners submit plans that raise the structural elevation to 24 feet NGVD, relocate all excavated materials seaward of the coastal construction control line (but not more than 120 feet seaward of the line), prohibit net excavation seaward of the coastal construction control line, and specify the planting of all filled or disturbed areas with salt-resistant native vegetation transplanted from onsite areas that will be excavated and other sources, as needed. Special Permit Condition 7 requires Petitioners to obtain the fill material from a source landward of the coastal construction control line. The fill material also must be of a sand that is similar to that onsite in terms of grain size and coloration. However, nothing in the Final Order specifies any requirement to replicate present--or design scientifically verified new--seaward and landward slopes of the portion of the impacted dune. In resisting Respondent's demand to raise the structural elevation, Petitioners have sought to reduce the slope of their driveway, which involves traffic-safety issues in turning on and off busy South Atlantic Avenue, and eliminate the need for an extensive design modification to allow wheelchair- bound persons access to the house from the garage. At the hearing, Petitioners offered mitigation in the form of an artificial dune to be constructed seaward of the residence with excavated materials. However, this proposal would destroy existing vegetation and failed to specify slopes, so that the artificial dune would likely suffer significant and rapid erosion. Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposed construction activities, with a structural elevation of 19 feet NGVD, would not adversely impact the most prominent dune landward of the ocean, so as to reduce the existing ability of this dune to resist erosion and protect upland persons and property.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing Petitioners' challenge and issuing the Final Order and Notice to Proceed Withheld dated June 5, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Robert R. Bullard, P.E. Qualified Representative Absolute Engineering Group Post Office Box 269 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Timothy E. Dennis Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should approve Petitioner’s application for a coastal construction control line permit.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts2 Petitioner, Beach Group Investments, LLC (Beach Group), is a limited liability corporation under Florida law. Its address is 14001 63rd Way North, Clearwater, Florida 33760. On December 19, 2005, Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Tech) on behalf of Beach Group submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct 17 luxury townhome units in two four-story buildings, a pool, a dune walk-over, and ancillary parking and driveway areas (hereafter “the Project”). The Department designated the application as File No. SL-224. The property on which the Project is proposed (hereafter “the Property”) is located between the Department's reference monuments R-34 and R-35, in St. Lucie County. The Property’s address is 222 South Ocean Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Property is located seaward of the CCCL line established in accordance with Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62B-33. On April 21, 2006, the application was determined to be complete. By letter dated June 5, 2006, the Department notified Beach Group that the Project appeared to be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection of the seasonal high water line (SHWL), and that in accordance with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, the staff could not recommend approval of the Project since major structures are seaward of the estimated erosion projection. By letter dated July 7, 2006, and subsequent submittals, Beach Group requested a waiver of the 90-day time period for processing completed applications pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, until October 31, 2006. On August 30, 2006, Beach Group submitted a certified engineering analysis of the 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL for the Department's consideration pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024(1). Beach Group's analysis determined that the proposed major structures associated with the Project were located landward, not seaward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department also performed its own 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL, and determined that the proposed major structures were located seaward, not landward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department asserts that the proposed structures are located between 87 feet and 68 feet seaward of the Department's determination of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department disagreed with Beach Group's analysis because the analysis appeared to be inconsistent with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024, and the Department's own analysis. The Property is located just south of the Fort Pierce Inlet, and landward of a federally maintained beach restoration project that had approximately 14 years of life remaining under the existing Congressional authorization when the permit was submitted to the Department. By proposed Final Order dated November 1, 2006, the Department provided to Beach Group notice of its intent to deny the permit application. The proposed Final Order was received by Beach Group on November 8, 2006. Beach Group's petition for hearing was timely filed with the Department. Since the Department proposes to deny Beach Group's CCCL permit application, its substantial interests are clearly at issue, and it has standing to maintain this proceeding. On December 11, 2006, the Department issued an environmental resource permit for the Project. The Department denied Beach Group’s permit application because the Project extends seaward of the 30-year erosion projection calculated by the Department and because the Project’s impacts to the beach-dune system had not been minimized. The permit was not denied on the basis of the existence, or absence, of a line of continuous construction in the vicinity of the Project. The 30-year Erosion Projection (1) Background Fort Pierce Inlet (hereafter “the inlet”) was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1920’s. The channel of the inlet is protected by two jetties that extend several hundred feet into the Atlantic Ocean. The jetties act as a barrier to the littoral transfer of sand from the north to south that would otherwise occur along the beach in the vicinity of the Property. The jetties cause accretion on the beach to the north of the inlet and erosion of the beach to the south of the inlet. The inlet channel beyond the jetties also restricts the littoral transfer of sand in the area. The deepening and widening of the channel in 1995 likely contributed to the increased erosion observed south of the inlet in recent years. The beach to the south of the inlet, including that portion on the Property, is designated as a “critically eroded beach” by the Department. The inlet is the primary cause of the erosion. Congress first authorized beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1965. That authorization expired in 1986. Congress “reauthorized” beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1996. That authorization expires in 2021, but St. Lucie County has requested that the authorization be extended for “another 50 years.” The first “major” beach nourishment south of the inlet occurred in 1971. Subsequent “major” nourishments occurred in 1980, 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Another “major” nourishment is planned for 2007. There was a “moderate” nourishment of the beach in 1995, which included the placement of geotextile groins on the beach just to the north of the Property. “Small” nourishments occurred in 1973, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, and 1998. Cumulatively, the nourishments that occurred between the “major” nourishments in 1980 and 1999 involved approximately 419,000 cubic yards of sand, which is more than the volume involved in several of the “major” nourishments. Beach nourishment south of the inlet has been an ongoing effort since it started in 1971. