The Issue Petitioners challenged the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) preliminary Final Order, alleging that Petitioners committed the "unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation for the purposes of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line [(CCCL)] without benefit of a permit." The ultimate issue is whether the work Petitioners performed was seaward of the CCCL, and if it was, whether there was a violation of Amended Permit FR-563 and Section 161.053(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Ben Withers, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ben Withers, is the President and owner of Ben Withers, Inc., and a resident of Panacea, Florida. (Henceforth, Ben Withers and Ben Withers, Inc., are referred to collectively as "Mr. Withers," unless otherwise noted.) Mr. Withers is a licensed general contractor. The Department is the executive agency of the State of Florida operating pursuant to, among others, Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the Department administers the CCCL program for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. Coastal Construction Control Line Program The Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources regulates construction and excavation activities seaward of the CCCL. The Department is responsible for determining and setting the CCCLs. The CCCL is a scientifically established line pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. By definition, the CCCL "defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a one-hundred-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Rule 62B-33.002(13), Florida Administrative Code. Construction and excavation activity seaward of the CCCL is regulated by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B- 33, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Withers admitted that he is aware of Department rules regarding beaches and coastal construction and is also aware that excavation seaward of the CCCL requires a permit unless it is otherwise exempt, and that he had this knowledge prior to the present case. Accessing the Pepper Project Site Under Amended Permit FR-563 Dog Island is a barrier island south of and about three miles off the coast of Franklin County, Florida. The island is approximately eight miles in length. There is no bridge to the island. The Pepper project site is on the far western end of the island. The Gulf of Mexico borders the island on the south and St. George Sound borders the island to the north. The most common way to access the Pepper site with any vehicle carrying equipment and materials, would be to use a boat or barge to a marina area (Tyson's Harbor) near the center of the island, or a private dock, and then traverse west down the middle of the island or down the beach itself, or a combination of the two. The Easy Street Easement is an easement area for a roadway running east and west through Dog Island. The parties agree that Easy Street and the Easy Street Easement are the same. The Easy Street Easement had been an unpaved roadway years before; part of the roadway was still visible in May 2001, and other parts had been covered with vegetation. There are portions of Easy Street and Easy Way east of the cul-de-sac which are visible roadways. See, e.g., Department Exhibit 13. Additionally, parts of Easy Street are seaward of the Department's CCCL (e.g., in the narrows area which is west of the cul-de-sac) and other parts are landward of the CCCL. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 29. Pursuant to its statutory duty, in 1996, the Department set the reference monuments R-158-R-160 for the CCCL on the west end of Dog Island. These monuments are in the narrows area of the island and run west to east. The CCCL is not visible on the ground. A surveyor is needed to locate the line. The alleged violation in this case was committed between R-158 and R-160, part of the narrows area. The Easy Street Easement on Dog Island runs both north and south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac and then runs westerly to the west end of Dog Island. The CCCL Permits On October 21, 1999, the Department issued Permit FR-563 to Leonard Pepper, the property owner, for the construction of a single–family dwelling and for structures associated with the dwelling on the west end of Dog Island. Permit FR-563 contained Standard Permit Conditions that required in part: (1)(a) all construction or activity for which the permit was granted be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications which were approved by the Department as a part of the permit; (1)(b) all construction or activity authorized under the permit shall be conducted using extreme care to prevent any adverse impacts to the beach and dune system; and (1)(g) existing beach and dune topography and vegetation shall not be disturbed except as expressly authorized in the permit. Permit FR-563 did not authorize the start of construction until a construction access plan to the Pepper project site was approved, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system. On October 16, 2000, Amended Permit FR-563 was issued with a Notice to Proceed Withheld. The Amended Permit also contained Special Condition 1.5 which required the submittal and approval of "[a] construction access plan showing the route and timing for bringing equipment and materials to the site, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system." The Department was concerned about the manner in which equipment and materials would be brought to the project site without causing further harm to the system. Amended Permit FR-563 did not expressly or implicitly authorize excavation or grading seaward of the CCCL in any area on Dog Island off of the project site and footprint of the house. In late 2000, Mr. Withers became involved with the Pepper project after Amended Permit FR-563 (with the Notice to Proceed Withheld) was issued on October 16, 2000. Part of Mr. Withers' job responsibility was to prepare and submit a construction access plan to the Department for approval. The Department does not normally require an access plan because most job sites are located in areas with established roads for ingress and egress. Here, there was no established road to and from the project site. The access plan was necessary in order to determine how Mr. Withers would transport equipment and materials to the Pepper project site on the west end of Dog Island due to the site's remote location and the absence of an established roadway to the site. Mr. Withers expected that materials and heavy equipment, including cranes, would be off-loaded at Tyson's Harbor, located approximately in the middle of Dog Island, and transported by vehicle to the project site along the access plan route. He expected to only transport pilings using the beach access route. On March 15, 2001, Mr. Withers submitted an access plan which described the route Mr. Withers would traverse by vehicle with construction equipment and materials. See Endnote 1. The Easy Street Easement starts at the east end of the island as an established roadway. Proceeding in a westerly direction, Easy Street comes to a dead-end at a cul-de-sac landward of the CCCL. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to access the job site using part the Easy Street/Easy Street Easement (starting on the east end of the island) going north from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac, then heading in a westerly direction just south of the Ausley house (west of R-158 and just landward of the CCCL) and across the narrows area and continuing in a westerly direction along the northern shoreline and in southerly direction toward R-154. The access plan then authorized Mr. Withers to proceed in a westerly direction over the middle portion of the west-end of the island, then in a southerly direction toward the project site.1 The access plan showed a route both landward and seaward of the CCCL along the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 4- orange line then blue line after the orange circle on the west-end of the island. As described by Mr. McNeal of the Department, the access route is seaward, for the most part, of the CCCL from R-157 to R- 159 (running west to east) and landward of the CCCL east of R-159. The Department described the damaged area of 5,305.6 square feet (Department Exhibit 11A, insert "B") caused by Mr. Withers as east of R-159 and seaward of the CCCL and south of the access plan route. See also Finding of Fact 35. However, it appears that a portion of Easy Street, between R-159 and R-160, is seaward of the CCCL. Compare Department Exhibit 12 with Department Exhibits 4, 11A, and 13. During a pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Withers marked in pink the route he took through a portion of the narrows area which coincides with the portion of Easy Street between the approximate locations of R-159 and R-160, depicted on Department Exhibit 12. See Finding of Fact 43. (Mr. Withers had the Easy Street Easement staked prior to doing any work on Dog Island. See Findings of Fact 33-35.) The damaged area appears to coincide with this portion of Easy Street, and seaward of the CCCL. See Department Exhibit 11A. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to drive (vehicular traffic) his equipment over the easement following the route depicted on the access plan until he arrived at the project site. See Endnote 1. The Department expected that travel along the access route would cause minimal and temporary damage or destruction to the topography, so the plan was considered acceptable. The access plan did not authorize excavation of a roadway within the route, including the narrows area, nor did it contemplate any other activity over or around a dune other than what might occur as a result of driving.2 The Department understood that Mr. Withers would be driving daily over the access plan route to the project site. The Department assumed that trucks would be used to transport equipment and materials. The Department did not differentiate among vehicles which could be used, including large trucks. On April 11, 2001, the Department issued a Notice to Proceed to Mr. Pepper to begin construction of his single-family dwelling in accordance with Amended Permit FR-563. The access plan is part of the Amended permit. Shortly after the Notice to Proceed was issued, The Nature Conservancy advised the Department of concerns it had with the access plan. As a result, on April 24, 2001, there was a meeting in Apalachicola, Florida, convened by the Department and attended by other interested governmental entities and private persons, including Mr. Withers. The purpose of the meeting was explore other possible ways and means of access by Mr. Withers to the Pepper project site.3 No resolution was reached during the meeting and the access plan previously approved by the Department remained effective. The previously issued Notice to Proceed was also in effect. The Violations Mr. Withers hired Kenneth Greenwood of Garlick Environmental Associates to perform a threatened/endangered species inspection, plant and animal, on an approximately 30-foot wide strip on the Easy Street Easement (approximately 1,800 feet) being utilized in Mr. Withers' access plan and within the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 13-yellow markings. On May 2, 2001, Mr. Greenwood performed the inspection within the easement that Mr. Withers had staked out by a land surveyor, approximately 15 feet on either side of the stakes. He found no threatened/endangered species. (The CCCL was not staked by Mr. Withers because, according to Mr. Withers, the Department did not ask him to locate the CCCL with stakes.) The access route depicted by Mr. McNeal in orange on Department Exhibit 4, which runs east of R-159, is similar to the description of the staked areas east of R-159, described by Mr. Greenwood and