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the nourishment project that is authorized through 2021 is a continuation of the project started in 1971 rather than a separate and distinct project. Various erosion control efforts have been used south of the inlet in conjunction with the beach nourishment efforts. For example, geotextile groins (which are essentially massive sandbags) have been installed and removed on several occasions since the mid-1990’s in order to “temporarily stabilize the shoreline until such measures could be taken to design, permit and construct a long-term solution”; concrete rubble and other riprap has been placed on the beach over the years (without a permit from the Department) to protect upland structures from erosion; and a "spur jetty" was constructed on the south jetty in an effort to reduce erosion south of the inlet. These efforts have not slowed the pace of the erosion or minimized the need for beach nourishment south of the inlet. Indeed, the need for and frequency of “major” nourishments south of the inlet have increased in recent years. Beach erosion south of the inlet will continue to be a serious problem so long as the inlet exists and the jetties remain in place. There is no reason to expect that the inlet or the jetties will be removed in the foreseeable future and, as a result, beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue to be necessary. The Department has recognized the need for continuing nourishment of the beach south of the inlet, as reflected in both the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the St. Lucie Beaches and the Ft. Pierce Inlet Management Study Implementation Plan. Those plans acknowledge the long-term need for continued nourishment of the beach at a rate of at least “130,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis.” The plans do not, however, guarantee that future beach nourishment in the area will occur at that, or any, rate. (2) Rule Methodology Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 contains the methodology for determining the 30-year erosion projection, which is the projected location of the SHWL 30 years after the date of the permit application under review. Where, as here, the beach at issue is subject to an ongoing beach nourishment project, the methodology requires consideration of “pre-project” conditions -- i.e., the conditions that existed before the beach nourishment efforts started -- because those conditions are used to project how the beach will migrate landward in the periods over the next 30 years when there may not be any beach nourishment activity. The coastal engineering experts presented by the parties -- Michael Walther for Beach Group and Emmett Foster for the Department -- used essentially the same methodology to determine the location of the 30-year erosion projection. However, the variables that they used in each step of the methodology differed. Step 1: Locate the Pre-Project MHWL The first step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to locate the pre-project MHWL. If a pre-project erosion control line (ECL)3 has been established in the area, it is to be used as the starting-point for the determination of the 30-year erosion projection. Otherwise a pre-project survey of the MHWL is to be used as the starting-point. Mr. Walther used a 1997 ECL as the starting point for his analysis. Mr. Foster used a March 2002 survey of the MHWL as the starting point for his analysis because he did not consider the 1997 ECL to be an appropriate pre-project ECL. The March 2002 survey of the MHWL is not itself an appropriate starting point for the analysis. The survey is not a “pre-project” survey, no matter how the project is defined; the survey occurred more than 30 years after the nourishments started in 1971, and three years after the first “major” nourishment pursuant to the Congressional reauthorization of the project. Moreover, as discussed below, there is an appropriate pre-project ECL in the area. There are two lines that might be considered to be a pre-project ECL in this case -- (1) the ECL established in 1997, and (2) the South Beach High Tide Line (SBHTL) established in 1968. The 1997 ECL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL performed on May 5, 1997. The survey occurred two years after a “moderate” beach nourishment and the placement of the geotextile groins on the beach. There was also a “small” nourishment in 1997, but the record does not reflect whether that nourishment occurred before or after the survey. The SBHTL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL between 1966 and 1968, prior to the initial nourishment of the beach south of the inlet. It is approximately 65 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. The SBHTL is the functional equivalent of an ECL, and it roughly corresponds to the “best fit line” for the March 2002 survey used by Mr. Foster as the starting point for his determination of the 30-year erosion projection in this case. The Department contends that the 1997 ECL is not based upon a “pre-project” survey of the MHWL because the applicable beach restoration project south of the inlet began in the 1970’s and has been ongoing since that time. Beach Group contends that the applicable project is the current one that is authorized through 2021, and that the 1997 survey preceded the start of the nourishments authorized by that project. The Department has used the 1997 ECL as the starting- point for determining the 30-year erosion projection in several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project,4 and in an April 9, 1999, memorandum discussing the 30-year erosion projection in the vicinity of monuments R-35 and R-36, Mr. Foster stated that “the ECL represents the pre-project [MHWL].” Mr. Foster no longer considers the 1997 ECL to be the appropriate pre-project MHWL for purposes of determining the 30- year erosion projection south of the inlet. He testified that had he been aware of “the complete background” of the 1997 ECL and the extent of the nourishments in the 1980’s and 1990’s, he would have brought the issue to the Department’s attention so that the Department could consider whether the 1997 ECL or “an earlier prenourishment line” was the appropriate pre-project MHWL. Although it is a close question, the more persuasive evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that the 1997 ECL is not an appropriate pre-project MHWL because the applicable “project” includes the beach nourishment efforts started in 1971 that have continued through the present, even though those efforts were intermittent at times. Thus, the appropriate starting point for determining the location of the 30-year erosion projection is the SBHTL, not the 1997 ECL used by Mr. Walther or the March 2002 MHWL survey used by Mr. Foster. Step 2: Locate the Pre-Project SHWL The second step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the location of the pre-project SHWL. Mr. Walther located the pre-project SHWL 26.4 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. That is the surveyed distance between the MHWL and SHWL in June 2005. Mr. Foster located the pre-project SHWL at the most landward location that the SHWL was surveyed in March 2002. The line is between 50 and 75 feet5 landward of the “best fine” line used by Mr. Foster as the pre-project MHWL, and it is as much as 25 feet landward of the surveyed location of the SHWL in some areas. Mr. Foster used “an average [of] 50 feet” as the MHWL- to-SHWL distance in his analysis of several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project.6 Mr. Foster testified that the distance between the MHWL and SHWL in this area varies “from the 20s in the immediate post-nourishment situations . . . all the way up to 70-some feet” and that the “the averages gravitate towards 40 feet.” Consistent with that testimony, the distance between the surveyed locations of the MHWL and SHWL depicted on Department Exhibit 6 is approximately 40 feet, on average. The MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther is not a reasonable projection of the pre-project distance because it was based upon survey data taken immediately after a “major” beach nourishment when the shoreline was unnaturally steep and, hence, not representative of “pre-project” conditions. The SHWL located by Mr. Foster is also not a reasonable projection of the pre-project SHWL because it was based upon a March 2002 survey (which is clearly not "pre- project"); because it used the most landward surveyed location of the SHWL rather than a “best fit” line or an average of the distances between the surveyed MHWL and SHWL; and because it runs across areas of well-established dune vegetation. In sum, the MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther (26.4 feet) is too low, whereas the distance resulting from Mr. Foster's siting of the SHWL based on the March 2002 survey (50 to 75 feet) is too high. Those distances are essentially endpoints of the range observed in this area, as described by Mr. Foster. A more reasonable estimate of the pre-project MHWL-to- SHWL distance is approximately 40 feet. See Findings 51 and 52. Thus, the pre-project SHWL is located 40 feet landward of and parallel to the SBHTL. That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37, it roughly corresponds to a straight line between the points where the red- dashed line intersects the Property’s north and south boundaries. Step 3: Calculate the Erosion Rate The third step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to calculate an erosion rate. The erosion rate used by Mr. Foster was -7 feet per year (ft/yr). That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monument R-35 for the period from 1949 to 1967. The rate would have been higher had Mr. Foster averaged the rates for the nearby monuments.7 The erosion rate used by Mr. Walther was -4.9 ft/yr. That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monuments R-34 to R-39 over the period of 1930 to 1968. An erosion rate of -7 ft/yr south of the inlet was referenced in permit applications submitted by Mr. Walter’s firm, Coastal Tech, for several shore protection structures south of the inlet; was used by Mr. Foster in his review of several prior CCCL permit applications south of the inlet; and was included in reports on the inlet prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers over the years. An erosion rate of -3.3 ft/yr was used and accepted by the Department in its review of another permit application in the general vicinity of the project.8 That erosion rate was based upon data from the period of 1972 to 1994, which is after the beach nourishment started south of the inlet. It is not entirely clear why Mr. Foster chose to use a data set starting in 1949, particularly since his report stated that the “1928-30 survey already shows significant erosion occurring south of the inlet.” His testimony did not adequately explain the choice of that data set. The use of a longer data set is typically more appropriate when calculating a historical rate. In this case, however, the use of the shorter period of 1949-68 is reasonable because the 1930-49 erosion rate was considerably lower than the 1949-68 rate,9 which has the effect of skewing the erosion rate calculated for the longer period of 1930-68. The higher erosion rate calculated by Mr. Foster also better takes into account the increased frequency of the nourishments in recent years as well as the continued need for shore stabilization in the area. In sum, the higher erosion rate of -7 ft/yr calculated by Mr. Foster using the 1949-68 data set better reflects the historical post-inlet, pre-nourishment erosion rate than does the lower erosion rate calculated by Mr. Walther. Step 4: Determine the Remaining Project Life The fourth step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the “remaining project life” of the “existing” beach nourishment project. It was stipulated that there are 14 years remaining until the currently authorized federal beach restoration project expires. It is reasonable to expect that beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue well beyond the expiration of the current federal project, but there were no other funded and permitted projects in place at the time Beach Group’s permit application was filed. Potential future beach nourishment projects are not considered “existing” under the rule methodology in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 unless they are funded and permitted at the time the application at issue is filed. Mr. Walther used the 14-year remaining life of the existing federal project in his calculation of the 30-year erosion projection, as did Mr. Foster. The “remaining project life” applicable to this case is 14 years, notwithstanding the likelihood of continued beach nourishment in the area beyond the expiration of the existing project. Step 5: Calculate the 30-year Erosion Projection The final step in determining the location of the 30- year erosion projection is a calculation using the variables determined in the previous steps. The calculation is as follows: first, the remaining project life determined in step four is subtracted from 30; then, that result is multiplied by the erosion rate determined in step three to get a distance; and, finally, the SHWL is moved that distance landward of its pre-project location determined in step two. Subtracting the remaining project of 14 years from 30 equals 16 years. Multiplying 16 years by the erosion rate of -7 ft/yr equals 112 feet, which means that the 30-year erosion line is located 112 feet landward of the pre-project SHWL (or 152 feet landward of the SBHTL). That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but it roughly corresponds to a straight line than runs across the Property parallel to the SBHTL just landward of the “conc. pad” and “existing conc. Pile caps (typ)” shown on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37. The line is 25 to 30 feet seaward of Mr. Foster’s 30-year erosion projection depicted on that exhibit. (3) Ultimate Finding Regarding the Location of the Proposed Structures in Relation to the 30-year Erosion Projection The Project includes major structures seaward of the 30-year erosion projection, as determined above. Impacts of the Project on the Beach-Dune System The Project includes 17 luxury town home units in two four-story buildings, a pool and spa, landscaping, and an elevated dune walkover. The units will range from 2,700 to 4,400 square feet of living space and are projected to be offered for sale in the $1.5 to $2.5 million range. Beach Group’s principal, Harold Seltzer, testified that the Project is sited as far landward as possible to allow for the development of all 17 units while still complying with the local setback and height restrictions; that the Project’s financial viability depends upon it being developed as proposed; and that the Project cannot be redesigned and remain financially viable. The CCCL permit application included a letter from the City of Ft. Pierce confirming that the Project is consistent with the applicable local development codes. Mr. Seltzer testified that the Project’s local development approvals expired in September 2006 because the CCCL permit had not been issued, and that Beach Group is having to go back through the local permitting process. The seaward extent of the Project is the 1978 CCCL, which is approximately 250 feet seaward of the current CCCL. The buildings on the adjacent properties are also located on the 1978 CCCL. The Project does not extend further seaward than the nearby development, including the structures authorized by the Department in File Nos. SL-162 and SL-173.10 The seaward boundary of the Property is the SBHTL. That line is approximately 295 feet landward of the MHWL established in June 2005, and as noted above, it is approximately 65 feet landward of the ECL established in 1997. The adjacent properties are developed with multi-story residential buildings. There is a densely vegetated dune feature in front of the building to the south of the Property. There is some vegetation, but no discernable dune in front of the building to the north of the Property. The Property as a whole is sparsely vegetated, but there are areas of “prolific vegetation” on the Property. The seaward extent of the vegetation on the Property roughly corresponds to the location of the 1978 CCCL. There are several mature sea grape clusters in the vicinity of that line. The beach in front of the Property is devoid of vegetation. It has a steep slope immediately landward of the water line; a wide (approximately 270 feet) expanse of relatively flat beach; and a gently sloping dune feature that starts just landward of the Property’s seaward boundary, crests approximately 30 feet farther landward, and then gradually slopes downward across the Property all of the way to State Road A1A. The dune feature on the Property is the frontal dune. It is the first mound sand located landward of the beach that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value. The crest of the frontal dune is seaward of the vegetation line on the Property, and ranges in height from +9.7 to +12.2 feet NAVD.11 The seaward toe of the dune is shown on the topographic survey for the Property at elevations ranging from +7.27 to +7.85 feet NAVD. Similar elevations occur on the landward side of the dune crest, just landward of the 1978 CCCL. The vegetation on the Property extends landward of the 1978 CCCL and landward of the line shown on the topographic survey of the Property as the “approximate location of sparse grass and ground cover.” The landward extent of the vegetation does not in and of itself define the landward extent of the dune; changes in the slope of the ground must also be considered. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the landward toe of the frontal dune is landward of the 1978 CCCL, but not as far landward as suggested by Department witness Tony McNeal.12 The landward toe of the dune on the Property is best defined by the elevations landward of the dune crest similar to the elevations shown for the seaward toe of the dune. The Project extends into the frontal dune on the Property, and it will requires minor excavation of the frontal dune, primarily in the area of the proposed pool. All aspects of the project, except for the proposed dune walkover, will be landward of the crest of the frontal dune and the mature sea grape clusters located on the dune. There will be no net excavation on the Property as a result of the Project. The sand excavated for the pool will be placed on-site, and additional beach-compatible sand will be used as fill for the site. Overall, the Project will result in the net placement of approximately 66 cubic yards of sand on the Property. The proposed structures will be elevated on piles, which will allow the beach-dune system to fluctuate under the structures during storm events. The finished floor elevation of the proposed structures is approximately +8 feet NAVD, which is slightly higher than the elevations associated with the toes of the frontal dune. The Project will not destabilize the frontal dune, even though it will encroach into the dune. The impacts of the Project on the beach-dune system will be mitigated by the placement of additional sand into the beach-dune system, as described above. The Project’s impacts will be further mitigated by the enhancements to the frontal dune described in the permit application. Mr. Walther testified that the frontal dune on the Property could “very easily” be enhanced to be of comparable height and magnitude of the dunes on the adjacent properties. The permit application proposes enhancements to the frontal dune as part of the Site Landscaping Plan for the Project. The proposed enhancements include increasing the crest of the dune to a height of +15 feet NAVD, and extensive planting of the dune with sea grapes, beach morning glories, and sea oats. The plantings would extend from the 1978 CCCL to the seaward toe of the existing frontal dune. The dune enhancements proposed in the permit application should be included as a specific condition of the CCCL permit for the Project, if it is approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Beach Group’s application for a CCCL permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 April, 2007.