marked in yellow on Department Exhibit 13. See Findings of Fact 28-29. Both areas are landward of the CCCL. However, the 5,305.6 square foot damaged area is east of R-159 and is seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Greenwood described the area where he performed his investigation as being "relatively undisturbed," "relatively stable," having no vehicle tracks, and he stated that there were areas of bare sand as well as areas of "natural beach dune vegetation." He described the area as "relatively flat with some small amounts of mounding." The pictures taken by Mr. Greenwood within the staked easement on May 2, 2001, as part of his investigation, do not depict any vehicle tracks. After Mr. Greenwood completed his investigation on May 2, 2001, he observed Mr. Withers landward of the CCCL on a front-end loader and north of the cul-de-sac, proceeding west along the Easy Street Easement scraping off the top layer of soil and heading in a westward direction. Mr. Greenwood believed that the activity performed by Mr. Withers at this time was consistent with unpaved, road construction. According to Mr. Greenwood, the width of the scraped area appeared to be approximately the width of the bucket on Mr. Withers' front-end loader. Mr. Withers stated that he was doing minor grading landward of the CCCL with a John Deere 310-E front-end loader tractor when Mr. Greenwood was present on May 2, 2001. This tractor had a front bucket (approximately seven to eight feet wide) and a backhoe for excavating dirt on the back-end. Mr. Withers described the work which he performed when Mr. Greenwood was present as moving out and smoothing off the top of the sand landward of the CCCL in order for his equipment to get through. Mr. Withers also stated that he made areas in the easement seaward of the CCCL smooth by using the bottom of the bucket of his front-end loader to move sand around. Mr. Withers mentioned that he was very concerned that he needed to have the pathway he was utilizing in the access plan marked and smoothed off and fairly level. He believed the access plan authorized him to smooth off the areas on the access route. Mr. Withers stated that he had to have the access path level because he was bringing a self-propelled, 25-ton crane down the access path and they are top heavy and can get off balance, topple over, or get stuck. Mr. Withers described two types of work that he performed in the Easy Street Easement as: 1) clearing landward of the CCCL that required scooping and moving dirt, and 2) smoothing several areas seaward of the CCCL, just east of R-158 to around R- 160. An area of excavation damage seven feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning approximately 130 feet east of R-158) and an area 41 feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning at R-159, continuing east approximately 500 feet) are located within the area Mr. Withers stated he did some "smoothing off areas," again, east of R-158 and continuing east toward, but west, of R-160. Mr. Withers believed that Amended Permit FR-563 allowed him to use the Easy Street Easement in the access plan "to do . . . whatever was necessary and . . . needed to get [his] equipment, access [his] equipment down to the job site." He also admitted smoothing the areas. Mr. Withers also stated that Amended Permit FR-563 granted him permission to access the west end of Dog Island. Therefore, there was no need for him to locate the CCCL. Mr. Withers referred to the easement in the access plan as turning into a good pathway after he smoothed the areas. Mr. Withers stated that it was his "intention to gain access to the west end of Dog Island through a legal easement and an existing roadway" and that he wanted to utilize it. Mr. Withers testified "that he knew a lot of roads on Dog Island crossed seaward of the [CCCL]" in response to questioning whether he knew at the time of his performing work on the easement, whether or not the Easy Street Easement crossed seaward of the CCCL. He knew he was going to be traversing "fairly close" to the CCCL. Mr. Withers stated he did not knowingly violate the conditions of the Amended Permit. Mr. Withers was aware of the Department's permit requirements for work seaward of the CCCL when he performed his access work in the easement on Dog Island. However, Mr. Withers never had a survey done to figure out where the CCCL was located. Notice of the Alleged Violations Around May 2, 2001, the Department received a complaint that excavation was occurring seaward of the CCCL on Dog Island in the narrows area of the Easy Street Easement. On May 4, 2001, John A. Poppel, William Fokes, and Phil Sanders went to Dog Island on behalf of the Department to investigate the complaint of excavation in the narrows area seaward of the CCCL. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Poppel performed a survey of the narrows area and located the CCCL. He located monuments R-158- R-160. Department Exhibit 11. As a product of his survey, Mr. Poppel was able to depict the newly excavated roadway or pathway in relation to the CCCL. Mr. Poppel calculated that one area of damage was seven feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 503.8 square feet of damage and a second area of damage was 41 feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 5,305.6 square feet of damage. These square foot areas represent only the disturbed areas seaward of the CCCL, not the entire area between the CCCL and the Gulf of Mexico. Both areas of damage are within the area where Mr. Withers stated that he smoothed out the sand. As part of the May 4, 2001, investigation, William Fokes, an Engineer I with the Department, took photographs of the damaged areas and prepared an inspection report. Mr. Fokes' report indicates that an approximately 11-foot wide roadway or pathway had been cleared by excavation with the most seaward extent of the road being about 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. In addition, the report states that small dunes and beach vegetation had been destroyed. Mr. Fokes described the damage as excavation or grading done by some kind of machine, which cut and uprooted vegetation and pushed sand to the side as it leveled the ground. Mr. Fokes testified that the damage did not appear to be caused by merely traversing the area. Mr. Sanders, an engineer with the Department, processes CCCL permit applications and supervises Mr. Fokes, a field engineer. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Sanders observed the narrows area in question and confirmed that it looked like a "graded road" in that "[i]t appeared in the road bed that vegetation was gone and had been pushed out to the side, graded away," and that there was "excavation" seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Sanders stated that this activity did not comply with the approved access plan. On May 7, 2001, a Notice of Violation was issued to Mr. Withers for the "the unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and native vegetation for the purpose of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line." Mr. Greenwood's photographs taken May 2, 2001, when compared with Mr. Fokes' photographs taken May 4, 2001, show that no discernable roadway or pathway was present landward or seaward of the CCCL in the narrows area at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection on May 2, 2001. This is evident when comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Exhibit 15a, taken on May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibit 16g taken on May 4, 2001--the roadway or pathway present in the May 4, 2001, photo is absent in the May 2, 2001, photograph, and the vegetation has been removed from part of the area. Comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Department Exhibit 15b, taken May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibits 16c and d, taken on May 4, 2001, also shows that the roadway or pathway was not present on the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection. The previously mentioned pictures, which were used for a comparison, were taken by two different people on separate dates, and from approximately the same locations. Also, Department Exhibit 16j was taken 250 feet east of R-159 and within the narrows area, facing east which shows clearing approximately 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. On May 14, 2001, at the request of the Department, Ken Jones, a principal engineer with Post Buckey et al., performed a damage assessment of the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement which was seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Jones has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in physical oceanography. Mr. Jones was familiar with the narrows area having been to Dog Island for recreation during the past 20 years and as a Dog Island property owner for the last three years. Mr. Jones described the narrows area as relatively flat and located between the St. George Sound to the north and the Gulf of Mexico beaches to the south. Between these two areas, the land is undulating sand and fairly consistent vegetation. At the time of Mr. Jones' damage assessment, he determined that a road had been cut through the vegetative portion of the dune of the narrows. Mr. Jones observed cut roots and a majority of the vegetation destroyed. Mr. Jones stated it appeared that the damage was caused by a vehicle with a blade on the front. The result was the road sat down in the sand approximately four to six inches. Mr. Jones stated that the work appeared to have been recent because distinct edges were still present. Mr. Jones took photographs and compiled an inspection report as part of his damage assessment. Mr. Jones testified that the damage "was pretty consistent from both landward and seaward of the [CCCL]." The pictures labeled Department Exhibits 18a1 and 18a2 depict a level pathway or roadway barren of vegetation seaward of the CCCL. Department Exhibit 18a4 is a photograph of a typical vegetated dune. Mr. Jones took this picture in order to have a general idea of what the vegetation coverage was in order to get an idea from a cost-estimating perspective. Mr. Jones's cost estimate for repairing the damage to the narrows area seaward of the CCCL, was approximately $7,500.00.4 Mr. Jones calculated the $7,500.00 by making an estimate of what it would cost to buy coastal vegetation, and by estimating what it would cost to employ laborers to hand rake the sand back into position and to plant the vegetation. Administrative Fine and Damages Jim Martinello, an environmental manager in charge of enforcement and compliance with the Bureau, used Mr. Jones' damage assessment estimate for informational purposes in assessing the damages amount for the narrows area. Mr. Martinello calculated the administrative fine and damages in accordance with Section 161.054, Florida Statues, and Rules 62B-54.002 and 62B-54.003, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.002, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department shall assess fines for willful violations of, or refusing to comply with, for example, Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and the fine should be sufficient to ensure immediate and continued compliance. In determining the actual fine within the range, the Department shall consider the offender's past violations, if any, and other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include prior knowledge of rules. Mitigating circumstances may be considered. Id. Mr. Withers had knowledge prior to the issuance of Amended Permit FR-563 of Department rules regarding permit requirements for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. On October 4, 1996, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. This matter was resolved by entering into a consent order. On October 29, 1997, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible permit