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is what costs, if any, are recoverable by petitioner as a consequence of its successful prosecution of an appeal from the agency's final order heretofore rendered in the above-styled matter.
Findings Of Fact Background On January 14, 1988, respondent, Key Biscayne Limited partnership, formerly known as Biscayne Beach Hotel Association, Ltd. (the "Hotel") , filed an application with Respondent, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit authorizing it to conduct construction activities seaward of the Dade County CCCL on Key Biscayne, Florida. As proposed, the Hotel, which currently owns the Sonesta Beach Hotel on Key Biscayne, sought authorization to construct a nine-story 124-unit habitable addition and a one-story non habitable addition, with understructure parking, to its existing facility. Incident to such construction, the Hotel also sought authorization to construct a deck and jacuzz-type hot tub south of the addition, and authorization to excavate approximately 1,400 cubic yards of fill for the pile foundation and caps, and to deposit such fill seaward of the CCCL. Excavation for the foundation would extend a maximum of 177 feet seaward of the CCCL and placement of the excavated material would extend a maximum of 300 feet seaward of the CCCL. On August 11, 1988, DNR issued a notice of intent to approve the Hotel's application and to is sue a CCCL permit subject to the following special conditions: The issuance of the permit placard shall be withheld pending staff receipt and approval of: Two sets of specifications and final certified construction plans accurately dimensioned with elevation referenced to NGVD. Details of the foundation of the 9-story and single- story addition, pile/pile cap/column connections, column/floor slab and roof slab connections, cantilevered balconies, garage floor slab, breakaway walls, storm drainage and domestic waste disposal, and fences shall be included in the plans. Two sets of certified dimensioned site plans showing the location of the control line, existing sea grape trees, the placement of excavated material seaward of the control line, and species of salt-resistant vegetation. The site plans shall be subject to review and acceptance by the Bureau staff. Evidence that written notice has been recorded in the deed covenants and restrictions for the subject property that: The construction of any future rigid coastal protection structures on the property shall be prohibited. The deed covenants and restrictions shall be recorded in the public records of Dade County. Such deed covenants and restrictions shall be enforceable and shall not be altered unless approved by the Department of Natural Resources. The use of gravel or other similar materials or structures with the potential for becoming aerodynamically propelled missiles shall not be included in the construction of the roof. Salt-resistant vegetation such as sea oats, sea grape, panic grass, salt jointgrass, and/or other approved salt- resistant species shall be planted on the fill area. In addition, the permittee shall irrigate and apply fertilizer as appropriate for the particular species planted until the vegetation is established. A 75 percent survival rate of the vegetations shall be ensured and replanting shall be conducted until a 75 percent overall survival rate is attained and until any sizeable barren portions of the area are covered. The excavated fill material to be placed on the beach shall consist of material compatible in grain size and coloration as the native beach sand and shall come from a source located landward of the coastal construction control line. The main structure of the addition shall not extend further seaward than the projected line of the existing retaining wall located seaward of the existing swimming pool. Petitioner, Key Biscayne Council (the "Council"), filed a timely protest of DNR's action. Essentially, the Council contended that the location of the proposed construction would be seaward of the 30-year seasonal high-water line and, therefore, prohibited by Section 161.053(6)(b), Florida Statues; that the proposed construction would adversely impact the beach-dune system and adjacent properties; that construction of similar projects along the coast would have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline; and that the proposed construction failed to comply with the setback requirements or zoning or building codes of Dade County. The Key Biscayne Council In Its petition for formal hearing, the Council alleged that it was a not-for-profit Florida corporation which had, as one of its purposes, the preservation of the environment of Key Biscayne, including its beaches. The proof at hearing failed, however, to demonstrate that the Council enjoyed corporate status but, rather, demonstrated that it was an association formed in November 1987 to give the residents of Key Biscayne a more effective voice on matters of local interest, including the preservation of the environment of Key Biscayne. The Council is governed by nine individuals who are residents of Key Biscayne. These individuals are elected to their positions by the resident members of the association, who are also registered voters in Dade County. 4/ The Council meets at least once each month, and its meetings are open to the public. The agenda for each meeting is published in the local Key Biscayne newspaper, The Islander, the week before each meeting. Of particular interest to the Council is the preservation and protection of the beaches of Key Biscayne which form an important part of that community's and the Council members' lifestyle. To date, the Council has been a motivating force behind the enactment of Dade County Ordinance No. 89-23 discussed infra, which established the CCCL as the mandatory setback line for new construction on Key Biscayne, as well as efforts to fund a cleanup of the beaches, to establish a vegetation dune system, and to protect the sea turtle population. Here, by unanimous vote of the Council, it elected to contest the propriety of DNR's proposal to approve the Hotel's application to construct the proposed additions seaward of the CCCL. Key Biscayne and the surrounding topography Key Biscayne is the southernmost barrier island in what is now a chain of barrier islands extending southward from Miami Beach. Historically, Miami Beach was connected to some extent with Virginia Key, which lies to the north across Bear's Cut from Key Biscayne. In 1835, however, a hurricane struck the area, breached whatever connection existed between Miami Beach and Virginia Key, and formed what is now known as Norris Cut. The topography of the area was further altered in 1905 when construction of Government Cut, the navigational channel for the Port of Miami, was begun. Construction of that cut severed the southern tip from Miami Beach, and formed what is now known as Fisher Island. By 1927, a jetty had been constructed on the north side of Government Cut that created an effective barrier to any along shore sediment transport to the south. Over time the channel in Government Cut was deepened and jetties on its north and south sides extended. Today, the channel is 42 feet deep and extends two miles into the ocean. The north jetty extends 3,000 feet into the ocean, and the south jetty extends 2,750 feet into the ocean. Key Biscayne, which lies to the south of Government Cut and the other islands, is a sand island, roughly "drum-stick" in shape, formed on a limestone base, with elevations ranging from 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 feet. The northern and southern portions of its eastern shore are dominated by Crandon Park and Cape Florida State park, respectively, with development concentrated in the central portion of the island. It is along this central part of the island that the Sonesta Beach Hotel exists, and where the proposed construction is to occur. Immediately north of the existing hotel lies the Silver Sands Hotel and Sand Dollar Restaurant. To the south of the hotel lies the Sheraton Beach Hotel and Beach Club and, further south, the Key Biscayne Hotel and Villas. 5/ Although Key Biscayne is generally subject to mild weather conditions and a low energy environment, it has been subjected to erosion along its eastern shore, with the more severe erosion occurring along the central portion of its shoreline. Seaward of the northern and southern portions of its eastern shore, sand shoals exist which tend to dampen the force of wave energy that would otherwise be exerted against that stretch of coast line. The center of the island is not, however, accorded similar protection and the consequent concentration of wave energy causes sand to be transported from the center of the island to its outer ends. As a result, the central portion of the island, where the subject development is proposed, has historically eroded at a faster rate than the north or south ends of the island. In September 1984, as a consequence of the severe erosion suffered to the eastern shore of Key Biscayne, Dade County was authorized to place over 411,000 cubic yards of sand along approximately 10,000 feet of shoreline on Key Biscayne, and to construct a terminal structure at the south end of the island. The beach was restored by hydraulically pumping sand onto the beach from an offshore dredge and then redistributing the sand with a bulldozer. The resulting beach is characterized as "plan form," and is expected to assume a natural profile over time by responding to the natural forces of wind and waves. The fill pipes which were used to pump sand onto the beach were removed from the area of the Sonesta Beach Hotel on July 3, 1987, and the reprofiling or redistribution of sand in that area was completed around July 20, 1987. On September 26, 1987, the renourishment project was certified complete. The 30-year erosion projection Section 161.053(6)(b) Florida Statutes, provides that DNR may not issue a permit for construction seaward of the CCCL, except for certain specific structures not pertinent to this case, if the structure is "proposed for a location which, based on the department's projections of erosion in the area, will be seaward of the seasonal high-water line within 30 years after the date of application for such permit." The "seasonal high-water line" is a creature of statute, and is defined by Section 161.053(6)(a), Florida Statues, as "the line formed by the intersection of the rising shore and the elevation of 150 percent of the local mean tidal range above local mean high-water." Here, the seasonal high-water line, which is established as an elevation, calculates to approximately 5.4 feet NGVD, and according to the survey dated August 1, 1987, which was submitted with the Hotel's application, currently derives a line that is approximately 375 feet seaward of the proposed construction. To establish the 30-year erosion projection, DNR proposes to horizontally shift the profile which was depicted on such survey in a landward direction a distance equal to the expected erosion rate over a 30-year period. Ordinarily, DNR would calculate a 30-year erosion projection based on historic erosion rates, referred to as "horizontal change rates" in Rule 16B- 33.024, Florida Administrative Code, by reviewing two or more historical surveys taken over a period of time, and measuring the amount of shoreline recession that had occurred during that period. From that figure, an erosion rate would be derived by dividing the number of years which elapsed over the period of record chosen into the amount of shoreline recession that occurred during that period. The result would be the historic erosion rate which, when multiplied by 30, would establish the location of the 30-year seasonal high-water line. However, where, as here, the beach as been renourished, consideration of the effect and performance of such project must also be considered in making the 30- year erosion projection. Rule 16B-33.024(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, to determine the expected location of the seasonal high-water line in 30 years in this case, it is necessary to establish a historical shoreline change rate and to evaluate the effect and performance of the beach renourishment project. To establish an appropriate historical erosion rate for the subject site, consideration must be given to both the tidal datum relied upon to obtain the rates, and the time period selected as the period of record for analysis of historic shoreline change rates. With regard to tidal datums, the Department's rule provides that horizontal shoreline change rate values may be obtained from one of several available tidal datums, including mean high-water, mean sea level, and mean low-water. Rule 16B-33.024(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. However, the preferred and more reliable tidal datum to use in assessing historic erosion rates is the line of mean high-water. The time period used in calculating the historic shoreline change rate is required by DNR's rule to extend from the date of the field work for the applicant's survey, which was submitted as part of the application, to the earliest date for which reliable information is available. Rule 16R- 33.024(3)(b) Florida Administrative Code. The historic shoreline change rate analysis should generally include data from points 3,000 feet on either side of the proposed construction, with the change rate for each point averaged for the time period chosen. Rule 16R-33.024(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code. In the event that coastal or shoreline protection structures exist which have influenced the shoreline data for any of the reference points, such influence must be addressed, and if such influence renders the data unreliable the rate data obtained from that point during the period of influence must be rejected. 6/ Rule 16B-33.024(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Historic shoreline change rates for the subject project are properly determined by reference to DNR reference monuments R-101 to R-106, located on Key Biscayne. Monument R-104 is the closest monument to the project site, lying approximately 180 to 200 feet south of the site, with the project lying between monuments R-103 and R-104. To facilitate an accurate determination of historic shoreline change rates, DNR has created the Beaches and Shores Growth Management Data Base (DNR Data Base), which consists of data from primary source maps from various governmental agencies, including the United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Survey, and United States Geologic Survey. These maps have been digitized relative to the DNR monuments, which are located along- the coast at- approximately 1,000-foot intervals, and the resulting data is used to assess shoreline changes over time. Inherent in these shoreline changes are the effects of natural forces on the shoreline, such as wind, wave height, and temperature. Pertinent to this case, the surveys available in the DNR Data Base prior to 1989 were those of 1851, 1919, 1927, 1935, 1945, and 1962. In or about February 1989, DNR contracted with Florida State University to redigitize maps of Key Biscayne. As a consequence, the accuracy of existing data was enhanced and a new survey, the 1913 United States Coastal and Geodetic Survey Map, was added to the DNR Data Base. The addition of the 1913 survey to the DNR Data Base is significant to this case, since the proof demonstrates that the data derived from the 1919 survey is unreliable and should be disregarded. Accordingly, the surveys that may be reasonably relied on in this case are those of 1851, 1913, 1927, 1935, 1945, and 1962. In selecting the appropriate period to determine the historic change rate in this case, several factors should be considered. First, in 1926 a hurricane, which came very close to Key Biscayne, resulted in severe damage to the beach. This storm was reported as at least a 100-year storm event, and is the major storm of record for the area. The 1926 storm, as a naturally occurring event, should be taken into consideration in arriving at an historic erosion rate, but should not be allowed to bias the data. Accordingly, any survey immediately preceding it should not ordinarily be used as a starting point for determining an historic erosion rate, because it would overestimate the historic change rate. Similarly, the immediate post-storm survey of 1927 should not be used as the starting point for determining the historic change rate, since this data would overestimate the effects of the post-storm rebound (accretion), but ignore the erosion caused by the 1926 storm and artificially lower the erosion rate. Finally, the 1962 survey should be the most recent survey used to establish an historic erosion rate, since it marks the end of the predevelopment phase of the study. In the mid-1960's, shoreline structures (seawalls) were erected along portions of the coast, and a beach renourishment project was carried out