violation seaward of the CCCL. On November 13, 1997, Mr. Withers was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. On October 27, 2000, Mr. Withers wrote a letter to Mr. McNeal indicating that he believed that the Easy Street Easement on Dog Island heading south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de- sac, then west to the west end of Dog Island, is landward of the CCCL and, therefore, no permit was necessary to reopen and use the easement, but he would have a surveyor establish the control line prior to work commencing. On November 7, 2000, Phil Sanders replied by letter to Mr. Withers' October 27, 2000 letter, in which Mr. Sanders reminded Mr. Withers of the pertinent rules and laws and suggested that Mr. Withers have the CCCL surveyed. On December 20, 2000, Mr. Martinello sent Mr. Withers an advisory letter informing him that the area he traversed (on July 2000) on the south route of the Easy Street Easement from the cul- de-sac on Dog Island was considered to be a dune as defined by Rule 62B-33.002, Florida Administrative Code. However, Mr. Martinello further advised that the Department did not take any action because "the traversing [did not] cause any substantial damage, it was minimal damage." In regard to the present case, it is more than a fair inference that Mr. Withers had specific knowledge of the CCCL and the Department's laws and rules, and that he knew excavation was not authorized seaward of the CCCL. The information in the prior Findings of Fact was used by the Department, and specifically Mr. Martinello, to determine that the harm to the beach resource or potential harm was major, and the administrative fine assessed was $7,500.00. However, part of Mr. Martinello's determination was predicated on Mr. Jones' assessment that the site one narrows violation was approximately 700 feet in length when, in fact, the area was approximately 500 feet in length, which explains in part the disparity between a 9,800 square foot area and the proven 5,305.6 square foot area. See Finding of Fact 78 and Endnote 4. Even the additional amount of damage of 503.8 square feet for the site two narrows area, when viewed in the aggregate, is significantly less than Mr. Jones' assessment of damages by square feet. (Mr. Martinello used the Jones' assessment as a guideline. Mr. Martinello says that the mistake did not alter his decision, although he was unaware of the mistake until the final hearing. He also says that Mr. Jones recommended a higher damage amount than the $5,000.00 assessed by the Department in its preliminary Final Order. He did--$7,500.00 for 9,800 square feet of damage.) Grossly negligent or knowing violations of statutes and Department rules regarding coastal construction seaward of the CCCL, which result "in harm to sovereignty lands seaward of mean high water or to beaches, shores, or coastal or beach-dune system(s), including animal, plant or aquatic life thereon," shall be considered in determining damages. Rule 62B-54.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a damage amount greater than the minimum amounts may be assessed to ensure, immediate and continued compliance and the Department may consider, e.g., the need for restoration and the damaged ecological resource. The Department determined that the violation was knowing based on the factors mentioned above. The Department also considered the need for restoration and the damage to ecological resources and whether the amount would ensure immediate and continued compliance. Id. The Department determined that there was harm to the resource and that it was major and knowing. The Department proposed to assess the minimum damage amount of $5,000.00. On January 11, 2002, the Department entered a preliminary Final Order for the unauthorized grading and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation seaward of the control line for the purpose of constructing a roadway. The amount assessed in the Final Order was $12,500.00, $7,500.00 in administrative fines and $5,000.00 in damages, as described above. As noted, there has been harm to the beach area resource seaward of the CCCL and the Department proved the need for restoration and the damage to the ecological resource. In mitigation, Mr. Withers' construction access plan was approved by the Department. The Department knew that Mr. Withers intended to use the access route, which ran seaward of the CCCL from approximately R-157 to R-159 (except for a small portion between R-158 and R-159) in the narrows area; that Mr. Withers planned to transport equipment and materials by truck using the access route and necessarily would traverse seaward of the CCCL; and that he would continuously use the access route until the project was completed. The actual damaged area is less than originally determined by Mr. Jones, thus the need for restoration reduced. Mr. Jones, without the benefit of a survey, estimated the total cost to restore the damaged area of 9,800 square feet to be approximately $7,500.00. The total square feet of damage proven in this proceeding is 5,809.4 square feet in the narrows area and the Department is requesting $12,500.00 in fines and damages. Based on an approximate ratio of square feet and dollars needed to restore, a damage assessment in the amount of $4,500.00 is appropriate. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a fine of $3,500.00 is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: That a final order be issued adopting this Recommended Order; and Within 30 days of a final order being effective, Petitioners shall pay a fine of $3,500.00 and $4,500.00 in damages with the total amount of $8,000.00, to the Department of Environmental Protection. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 9th day of January, 2003.
The Issue Does a statement by an agency that its regulatory authority is limited by Section 161.58, Florida Statute, constitute a non- rule policy? Does a statement by an agency that fees levied under authority of Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, by county governments for beach driving do not constitute revenue for purposes of invoking its regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.005 (Rule 18-21.005) constitute a non-rule policy?
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Petitioner Shirley Reynolds (Reynolds) resides and owns beachfront property overlooking the Atlantic Ocean in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Reynolds does not own to the mean high water line, and her property is not adjacent to the sovereign submerged lands held by the Trustees. Reynolds “shares riparian rights with the public.” Reynolds has owned her oceanfront home since 1981. She has observed beach driving by the general public on the beach and in the shallow water in the vicinity of her home. She enjoys the beachfront for “regular recreational, traditional recreational purposes.” Petitioner Diann Bowman (Bowman) resides and owns property that extends to and adjoins the mean high water line of the Atlantic Ocean in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Bowman has observed the general public driving on the beach and in shallow waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of her property. Bowman goes swimming in the ocean, builds sand castles by the edge of the water with her grandchildren, and walks on the beach with friends. Petitioners did not have any requests for leases or applications for action pending before the BOT, and Volusia County had not made an application to the Trustees for any activity permit or lease. Petitioner Bowman was not even aware of Reecy's e- mail, and could not articulate how she was affected by it. Although Reynolds testified at length about the impacts of beach driving and beach concessions between her home and the ocean, she failed to show how she was affected by Reecy's statements that the BOT does not regulate beach driving. In response to counsel’s question of what personal interest she has in whether or not the Trustees require authorization to use state land for motor vehicle traffic in front of her home, she responded, “[I]f and when they ever deal with it, it will certainly raise the consciousness of the human safety element.” Petitioners testified regarding the adverse impacts of beach driving on their property and their enjoyment of their property. Beach driving has an adverse impact upon the property values and upon their enjoyment of their property. Respondents The BOT is an agency of the State of Florida, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet. (Art. IV, s. 4 (f), Fla. Const.) The BOT holds the title to the State’s sovereign submerged lands acquired at statehood “for the use and benefit of the people of the state,” pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. (§§ 253.001, 253.03, and 253.12, Fla. Stat.) Private use of such lands generally requires consent of the BOT and must not be contrary to the public interest. The BOT is required to manage and conserve state-owned lands, including sovereignty lands, by law and is granted rulemaking authority to that end. The Department functions as the staff for the BOT, and issues leases and other authorizations for private parties to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. In carrying out its duties with relationship to the BOT, the Department implements policy as determined by the BOT, to include taking some final agency actions. The Department would be the agency through which the BOT would initiate rulemaking. The Department does not have delegated authority to adopt rules for the BOT. Ken Reecy (Reecy) is a Senior Management Analyst Supervisor in the Department’s Division of State Lands. One of Reecy’s job duties is to provide responses to requests for BOT’s public records housed in the Division of State Lands of the Department. On August 5, 2003, Ross Burnaman e-mailed Eva Armstrong of the Department the following public records request: Hi Eva-I am hoping that you can assist me with this inquiry for public records. I'm looking for any Trustees authorization for the use of state lands (including uplands and submerged lands) for beach driving by the general public or commercial vendors. While I'm aware of Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, I'm of the opinion that Trustees' authorization is still required for beach driving on state lands. Most local governments that allow beach driving (e.g. Gulf County, Volusia County) charge a fee for that activity. That would appear to trigger, Rule 18-21.005(b)(2), FAC, and the requirement for a lease. As I understand it, public beach driving is allowed in parts of the following counties: Nassau, Duval, Flagler, St. Johns, Volusia, Gulf and Walton counties. Thanks in advance for you assistance. Best regards, Ross Burnaman (phone number deleted) Ms. Armstrong passed this request to Ken Reecy of the Department who replied to Mr. Burnaman with the following e-mail message: Mr. Burnaman Concerning your request as to any authorization by the Board of Trustees for beach driving and fees triggering Rule 18- 21.005(b)(2)[sic]: We are unaware of any instance in which the issue of beach driving has been brought before the Board of Trustees for authorization. Further, in discussions with staff from our legal department, it is felt that s. 161.58 sufficiently covers the issue and that authorization from the Board is not necessary. We are also of the opinion that fees counties charge for beach driving would not trigger Rule 18-21.005(b)(2)[sic]. If you have any further questions on this issue, please contact Suzanne Brantley in EIP's Office of General Counsel (phone number deleted) The e-mail above contains two potential policy statements; one concerning a statute and the other concerning a rule. The analysis of each differs slightly. The BOT was authorized at one time to regulate all the uses of state sovereignty lands, to include regulation of driving on the state's