at Crandon Park in 1969 resulting in filling at DNR Monument R-101. These events render post 1962 data unreliable in assessing an historic change rate. Here, the proof demonstrates that the appropriate time period for analyzing the historic change rate is 1851 to 1962. Based on an analysis of the historic change data for such period, the appropriate historic erosion rate for the project site is -2.3 feet per year. In reaching the foregoing conclusion, the Council's contention that pre-1919 survey data should be rejected in deriving an historic change rate because the construction of Government Cut had, by 1927, interrupted a littoral supply of sand in the neighborhood of 200,000 to 400,000 cubic yards of sand to the south has not been overlooked. However, the more credible proof demonstrates that the littoral transport of sand along this area of Florida's coast is approximately 10,000 cubic yards per year, and that little of that sand ever reached Key Biscayne. Accordingly, the construction of Government Cut had little, if any, impact on Key Biscayne. Also, notable to this conclusion is the fact that an analysis of the historic change rate from 1913 to 1962 calculates an historic erosion rate of -2.5 feet per year, an insignificant difference from that calculated for the period of 1851 to 1962, and the existence of an erosional trend at the central portion of Key Biscayne prior to the construction of Government Cut. Following the establishment of an historic erosion rate, the next step in assessing the expected location of the seasonal high-water line in 30 years in situations where, as here, the beach has been renourished, is a consideration of the effect and performance of such renourishment project. The importance of this analysis cannot be gainsaid, since a beach nourishment project may behave differently than the natural beach, as the nourishment may erode faster or slower than the natural beach or it may accrete. Factors which may cause a beach nourishment project to behave differently than the natural beach include project design, such as the length and width of the project, the seaward slope of the fill material, and the nature of the fill material; and, natural and manmade factors, such as offshore shoals, jetties, and breakwaters. The length and width of a project is very significant in terms of how long the project will remain in place. A project which is short in length will have a tendency to erode at a faster rate than a long project or the natural beach. This loss, referred to as "end losses" or "spreading-out losses," is not necessarily a loss of material from the system, but rather a redistribution of the sediment to the outer edges of the nourishment project. These spreading-out losses are caused by the project's exposure to waves that occur from offshore. As a nourishment project is exposed to waves, it reacts to the force of those waves by spreading out in an alongshore direction, resulting in a reduction in the overall width of the project. A longer project, such as the nourishment project in the existent case, will erode from the ends more slowly than a small project and, consequently, maintain its width and life for a greater period of time. The seaward slope of the nourished beach will also affect the project's performance. When a nourishment project is constructed, the seaward slope of the beach may initially be steeper than the slope which existed prior to nourishment, and may be irregular in shape compared to the natural shoreline. During the slope adjustment process, gravity and waves act on the shoreline to create a more natural slope and shape. During this process, the upland portion of the beach, as well as any irregularities in the shoreline, will experience shoreline recession, with the material being redistributed along shore and offshore. This adjustment process, and the effects it will have on the project's performance, may extend over several years after nourishment is completed. The grain size of the material used in the nourishment project can also affect the performance of the project. If the sediments used to construct the nourishment project are essentially of the same grain size and quality of the sediments which existed on the natural beach, then the nourished beach can be expected to perform, after initial slope adjustment, in much the same manner as the natural beach.. Natural features or manmade structures which may affect the performance of the nourishment project include the shoreline and offshore characteristics of the area that can increase or slow the rate at which the material may otherwise erode, or a groin or natural feature that would tend to confine the project and prevent or minimize spreading-out losses. Here, the nourishment project is a long project, approximately 10,000 feet in length. This factor will contribute favorably to the project's longevity. The material used in the nourishment project is very similar to that which existed on the natural beach. Therefore, after initial slope adjustment, the nourished beach should perform in a manner similar to the natural beach. Finally, the portion of the beach fronting the hotel is bordered to the north and south by areas which are historically stable or accreting. This factor should stabilize the ends of the project, and reduce the alongshore spread which would otherwise occur. In sum, after the slope and shoreline have adjusted to a natural profile and shape, the nourishment project should perform in a manner very similar to the pre-nourishment beach. While the nourishment project should ultimately perform similar to the pre-nourished beach, little time has elapsed since completion of the project for slope and shoreline adjustment or to demonstrate stabilization. Here, the nourished beach was profiled by man (bulldozers), with the reprofiling in she area of the hotel being completed around July 20, 1987. The Hotel submitted its application for the subject permit on January 14, 1988, together with a survey of the area dated August 1, 1987. Based on this survey, DNR proposes to establish the 30-year seasonal high-water line by horizontally shifting the profile depicted on the survey in a landward direction. To predict the performance of the beach nourishment over time, the Hotel offered the results of an analytical computer model run by Dr. Robert Dean, an expert in coastal and oceanographic engineering and coastal processes. That model predicts spreading-out losses," and considers site specific factors that will affect the nourishment project, including pre-existing shoreline conditions, size and quality of the beach fill, volume, length of the project, conditions at the end of the fill, and the affect of wave forces on the coast. The wave data relied upon by Dr. Dean to drive his model was derived from a wave gauge located just north of Government Cut. The wave characteristics at Key Biscayne are, however, dissimilar to those experienced off Miami Beach due to the wave damping characteristics of the offshore area of Key Biscayne. While dissimilar, Dr. Dean opined that the data from Miami Beach could be reliably used as a conservative estimate of the force of waves at Key Biscayne, and that his model would, thereby, present a worst case scenario or prediction of spreading-out loss of sediment on the nourished beach. Based on such analysis, Dr. Dean predicted that shoreline recession on the nourished beach, attributable to spreading-out losses, would amount to 28 feet over the next 30 years, most of which would occur in the early years of the project. When combined with the historic change rate of -2.3 feet per year for 30 years, Dr. Dean calculates that 97 feet of erosion will occur at the subject site over a 30-year period, and that at the end of that period the proposed addition will be 102 feet landward of the seasonal high-water line. DNR also made an erosion projection to predict the performance of the beach nourishment over time. In its analysis, DNR relied on monitoring data Dade County had gathered regarding the performance of the project. Such data measured, at various monuments, the amount of accretion or erosion that had occurred within the first 6 months of the project, and the amount of accretion or erosion that had occurred over the next 12 months of the project. The data was not, however, complete for all monuments within 3,000 feet of the hotel, and was otherwise unpersuasive for reasons hereinafter discussed. In performing its analysis, DNR chose to focus on one monument, PL-5- DC, which is located 200 feet north of the hotel. The data at that monument showed that within the first six months the mean high-water line (MHWL) had receded 22 feet, and that over the next 12 months it had receded an additional 10 feet. Assuming a constant rate of erosion based on those two time points, DNR concluded that initial slope adjustment or stabilization would occur within four years, and that shoreline recession on the nourished beach over that 4-year period would amount to -41.6 feet. When combined with an historic change rate of -2.3 feet for the next 26 years, DNR's methodology calculates that 101.4 feet of erosion will occur at