beaches, i.e., that portion of land seaward of the mean high water line (hereafter: beach.) The BOT restricted the operation of private vehicles on the beaches via rule. The Legislature of the State of Florida enacted Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, which authorized those counties which had traditionally permitted driving on the beach to regulate the operation of privately owned vehicles on the beaches in their counties. Several of the counties which had traditionally permitted driving on the beach permitted privately owned vehicles to be operated on the beach in their counties and charged a small fee to defray the costs of providing parking, life guards, and traffic direction on the beaches. The BOT attempted to intervene in those counties which charged fees for beach driving on the basis that the fees being charged were "revenue" producing. The Legislature of the State of Florida amended Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, to specifically authorize the counties to collect reasonable fees to defray their costs of regulating beach driving. The statements that are challenged have not been adopted as a rule. Reecy testified at the hearing. Reecy only intended to give Burnaman information related to his public records request. The portion of Reecy's e-mail that is being challenged was intended to explain why no records were found. Reecy responded because Burnaman had sent follow-up e-mails to Reecy’s supervisor, Armstrong, the Director of the Division of State Lands. Reecy knew that Armstrong had a practice of providing information to the public when it was requested. Reecy is not charged with implementing or interpreting Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21 and does not process applications for leases or other authorizations from the BOT. Reecy's statement that no records were found is not a policy statement and has not been alleged to be one by Petitioners. Reecy conferred with Department legal staff before issuing his statement about Section 161.58, Florida Statutes. Reecy did not state that Section 161.58 exempted counties from getting BOT authorization for beach driving, as Petitioners state in their Petition, for several reasons: first, Reecy is not the person on the BOT’s staff who makes such determinations; second, there was no factual determination pending, i.e., no request for declaratory statement or request for an exemption or authorization; and third, the statute cited and its history indicate that the Legislature has vested the exclusive authority to regulate beach driving in those counties in which it traditionally occurred to county government in those counties. James W. Stoutamire (Stoutamire) is the principal Department employee who is charged with interpreting and applying the BOT’s rules. Stoutamire was the person to whom authority had been delegated to make such policy determinations. Burnaman's request was not presented to Stoutamire, and Reecy did not consult with Stoutamire. Although it is a statement concerning general law, Reecy's first statement regarding Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, does not assert agency jurisdiction or exempt a specific factual predicate from agency jurisdiction. Reecy also discussed Burnaman’s reference to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.005(1)(b)2. with the Department's legal staff. Reecy's references to the section mistakenly cites it as Rule 18-21.005(b)2. Regardless of Reecy's intent, his answer constitutes an interpretation of the rule as applied to the fees charged by counties for beach driving. The BOT's rules provide what types of private activities must have consent prior to their being undertaken on sovereign submerged lands. They do not contain a list of all of the many public activities that occur on Florida’s beaches, shores, and waters that do not require consent. The BOT's rules in Chapter 18-21 are not intended to prevent air or noise pollution, promote public safety, protect property values, provide peace and quiet, or protect quality of life. These are the concerns about which Petitioners testified as diminishing their peaceful enjoyment of their property rights. Beach concessions above the mean high water line do not fall within the Trustees jurisdiction or control.
The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern pursuant to Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, and 380.07, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding and to DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI, Petitioner, Fred Snowman, owned the real property known as Lot 75, Matecumbe Ocean Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in Monroe County, Florida (the subject property). A building permit issued by Monroe County, described below, for this property was the subject of DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI (the underlying proceeding.) The lot is approximately 100 feet wide and, at different points, between 200 and 225 feet deep. The subject property is bounded on the landward side by U.S. 1 and fronts the Atlantic Ocean in an area known as Matecumbe Beach. Matecumbe Beach is a known resting and nesting habitat for marine turtles. This building permit constituted a development order on property within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On September 30, 1993, Monroe County issued to Mr. Snowman, as the owner and general contractor, building permit number 9330008850, which authorized the construction on the subject property of a single-family residence containing 2,472 square feet of heated and cooled area, 1,568 square feet of porches, 1,435 square feet of storage enclosure below base flood elevation, and a swimming pool. The authorized construction was to be consistent with the building site plan, which was also approved by Monroe County. On November 18, 1993, the Department timely appealed the subject building permit to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. FLWAC referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI. A formal hearing was conducted in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI in Key West, Florida, on June 30, 1994. Following the formal hearing, the parties were afforded the opportunity to file post-hearing submittals. Thereafter, a recommended order was entered which recommended that FLWAC enter a final order that dismisses the Department's appeal. After the entry of the recommended order, the Department voluntarily dismissed its appeal. FLWAC subsequently entered a final order of dismissal. Petitioner, Fred Snowman, was the prevailing party in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI. SMALL BUSINESS PARTY The issue as to whether Petitioner is a "small business party" as defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, was disputed by the Department in this proceeding. The parties stipulated that Mr. Snowman meets the remaining criteria contained in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, for an award of attorney's fees and costs. The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner was the sole evidence pertaining to the number of employees of the Petitioner: Could you tell us a little bit about your business? What's the nature of your business? Primarily I'm a speculation - spec builder and general contractor in the Florida Keys, and have been since 1973. Q. How many employees do you maintain on a regular basis? A. I mainly have subcontractors. Occasionally when I have a job, I hire for that particular job. But I'm the sole proprietor and I'm the employee. (Transcript, page 9, lines 12-22.) While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner was the sole proprietor and sole employee of his business, it does not establish that Petitioner had fewer than 25 employees in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. 1/ The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner pertains to his net worth: Q. What is your net worth? Let me ask you this. Does your net worth exceed a million dollars? A. No. Q. Less than a million dollars? A. Yes. (Transcript, page 9, line 23 through page 10, line 3) The following testimony elicited by Respondent's counsel of the Petitioner on cross examination also pertains to his net worth: Q. When you're identifying your net worth, what exactly are you considering? A. Well, net worth is all my assets minus my liabilities. Q. All of your personal assets? A. Which are far and few between (sic) today. Q. Do you have business assets? A. No. Q. Do you own any property? A. Lot 75. Q. Any property other than Lot 75? A. I own three lots, small lots in Plantation Key. Q. Are they developed or undeveloped? A. No, they're undeveloped. Q. Do you know how much they're worth? A. They're valued at fifteen thousand per lot. Q. They're not on the water? A. Not on the water. Q. Lot 75, do you know what that property's worth? A. That property is worth about a hundred and seventy-five thousand. Q. Without the house on it? A. Without the improvements, yes. Q. How about in its improved condition? A. I would say, in the improved condition, with this home, it would be about five hundred thousand. Q. Okay. Other than the real estate, do you have any personal or business investments, stocks or -- A. No. Q. No? A. Just my condo. (Transcript, page 10, line 8 through page 11, line 13.) There was no other evidence presented as to Petitioner's net worth. While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner had a net worth of less than two million dollars, it does not establish that his net worth was below that figure in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION The Department's appeal initially raised several issues. All issues in the underlying proceeding but one were voluntarily dismissed by the Department either prior to the hearing or at the hearing. The only issue litigated at the formal hearing in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI was the appropriate setback from the portion of the beach-berm complex located on the subject property known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9.5-345(3)(f), Monroe County Code, provides: 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 was no dispute in Case 93-7165DRI that the turtle nesting setback applied to Mr. Snowman's property. The dispute was how to apply the setback. There was a bona fide factual dispute as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property that should be considered to be "beach berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles" within the meaning of the setback ordinance. The Department established that it followed its standard procedures in deciding to appeal the subject development order. The Department maintains a field staff in the Florida Keys that routinely reviews development orders issued by Monroe County for consistency with the land development regulations, the Monroe County comprehensive plan, and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. The permit package typically reviewed, and reviewed in this case, includes the permit, a permit conditions sheet, surveys, and site plans. The Department staff usually reviews a biological survey or habitat evaluation index, reviews the County's entire file, reviews aerial photographs and conducts a field assessment. In this case, the Department also looked at records of the Department of Natural Resources and of the Save A Turtle volunteer environmental group. In this case, the Department conducted a field assessment of Mr. Snowman's lot and measured the point it considered to be the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Kate Edgerton, an experienced biologist employed by the Department, measured the point the Department asserted was the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Ms. Edgerton made a good faith assessment of the beach berm complex and considered the property to contain one beach berm complex. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93-7165DRI, page 166, line 17.) Ms. Edgerton testified in the underlying proceeding that she considered herself bound by the definitions in the Monroe County land use regulations and that she believed herself to be applying the pertinent definition when she measured the setback line. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93- 7165DRI, page 163, lines 20-23.) Following field staff review, a report is prepared and forwarded to Tallahassee for review by additonal staff, including the Department's administrator of the critical state concern program. Department staff in Tallahassee review the field staff report and participate in formulating a recommendation as to whether to appeal the permit. The appeal decision is then made either by the Department Division Director or by the agency head. Each material step in the Department's customary practice of reviewing permits was followed in reviewing the subject permit. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition of the term "beach berm" that was found to be pertinent to the underlying proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line 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. 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. At the formal hearing in the underlying appeal, there was conflicting evidence as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property. The Recommended Order found that there were two distinct ridges located on the subject property. The issue of whether both ridges could be considered part of the "beach berm complex" was one of first impression. Succinctly stated, it was the position of the Department in the underlying appeal that both ridges were in an area of potential habitat on a beach that is known habitat and it asserted the position that both ridges should be considered to be one beach berm complex. The Department asserted the position that the setback should be measured from the landward extent of the second ridge (the more landward of the two ridges). Monroe County had measured the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge. Mr. Snowman agreed with the County's determination of the setback. Mr. Snowman presented evidence that the County had, for several years, applied the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge and argued that, based on the foregoing definitions each ridge should be considered to be a separate beach berm, but that only the first should be considered to be a beach berm. The Department presented evidence that the County had applied the setback provision in an inconsistent manner by measuring from the crest of berms in some cases and measuring from the landward extent of berms in other occasions. The Recommended Order rejected the Department's position and concluded that the definition of "beach berm" contained in Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, and the description of "berm" in the comprehensive plan were unambiguous. Although the Department argued that other provisions of the code and comprehensive plan supported their construction of the setback requirement, it was concluded that the issues should be resolved based on the unambiguous definition of "beach berm". It was also concluded that no deference should be afforded the Department's construction of the term "beach berm" because there is a plain and unambiguous definition of the term that is a part of the Monroe County Code. It was observed that "[w]hile a greater setback may better serve the goals of the comprehensive plan, as argued by the Department, the imposition of a greater setback requirement should come from a change in the Monroe County Code." This observation was made because the Department had found support for its interpretation of the setback requirement from other parts of the code and comprehensive plan. This case involved bona fide disputed issues of material fact and legal issues that were of first impression. It is found that those issues, although resolved against the Department following the formal hearing, were of sufficient merit to substantially justified the Department's actions in initiating the underlying appeal.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Frenchy's Rockaway Grill, Inc., is the owner and operator of a restaurant and alcoholic beverage establishment located at 7 Rockaway Street, Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner purchased the property in 1991. Michael Preston is president of Petitioner. Petitioner's establishment is immediately adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and Clearwater beach on the west, to the north is a public parking lot, to the east is a motel, and to the south is the Clearwater Beach Hotel, which is owned and operated by Hunter Hotel Co., as indicated above. On the beach side of Petitioner's establishment there is an existing 972 sq. ft. wooden deck. The existing deck was initially constructed on or about 1987 by prior owners without receiving appropriate variance approvals. Subsequent alterations to the deck occurred between 1987 and 1991, also without appropriate variance approvals. In 1991 Charles and Ypapanti Alexiou/Anthony Alexiou, former owners of the subject property, filed an application for variance approval with the Board seeking three variances relating to the construction of the deck at the 7 Rockaway establishment. Specifically, the variances sought were: "1) 55.5 ft. to permit deck seaward of the coastal construction control line; 2) 15 ft. to permit a deck zero feet from a street right-of-way; and, 3) seven parking spaces to permit a 1,338 sq. ft. deck at 7 Rockaway Street, Miller's Replat, Lot 2 & vacated beach Drive on W and Lot 3, zoned CR 28 (resort commercial) & OS/R (open space recreation)." At public meeting on August 8, 1991, the application was considered by the Board. At that time Mr. Cline, as counsel for Hunter appeared in opposition to the application stating that approval of the variance requests would adversely impact the Clearwater Beach Hotel, that the request was for economic gain, that any hardship was self-imposed, and that development and traffic in the area was already heavy. The Board, however, granted the variance requests as to variances number 1 and number 2., and as to the third request, the Board denied the proposed 1,338 sq. ft. deck, but approved a variance of five parking spaces to permit the existing deck of 972 sq. ft. On or about July 13, 1993, a variance application was filed with the Board by Howard G. and Jean B. Hamilton and Palm Pavilion of Clearwater, Inc., seeking approval of four variances required for an 800 sq. ft. expansion of an existing deck at a restaurant at 10 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach, Florida. The Palm Pavilion applicants were also represented by Mr. Cline. Like Petitioner's establishment, Palm Pavilion is a beachfront restaurant, which is located directly across the public parking lot to the north of Petitioner's establishment. Unlike Petitioner's establishment, Palm Pavilion is bordered by parking to the south and the east, and is not immediately adjacent to other buildings. On August 26, 1993, the Board granted the Palm Pavilion variance application for expansion of an existing beachfront deck with certain conditions. On October 6, 1994, Petitioner submitted its application to the Board requesting five variances required for a 650 sq. ft. expansion of the existing wooden deck at 7 Rockaway Street. Specifically, the variances sought were: 1) 13.22 ft. to permit a lot depth of 86.78 ft. where 100 ft. is required; 2) 8.2 ft. to permit it a rear setback of 6.8 ft. where 15 ft. is required; 3) 14 percent to permit 11 percent of open space where 25 percent is required; 4) three parking spaces to permit zero parking spaces where three additional are required; and, 5) 52.14 ft. to permit a structure seaward of the coastal construction control line. The subject property at 7 Rockaway Street is properly zoned CR-28 (resort commercial). Any scrivener's error indicating that the property is zoned OSC (open space recreation) has been corrected. Petitioner's restaurant, Frenchy's Rockaway Grill, is a popular beachside establishment. It is one of very few freestanding restaurants fronting the Gulf of Mexico on Clearwater Beach. Some patrons particularly enjoy dining on the open air deck adjacent to the beach. During peak hours, there is often over an hour's waiting time for tables on the deck. Petitioner is currently unable to accommodate the demand for seating on the beachside deck. Petitioner would sustain an economic benefit if more patrons could be accommodated on an expanded deck. Because of the size constraints of the lot and the establishment's location directly on the beach, development and improvement of the facility is highly restricted. The back of some residential rooms of the Clearwater Beach Hotel are immediately adjacent to the south of Petitioner's establishment. There are small bathroom windows from these residential rooms that face Petitioner's establishment. Petitioner's proposed expansion of the open air deck would place the proposed deck in very close proximity to the back of these residential hotel rooms. The City's staff reviewed the Petitioner's application and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) the applicant shall obtain the requisite occupational license within 12 months; 2) the applicant shall obtain the necessary building permit within 6 months; 3) there shall be no outdoor entertainment and no outdoor speakers; 4) the applicant shall obtain the requisite alcoholic beverage separation distance variance from the City Commission. Petitioner agreed to the conditions recommended by staff. The recommendations of staff are not binding on the Board. In addition to the application for the five variances filed with the Board, Petitioner also filed a conditional use request with the Planning and Zoning Board. The conditional use request was approved on September 13, 1994, and imposed certain other conditions including the construction of a six foot wall on the south side of the proposed deck to buffer the adjoining hotel. Petitioner agreed to the conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Issue Whether Permit Number 9220003617 issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Jeanne and Aldo Faga is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Monroe County Land Development Regulations. Three areas of dispute were involved in this proceeding: Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions requiring development to be clustered on the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site; Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions pertaining to construction in mangroves and submerged lands; and Whether the permitted development (as modified by stipulation) is inconsistent with provisions establishing setback requirements from beach berms that are known turtle nesting areas.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES 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. Jeanne Faga and the Estate of Aldo Faga, deceased, hereafter referred to collectively as the "Fagas," are the owners of approximately ten acres of real property known as Lots 23 through 32, Block 21, Coco Plum Beach subdivision, Fat Deer Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. This property, acquired by the Fagas in 1971, has been subdivided by the Fagas into four parcels. Lots 23-24 have been consolidated and will be referred to as Parcel A. The remaining lots have been divided into Parcels B, C, and D. Grill Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation and is the general contractor for Respondent for the building permit at issue. Monroe County, Florida, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Monroe County did not actively participate in this proceeding. THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND ITS HISTORY Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, as designated under Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. These statutory provisions require that Monroe County adopt and implement a comprehensive plan and land development regulations consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development found at Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Monroe County has adopted a comprehensive plan, effective September 15, 1986, which complies with the Principles for Guiding Development and which has been approved by the Petitioner and by the Administration Commission. The Monroe County comprehensive plan is implemented by and through its adopted land development regulations, codified primarily in Chapter 9.5, Monroe County Code (M.C.C.). While Respondent originally applied for a development permit for one residence on each of the four parcels and for an access bridge on Parcel A, the subject of this permit appeal proceeding is the development order for Parcel A only. If the project is permitted, it is contemplated that the access bridge at issue in this proceeding will provide access to the residences the Fagas hope to build on Parcels B, C, and D. The initial permit application for a residence on each of the four (4) parcels and an access bridge on Parcel A capable of use by motor vehicles was denied by Monroe County staff. The Fagas thereafter appealed the staff denial to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and affirmed the denial by staff. The Fagas thereafter appealed the denial by the Planning Commission to the Monroe County Commission. On July 28, 1993, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 299-1993, which reversed the denial of the appeal by the Planning Commission, and authorized the Fagas to go forward with the building permit applications. On September 23, 1993, Monroe County issued to the Fagas and Grill Construction Co. building permit number 9220003617, the development order that is the subject of this proceeding. This development order includes public works permit number 0764 and building permit number 9220003615, which address the proposed access bridge on the subject site. The development order approves the permit for the access bridge that was issued by the Department of Environmental Protection. This development order authorizes the construction of a 4,501 square foot single family home with 2,426 square feet of porches, a 813 square foot enclosure for parking and storage, fill for a driveway, a separate guest house and an elevated bridge approximately 12 feet wide and 160 feet long. The building permit issued by Monroe County at issue in this proceeding did not include construction on Parcels B, C and D. The Department timely filed its challenge to the subject development order pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. STIPULATED PERMIT CONDITIONS The parties stipulated that the following modifications to the development order would be made if the project is permitted: 2/ The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to state that the subject site plan shall include no drainage swales and no concrete slabs. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended such that the site plan shall include no fill or excavation between the proposed structures and the salt water slough, for a driveway or for any other purpose, except for minimal fill necessary for the ramp at each end of the proposed bridge. No fill or excavation shall occur within the existing mangrove habitat as depicted on the site plan and as verified in the field prior to construction. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect that the access bridge reflected on the site plan rendered with the building permit application shall be of a length so as to clear the mangroves and salt water slough on site such that either end of the access bridge will terminate beyond the end of the mangrove lines and the boundaries of the slough. The subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect the guest suite be connected to the main structure (single family residence, or "SFR") by an enclosed interior hallway, atrium or the like, so as to form a single habitable unit. In addition, the Fagas will execute a restrictive covenant to run with the land which prohibits rental, sale or lease of the guest suite, or anything less than the entire single family residence. Each stairwell to the SFR will access a deck which provides uniform access to each room in the SFR, and the site plan shall include no additional independent access to the guest suite. Only minimal excavation will be allowed for transplantation on the beach berm, i.e., the absolute minimum amount necessary to transplant the native species identified in the County-approved transplantation plan. The transplantation shall occur in a manner which preserves the contour of the beach berm and ground cover resources on site and restores the area cleared for development to natural conditions which include native plant species transplanted on site. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL A Most of the land constituting the four Faga parcels was "created" in the late 1950s, by depositing seaward (south) of the then existing shoreline spoil material from offshore dredging. The original "beach" in this area of Fat Deer Key (prior to the dredge and fill activities) existed just south of Coco Plum Drive, which now serves as the northern border of the Faga parcel. As a result of this dredge and fill activity, most of the dry land that presently exists on Parcels A-D was created from lands that were submerged. Additionally, the saltwater slough that exists on Parcels A-D was created as a result of this dredge and fill activity. The subject site, Parcel A, is bordered on the north by Coco Plum Drive, on the West by a multistory condominium development, on the South by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the East by Parcel B. Parcel A is rectangular, with the East - West measurement being approximately 215 feet and the North - South measurement being approximately 375 feet. The Eastern third of the central portion of the Faga parcel contains a shallow, manmade water body (the "saltwater slough"), which is fringed with mangroves. Because the saltwater slough was created by the dredge and fill activity, it is appropriate to classify the saltwater slough as a manmade water body pursuant to Section 9.5-4 9(M-4), M.C.C., which defines the term "manmade water body" as follows: (M-4) Manmade water body means a water body that was created by excavation by mechanical means under human control and shall include a canal, cut basin or channel where its edges or margins have subsequently been modified by natural forces. All of Parcel A, meets the following definition of "disturbed land" found at Section 9.5-4(D-14), M.C.C.: (D-14) "Disturbed Land": Disturbed land means land that manifested signs of environmental disturbance which has had an observable effect on the structure and function of the natural community which existed on the site prior to the disturbance. The remainder of the property, including the sandy beach area and beach berm, will be discussed in detail below. CLUSTERING REGULATIONS Section 9.5-345(a), M.C.C., requires clustering of development as follows: "Clustering": When a parcel proposed for develop- ment contains more than one (1) habitat type, all development shall be clustered on the least sensitive portions of the parcel subject to the maximum net densities of Section 9.5-262, the open space requirements of Sections 9.5-262 and 9.5-269 and the performance standards of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, the sensitivity of habitat types shall be as listed with subsection being the most sensitive and subsection (18) being the least sensitive. The least sensitive part of the parcel shall be fully utilized prior to the distribution of density to the next least sensitive habitat type. High hammock (high-quality); Palm hammock; Cactus hammock; Beach/berm; Pinelands (high-quality); Salt marsh and buttonwood associations; High hammock (moderate-quality); Low hammock (low-quality); Low hammock (moderate-quality); Pinelands (low-quality); High hammock (low-quality); Low hammock (low-quality); Disturbed with hammock; Disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood; Disturbed beach/berm; Disturbed with exotics; Disturbed with slash pines; Disturbed. Landowners are required to cluster development on the least sensitive portions of their property, subject to open space requirements for the respective classifications and subject to the maximum density for a parcel. An area classified as "disturbed" has a twenty percent open space requirement. Parcel A has a maximum density limit of 2.5 units per acre. HABITAT DETERMINATION -- GENERALLY To determine whether it is necessary to cluster this development, it is necessary to determine the habitat classification for Parcel A. Monroe County has adopted an existing conditions map that purports to show the existing habitat classifications on Parcel A. The existing conditions map reflects two habitat classifications for Parcel A: open water (the area of the saltwater slough) and disturbed with buttonwood and salt marsh. The area designated on the Aslan survey 3/ as the saltwater slough is properly designated as open water. The parties agree that the classification on the existing conditions map for the remainder of Parcel A as "disturbed with buttonwood and salt marsh" is incorrect. The parties disagree as to the appropriate habitat classification for the portions of Parcel A landward and seaward of the saltwater slough. Brian Winchester, on behalf of the Fagas, spent in excess of 80 hours on the four Faga parcels, conducting visual observations and taking core samples. He conducted field surveys of the four parcels during July 9-11, September 23- 24, October 20-22, and November 11-12, 1992. Staff of the Monroe County Environmental Resources Department conducted a joint site visit to the parcels with Mr. Winchester on September 23 and October 21, 1992. Mr. Winchester identified each small area of the parcel that he believed justified a distinct habitat classification and, based on a qualitative and quantitative analysis (which included counting individual stems in some areas), determined whether there was a dominate species for each area. In October and November, 1992, Mr. Winchester staked the edges of each portion of Parcel A that he believed constituted a distinct habitat. Those staked areas reflecting a plant community were then measured by Aslan, Inc. and depicted on the Aslan survey. The Aslan survey also marks the mean high water line on the property and measures the topography of all four parcels. Kathleen Edgerton and Patricia McNeese, the biologists who testified for the Petitioner, disagreed with Mr. Winchester's habitat evaluation. They conducted separate on-site inspections of the property, each with the benefit of the Aslan survey, and each determined what she considered to be the appropriate habitat classifications on Parcel A. Ms. Edgerton and Ms. McNeese were in agreement as to how the habitats of Parcel A should be classified. Petitioner's experts determined the extent of the saltwater slough and the mangrove fringe surrounding it. They determined the extent of the beach berm (which they consider to extend to the mangrove fringe on the seaward side of the slough) and determined the habitat of Parcel A seaward of the mangrove fringe. They then determined the habitat classification for the portion of Parcel A lying landward of the mangrove fringe. Based on their on-site evaluations of the property, Petitioner's experts did not believe that the portion of Parcel A lying landward or seaward of the mangrove fringe justified more than one habitat classification. In resolving the conflicting testimony between Respondents' expert and Petitioner's experts, more weight is given to the opinions expressed by Ms. Edgerton