the subject site over a 30-year period, and that at the end of that period the proposed addition will be 99 feet landward of the seasonal high-water line. 7/ While Dr. Dean's model and DNR's analysis of Dade County data may yield similar results, neither methodology is, under the circumstances of this case, persuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform or where the 30-year seasonal high-water line will be located. Here, the proof demonstrates that Key Biscayne enjoys a low-energy environment, and that the only force of significance ordinarily exerted along its coast occurs during the winter months when northeasters impact its shoreline. It is this wave energy that would, under normal circumstances, mold or adjust the seaward slope and shoreline of the nourishment project until it reached a more natural slope and shoreline, and after which the rate of erosion would be consistent with the historic change rate. However, since completion of the nourishment project, Key Biscayne has enjoyed unusually mild weather conditions, and the usual winter storms have not occurred. Consequently, the nourishment project has yet to be subjected to the forces of nature which can be reasonably expected to ultimately mold or adjust its seaward slope and shoreline. DNR's conclusion that the nourishment project will reach stability within four years, based on its analysis of the meager data provided by Dade County, is simply unpersuasive. That data, which appears on page 6 of DNR's exhibit 5, showed that at monument PL-5-DC the MHWL had receded 22 feet in the first six months of project existence and 10 feet over the course of the next 12 months. Based solely on these two measurements, DNR calculated a straight line decreasing rate of erosion to conclude that within four years the project would erode at the historic change rate. DNR's methodology and assumption, based on only two points of measure within the first 18 months of project existence, is not credible or persuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform, and is rendered even less persuasive In view of the mild weather that affected Key Biscayne during such time period. Dr. Dean's opinion, based on his analytical computer model, which assessed shoreline recession on the nourished beach attributable to spreading- out losses, is likewise unpersuasive proof of how the nourishment project will perform. While Dr. Dean considered spreading-out losses and the historic change rate in reaching his conclusion, he failed to address offshore losses of sediment that will occur as the seaward slope of the project adjusts to a more natural profile. Here, the proof demonstrates that the seaward slope was constructed much more steeply than the natural slope, and that in the first 18 months of project existence significant quantities of fill have been lost offshore. At monument PL-5-DC the slope remains steep. Notably, while Dr. Dean calculated a spreading-out loss for the life of the project of 28 feet under what he termed a worse case scenario of wave height, the MHWL at the nourishment project has already receded 32 feet, under mild weather conditions, in the first 18 months of existence. Compared with Dr. Dean's and DNR's conclusions, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which designed the nourishment project, calculated a loss rate of approximately 22,000 cubic yards of fill each year. Should the project perform consistent with the Corps' estimate of project life, it will have receded to the Dade County erosion control line within 10 years, and over the course of the next 20 years to a point such that the proposed addition would lie seaward of the 30-year seasonal high-water line. Under the circumstances of this case, a calculation of the probable location of the 30-year seasonable high-water line, based on the Corps' estimate of the performance of the nourishment project, is more compelling than that of Dr. Dean or DNR. 8/ Impact on the beach and dune system Where, as here, construction is proposed seaward of the CCCL, Section 161.053(5)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires DNR to consider the potential impacts which the location of the proposed structures or activities may have on the beach-dune system. That system includes the beach, the dunes, and the overwash areas, which are interrelated by the sediment erosion and accretion process. 9/ DNR's analysis of potential impacts to the beach-dune system includes both short-term and long-term impacts of proposed construction. Short-term impacts are those which may arise during construction of a project and are often a concern in sensitive areas, such as those areas characterized by natural dune features and dune-stabilizing vegetation. Long-term impacts of a project may include increased flooding caused by a lowering of dunes and increased erosion caused by a lowering of dunes or by a net loss of sand from the beach-dune system. Impact to the beach-dune system can also be caused by increased pedestrian traffic associated with the construction of a major habitable structure. Pedestrian-caused impacts are, however, a potential concern only in areas where there are dune features and stabilizing vegetation which could be destroyed. In the absence, of these dune features, pedestrian traffic has no significant impact to the beach-dune system. Here, the site of the proposed construction does not have any prominent dune features or stabilizing dune features or stabilizing dune vegetation. In fact, the site is the present location of an asphalt parking lot, which extends 40 feet seaward of the footprint of the proposed construction. Construction of the project will not result in any net excavation of material. Since dunes will not be lowered and there will be no net loss of material, there will be no increased flooding or erosion caused by the project. Under such circumstances, the proof demonstrates that there will be no long-term or short-term impacts to the beach-dune system occasioned by the project. Adverse cumulative impact on the beach-dune system Section 161.053(5)(a)3, Florida Statutes, also requires DNR to assess the potential cumulative impacts to the beach-dune system that may be caused by construction seaward of the CCCL. Here, the proof demonstrates that the proposed project, either singularly or in combination with other existing or similar projects, would not have any adverse impact to the beach-dune system. Impact on adjacent property Construction activities proposed for a location seaward of the CCCL are also analyzed by DNR to assess their impact on adjacent properties. Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code. Such analysis includes a determination of whether construction activities will be confined on-site; whether a lowering of dunes will occur such that increased flooding on adjacent property could occur; whether elevations on the proposed construction site will be lowered such that flooding of adjacent property could occur; and whether proposed construction, in the event of a major storm event, would potentially increase erosion on adjacent property. Here, the proof demonstrates that construction activities will be confined on site, there will be no lowering of the dunes or elevations, and that there will be no net excavation of materials such that any increased risk of flooding or erosion could occur to either the project site or to adjacent properties. Interference with public beach access One purpose of CCCL permitting is to preserve public beach access. Sections 161.053(1) and (5)(e), Florida Statutes. "Public access" is defined as "the public's right to laterally traverse the sandy beaches of this state where such access exists on or after July 1, 1987." Section 161.021(1), Florida Statutes. The public presently does not have east-west access to the beach at the Sonesta Beach Hotel, and is not entitled to such access by law. The Hotel does not propose to hinder existing north-south (shore parallel/lateral) beach access, and the proposed project would not impede such access until the seasonal high-water line receded to the project. 10/ While the project might limit lateral access at times once the seasonal high-water line recedes, such impact would be de minimis in the instant case since construction of the project would not be seaward of existing structures on the Hotel's property. Compliance with local zoning requirements In order for a permit application to be deemed complete, an applicant must provide DNR with written evidence, provided by the appropriate local governmental-agency having jurisdiction over the activity, that the proposed development does not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Rule 16B-33.008(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. By letter dated February 10, 1988, the Hotel submitted to DNR a letter from Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Building and Zoning which indicated that the site plan for the proposed project was consistent with existent regulations. On April 21, 1988, DNR deemed the Hotel's application complete. While not contesting the consistency of the proposed project with local regulations at the time the Hotel's application was deemed complete, the Council contends that subsequent events have rendered its proposal inconsistent with such regulations. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the Hotel received site plan approval for the proposed addition from Dade County in November 1988, but that its application for a bull ding permit was denied and returned to the Hotel for further action. To date the Hotel has not sought to further process such application with the County. On April 4, 1989, Dade County enacted Ordinance No. 89-23, effective April 14, 1989, relating to construction seaward of the CCCL on Key Biscayne. Pertinent to this case, the ordinance prohibits the new construction of major habitual structures and severely restricts the construction of nonhabitable structures seaward of the CCCL, absent a variance. At hearing, no proof was offered that any portion of the proposed project would qualify for a variance, or that the nonhabitable portion of the project complied with the requirements of the new ordinance. 11/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Hotel's application to construct and excavate seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of September 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On 24 July 1979 the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County adopted Resolution R-79-887 petitioning the TIITF to establish an erosion control line (ECL) extending from South Lake Worth Inlet to the northern city limits of Delray Beach in conjunction with a beach restoration project in the same area. The project as then proposed encompassed extension of the south jetty at the Inlet 170 feet, construction of eight groins at 400-foot intervals commencing just south of the Inlet, and widening the beaches by 500 feet with 150 feet above the mean high water and 350 feet below mean high water, for a distance of approximately 4.8 miles. The restoration project is proposed to be accomplished with sand from a borrow area located approximately one-half mile off shore. The project is designated "Ocean Ridge-Briny Breezes" beach restoration project. SLWID objected to the project and, following conferences between Palm Beach County, SLWID and DNR the County amended its project to exclude property owned by SLWID from the ECL and beach restoration projects with the restoration of the beach to commence 300 feet south of the Inlet and continue for 2.6 miles to the town of Briny Breezes. Extension of the jetty and installation of groins were deleted. Palm Beach County's proposed beach restoration project was authorized by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in House Document 164 (Exhibit 5). The proposed "Ocean Ridge-Briny Breezes" beach restoration project was designed in accordance with the criteria set forth in Exhibit 5. The project is designed to restore the severe beach erosion that has occurred in the 2.6-mile project area and to provide the affected uplands protection against the ten-year design storm event. The ten-year design storm event implies a 3.8-foot storm surge with up to eight-foot waves superimposed thereon. The proposed ECL has been surveyed by Palm Beach County along the mean high water line in the proposed area. Over 60 percent of the ocean front property owners have approved the establishment of the ECL in conjunction with a beach restoration project by executing letters of consent. Following notice by DNR a public hearing was held on February 13, 1980, to receive evidence relative to the necessity and propriety of the proposed beach restoration project and the proposed location of the ECL. The Hearing Officer's report (Exhibit 28) concluded that there is a definite need to restore the proposed area where severe beach erosion has occurred and the establishment of the ECL would accomplish the purpose stated in Section 161.161, Florida Statutes. Approval of the project was recommended. The staff of DNR approved the project and prepared the agenda item for the next meeting of the TIITF in which this project was to be considered for final approval. Prior to this meeting of the TIITF, SLWID filed its initial Request for Formal Proceeding and the item was removed from the TIITF agenda and referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The beach erosion in the project area has been documented by Palm Beach County, DNR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Much of the erosion in the northernmost mile of the project has involved the beach above high water, as well as the offshore beach, while the erosion in the southern 1.6 files of the project has predominantly been offshore. During the period 1955-1981 approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of sand has been lost in the project area. Beach erosion determinations are made by calculating both onshore and offshore changes in the beach profile. Significant offshore erosion will lead to onshore beach recession by storm-generated waves. A gradually sloping beach is a natural absorber of wade energy and the most effective. Since maximum wave height is a function of the depth of the water, waves rapidly dissipate when they reach shoal water. With offshore erosion and the resulting deeper water near the shore, incoming waves can be higher and will impact on the upland area with greater force than would occur with a gradually sloping beach. There is a net annual littoral drift of 200,000 cubic yards of sand southward in the project area. Prior to the construction of the Inlet this drift replaced sand lost during storms, thus creating a dynamic beach which receded and was augmented from time to time. The installation of the jetties disrupted this littoral flow and caused the sand to build up on the beach north of the jetty while starving the beach south of the jetty. This problem was partly corrected by the erection of a sand transfer plant on the north jetty which pumped some of this sand across the Inlet to the beach south of the Inlet. The sand transfer plant was not operated during WWII due to the fuel shortage and severe erosion occurred in the project area. Following WWII the sand transfer plant was replaced in operation, sand was dredged from the Inlet and deposited on the beach south of the Inlet and the beach in the project area was largely restored. In 1967 the north jetty at the Inlet was extended and the sand transfer plant was moved eastward some 130 feet. This plant is a fixed plant consisting of a suction line on a boom which dredges sand to be pumped south of the Inlet only from the area that can be reached by the boom. Although capacity of the plant is adequate to pump the sand needed to replace in the project area that sand intercepted by the jetty, due to the limitation of the plant to reach a larger area there is insufficient sand available for the plant to pump to capacity. As a result, even if the plant operated all the time and there was sand available to pump, there would still be a net loss of sand in the project area (Exhibit 21). During recent winter storms property-threatening beach erosion has occurred to beach property in the project area. Some of the property owners have erected bulkheads and seawalls and others are proceeding with plans to do so. In some places in the north portion of the project area there is no exposed beach at high water. In the southern portion of the project area the offshore erosion will, if left to continue, result in severe damage and loss of upland beach if impacted with seas commensurate with a ten-year design storm event. This erosion, both on and offshore, will, if uncorrected, result in a calculated total of 134 feet of beach recession for the ten-year design storm event. This could result in the inundation of S.R. A1A, which runs near the beach in the northern portion of the project area. S.R. A1A is the primary north-south highway east of the Intracoastal Waterway and the evacuation route to the bridges to the mainland in the event evacuation of the beach is necessary in a hurricane situation. The proposed beach restoration project is designed to replace sand lost offshore and onshore erosion in the the project area and provide a sloping beach to absorb wave impact. It will not accelerate erosion. The proposed restoration of the beach will protect property and structures in the project area against the forces associated with a ten-year design storm event. Addition of the 1.5 million cubic yards of sand in the project area will result in some sand infiltration of the Inlet. This was calculated at 8,000 cubic yards the first year, 6,000 cubic yards the second year and 4,000 cubic yards per year thereafter. This will result in insignificant shoaling in the Inlet but will require infrequent maintenance dredging. It will not adversely impact the tidal prism in the Inlet or materially increase the maintenance of the Inlet. Heavy storms result in immediate loss of sand from the upland beach. Most of this sand is deposited in the offshore beach and is returned to the upland beach by the normal action of waves and tides. Approximately ten percent of the sand so removed from the upland beach is not returned but is lost.