and Ms. McNeese because they have had extensive experience in conducting habitat classifications for lands in the Florida Keys as a part of their official responsibilities. While Mr. Winchester is an accomplished biologist, his experience in making habitat determinations in the Florida Keys is limited. The undersigned is persuaded by the testimony from Petitioner's experts that observations of species on site for making habitat determinations involve the subject parcel in larger perspective than that used by Mr. Winchester. HABITAT DETERMINATION -- LANDWARD OF THE SLOUGH Mr. Winchester expressed the opinion that the following habitat classifications exist on the portion of Parcel A lying landward of the mangrove fringe: a small strip of land adjacent to the road that should be classified as "disturbed"; a larger strip of land that should be classified as "disturbed with exotics"; and a third strip of land that should be classified as "disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood". Petitioner's experts testified that the entire portion of Parcel A landward of the mangrove fringe should be classified as "disturbed". This dispute is resolved by finding that the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the portion of Parcel A landward of the mangrove fringe should be classified as "disturbed". While exotics, including Australian Pines and Brazilian peppers, exist in different areas of this part of the property, Petitioner's experts established that other vegetation exists and that exotics do not dominate the portions of the property classified by Mr. Winchester as "disturbed with exotics". Likewise, it is concluded that the portion of the property classified by Mr. Winchester as "disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood" should be classified as "disturbed" since there is little salt marsh and buttonwood does not dominate. Further, there exists in this area trees and vegetation that are not typically found in an area designated as "salt marsh and buttonwood". THE MANGROVE FRINGE AND THE SALTWATER SLOUGH The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has claimed jurisdiction of the saltwater slough, an assertion that is not challenged in this proceeding. The parties disagree as to whether the saltwater slough is tidally influenced and whether the mangrove fringe around the saltwater slough meets the definition of a "mangrove community". The salt water slough consists of shallow, landlocked water over mud, sand and marl bottoms. The water level increases with heavy rains and infrequent storm tides, and decreases during periods of drought. The slough has been observed to be dry during time of drought, negating any inference of regular tidal influence. Based primarily on Mr. Winchester's observations and quantitative measurements, it is concluded that there is no regular tidal influence on the slough. That the saltwater slough is ecologically significant and provides a valuable resource for birds, especially during storms, was not seriously disputed at the formal hearing. The birds that normally use the beach will come into the slough, where they can stay within the protection of the mangroves. They feed there, and are not subjected to wave force and wind that they would receive if they were on the outside. The salt water slough is encircled by a fringe of mangroves. Mr. Winchester classified the mangrove fringe as "disturbed with mangroves". This classification is consistent with similar classifications on Monroe County's existing conditions maps, but the classification is not separately listed in the County's land development regulations pertaining to clustering because specific regulations limit development in mangroves. 4/ Whether the areas delineated by the Aslan survey as being the mangrove fringe is classified as "mangroves" or as "disturbed with mangroves" is irrelevant for determining the issues presented by this proceeding. HABITAT DETERMINATION - WATERWARD OF THE SLOUGH Section 9.5-4(B-3), defines the term "beach berm" as follows: 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. Parcel A contains a sandy beach, including a seaweed wrack and some low vegetation which is typical of beach berm vegetation as defined in the Monroe County Code. Behind the low vegetation, lies an area of Australian Pine trees that extends to the seaward extent of the mangrove fringe. Petitioner asserts that the beach berm on Parcel A extends to the mangrove fringe and that the proper classification for all of Parcel A seaward from the mangrove fringe is "disturbed beach berm". Respondents assert that seaward from the mangrove fringe on the east side of the parcel there is a small section that should be classified as disturbed with salt marsh and buttonwood, that the area with the Australian Pines should be classified as disturbed with exotics, and that the remaining portion should be classified as disturbed beach berm. The accepted characteristics of beach berm soil, as defined in the LDRs and Comprehensive plan, are "calcareous" and "unconsolidated". Reference to the soil as calcareous refers to its origin, while the consolidation of the soil refers to its compression and its cohesiveness. The soil from the mean high water line to the mangrove fringe seaward of the slough is unconsolidated, calcareous sand. The only area that appears to exhibit consolidated soils is that which has been compacted by vehicular use in the property. Vegetation typical of beach berms is scattered throughout the parcel between the mean high water mark and the mangrove fringe. The area of Parcel A that lies between the mean high water mark and the mangrove fringe seaward of the saltwater slough, is beach berm. This portion of Parcel A is properly classified as "disturbed beach berm" as opposed to "beach berm" because the entire parcel is disturbed lands and because Australian Pines have encroached on a portion of the beach berm. CLUSTERING ANALYSIS Petitioner established that development on Parcel A (with the exception of the access structure to be discussed below) should be limited to the area landward of the slough that should be classified as "disturbed". The Petitioner established that this area of Parcel A is large enough to accommodate a reconfigured version of the development. TURTLE NESTING SETBACK Section 9.5-345(3)(f), M.C.C., provides for a setback of construction from turtle nesting areas in areas designated as disturbed beach berm as follows: 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 . . . While no specific sites on Parcel A were identified as active nesting sites, the beach on which Parcel A is located is a known turtle nesting area. The expert testimony from Patrick Wells established that marine turtles most frequently nest within 50 feet of the mean high water line. The expert testimony of Mr. Metcalf established that the setback of fifty feet required in Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f, M.C.C., should be typically measured from the backslope of any beach berm crest. If there is no beach berm crest on a parcel or if the beach berm crest is more than fifty feet from the mean high water line, the setback should be measured from a line that is parallel to and fifty feet landward of the mean high water line. 5/ Mr. Winchester identified the existence of a beach berm "crest" within the area of Parcel A that is designated on the Aslan survey as disturbed beach berm. Mr. Winchester testified that he observed a three or four inch drop behind the crest and was of the opinion that the beach berm crest was formed by wind and wave action. The crest, as identified by Mr. Winchester, is marked on the Aslan survey and is just a few feet from the mean high water line. Petitioner's experts testified that there was no crest and that there was a gradual rise in the beach berm elevation from the mean high water mark to the beginning of the mangrove fringe. This conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that there is no discernible beach berm crest until it reaches the mangrove fringe. This finding is consistent with the expert testimony presented by the Petitioner, the photographic evidence, and the topographical markings on the Aslan survey. Further, this finding is consistent with the manner in which this property was created by the depositing of fill. Based on the foregoing findings, it determined that the beginning of the setback line should be from a line parallel to and fifty feet landward of the mean high water line. The distance of the setback itself should be fifty feet as required by Section 9.5-345(o)(3)f, M.C.C. The development order at issue in this proceeding does not comply with the turtle nesting setback requirement. THE ACCESS STRUCTURE Section 9.5-345(m), M.C.C., authorizes construction of piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways on areas with mangroves and submerged lands. All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves are required to be designed, located, and constructed on pilings or other supports. DEP has issued a permit for the access structure that, if constructed, will be on pilings that are set in areas of the mangrove fringe and in areas of the slough. As permitted by DEP, the access structure would be 12 feet wide and 160 feet long. As noted above, the parties have stipulated that the subject development permit conditions shall be amended to reflect that the access bridge reflected on the site plan rendered with the building permit application shall be of a length so as to clear the mangroves and salt water slough on site such that either end of the access bridge will terminate beyond the end of the mangrove lines and the boundaries of the slough. The DEP permit contains appropriate special and general conditions to assure that the access structure will be constructed consistent with pertinent permitting criteria. The primary objection to the access structure raised by the Petitioner is to the width of the structure. Mr. Metcalf testified, without contradiction, that the acceptable standard in the planning profession for the maximum width for a walkway is six feet. Based on that testimony, it is found that the access structure should be authorized with the conditions imposed by DEP and as modified by the parties's stipulation, but with the additional condition that the width of the structure be changed from twelve feet to six feet.
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 conclusions of law contained herein and denies the subject development order number 9220003617. The permit can be approved if the Fagas choose to modify its application to conform to the findings and conclusions contained herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1995, 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 1st day of November 1995.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Ocean Dunes Development Corporation, is the developer of a residential condominium known as Ocean Dunes, located in Highland Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Count One The first closing on a unit in Ocean Dunes occurred on April 30, 1982. The Respondent controlled the operation of the condominium association from the incorporation of the association up to February 4, 1986, when unit owners other than the developer elected a majority of the members of the board of administration of the condominium association. Pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation of the condominium association, the board of directors is composed of three members. According to the by-laws of the association, unit owners other than the developer are entitled to elect at least one-third of the members of the board when they own fifteen per cent of the units in the condominium. The by-laws further provide that within sixty days after unit owners other than the developer are entitled to elect a member of the board, the association shall call and give not less than thirty days notice of a meeting of the unit owners for this purpose. on July 15, 1982, unit owners other than the developer owned fifteen per cent of the total number of units in the condominium. The first association unit owner meeting after July 15, 1982, occurred in April of 1983. Present at the meeting were several unit owners and Mr. Philip Connor, president of both the association and the developer corporation. According to the association by-laws, a quorum is achieved by a majority of the votes of the entire membership. In April of 1983 there were 48 units in the condominium, 17 units were owned by someone other than the developer. Therefore, the developer's unit votes were absolutely necessary to achieve a quorum. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Connor, the president of the developer corporation, stated that he was not authorized to utilize the developer's unit votes through proxy or otherwise. Mr. Connor stated: First item, obviously is to determine whether we have a quorum in order to properly conduct business. I am not voting on behalf of the developing company this evening. Mr. Hubert (the general counsel of the developer) as far as I know we do not have a quorum. Therefore, the meeting is officially adjourned. But, Mr. Connor went on to add: However, I would like to spend some time with you this evening to go over and formulate any questions or problems, et cetra. Unit owners other than the developer did not elect a member of the board of administration of the association until April 17, 1984. Count Two While operating the condominium association, the Respondent used condominium association common funds to pay for certain carpentry expenses in the amount of $1,836. The carpentry expenses were the responsibility of the Respondent as developer. During the initial phases of the investigation of this case by the Department of Business Regulation, the Respondent agreed that the carpentry expenses were the developer's responsibility and reimbursed $1,836 to the association on August 29, 1984. Count Three An "election period" is a mechanism by which the developer, as the owner of units, is excused from the payments of assessments against those units for a certain period of time. See Section 718.116(8)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. During an election period, the developer does not pay assessments on developer-owned units, but instead pays the difference between the common expenses of the association and monies received from other unit owners in the form of assessments during that period of time. In other words, if assessments collected from other unit owners are insufficient to meet common expenses, the developer is required to pay the deficiency. The election period must terminate no later than the first day of the fourth calendar month following the month in which the first closing of a unit in a condominium occurs. See Section 718.116(8)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. The first closing on the first unit in Ocean Dunes Condominium occurred on April 30, 1982. During the election period, the developer periodically funded the association and made available to it funds to pay required bills on a current, "as-due" basis. Thus, the Respondent attempted to satisfy its election period payment requirements on a cash accounting basis. The developer did not perform an election period calculation on the condominium's books and records to determine the difference between expenses incurred during the election period and assessments collected form other unit owners. Mr. Larsen, a certified public accountant and the Petitioner's expert witness, reviewed the condominium's financial records and calculated an election period deficit of $45,077.88. Mr. Larsen arrived at the figure of $45,077.88 by calculating that assessment revenues from non-developer unit owners amounted to $5,393.92 and that common expenses during the period amounted to $50,471.40, the difference being $45,077.88. The $45,077.88 figure arrived at by Larsen was composed in part of unfunded reserves during the election period, certain association bills which were left unpaid during the election period but had balances which came due later and certain prepaid assessments from other unit owners paid in advance, but which would have come due after the expiration of the election period. In arriving at the election period deficit of $45,077.88, Larsen completed a review or compilation of the financial records of the association using generally accepted principles of accounting for a review or compilation of financial statements. Count Four Unit owners other than the developer remitted their assessments on a quarterly basis. In contrast, the Respondent developer provided some funds to the association on a monthly, "as-needed" basis. Typically, when the association funds became inadequate to pay outstanding bills, the developer would contribute its assessments. At the end of each calendar year, the developer calculated an outstanding assessment liability on its inventory units and recognized that liability on the association's books. The Declaration of Condominium at Article 6.2, provided that assessments not paid on a timely basis would bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when due until paid. Although unit owners were paying their assessments on a quarterly basis, neither the Declaration of Condominium nor the by-laws established a date when assessments were due. Count Five The percentage of ownership interest of each individual unit owner in the common elements of Ocean Dunes Condominium is set forth in Exhibit B to the Declaration of Condominium. The percentage of common elements per unit ranged from a minimum of .01959 to a maximum of .02170. The quarterly assessments to unit owners were not based on the percentages of their ownership of the common elements as outlined in the recorded Declaration. Prior to the formal hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that the proper percentages were not being assessed, and adjustments were made for all unit owners' assessments. Count Six A condominium association's annual budget must include a reserve account (unless specifically waived by the association) for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. The reserve account of the association is set aside for long term items such as roof replacement, building painting and pavement resurfacing. See Section 718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes. Ocean Dunes Condominium Association established a budgeted annual reserve figure of $6,000 per year (reserves were not waived). On December 31, 1984, the reserve account, if fully funded, would have contained $16,569.86. While in control of the condominium association, the Respondent did not maintain a separate, funded reserve account. Rather, the Respondent showed the reserve account as a liability in its accounting statements. The listing of a reserve account as a liability on a financial statement would not violate, nor be contrary to, generally accepted principles of accounting. The Respondent believed in good faith that it was allowed to carry reserves as liability in the association's financial books. Count Seven The Respondent employed the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand to handle the financial books and records of the condominium association. Coopers and Lybrand has offices in both Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Although the Respondent maintained the corporate books and records of the association at the Royal Palm Beach Bank in Palm Beach County, portions of the accounting records were routinely transferred between Coopers and Lybrand's offices in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. Count Eight On February 4, 1986, unit owners other than the developer assumed control of the condominium association. After turnover, the Respondent provided the association with the annual audits performed by the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand. The annual audits did not cover the election period and the period early in 1986 which the audit for the year 1985 did not cover. After turnover of counsel of the association, the annual audits were the only review of the association's financial records provided to the association by the developer. After turnover, the association at all times made the corporate books and records available to the developer. Upon turnover, the Respondent offered to the association 9 pages of separate plans and specifications utilized in the construction of the condominium. Although the plans contained the certificate of a surveyor, only one of the nine plans contained a signed affidavit that the plans were authentic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is. RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Requiring the Respondent pay to the association $45,077.88 (representing the deficit which existed during the developer election period) no later than 45 days from the date of the Final Order; Requiring that Respondent obtain, and provide to the association, no later than 60 days from the date of the Final Order, a turnover review of the financial records of the association prepared in strict compliance with Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 7D-23.03, Florida Administrative Code; Requiring that Respondent obtain and deliver to the association no later than 60 days from the date of the Final order, a copy of the construction plans of the condominium with a certificate in affidavit form prepared in strict compliance with Section 318.301(4)(f), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Philip R. Connor, Jr., President Ocean Dunes Development Corporation Suite 205 2929 East Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Coats, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5 and 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 8. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as misleading as stated, but adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as misleading as stated, but adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. The last sentence of Paragraph 19 is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Matters note contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 32. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Matters not contained therein are rejected as argument and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 35. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Matters not contained therein are rejected as Subordinate and/or a recitation of testimony. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Matters contained in Paragraph 3 which are inconsistent with the Findings of Fact previously mentioned are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 25, 26 and 27. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or a recitation of testimony.
Findings Of Fact Nannette K. Scoggins is the owner of the real property located at 5622 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida in Manatee County. Nannette K. Scoggins' property, the petitioner's property, 5624 Gulf Drive, and the other adjacent property, 5620 Gulf Drive, are zoned as "A-1 Hotel-Motel" under the City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance. On November 13, 1983, Mrs. Scoggins submitted to DNR an application for a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (control line). The proposed project, known as Jansea Place, would consist of two multifamily dwellings, four units to a building, divided by a swimming pool. A portion of the most seaward building would extend a maximum of 57 feet seaward of the control line. By letter dated July 11, 1984, DNR notified petitioner that the department was considering the permit application. The petitioner responded by letter dated July 18, 1984, objecting to any construction seaward of the control line. On October 1, 1984, petitioner received notification that DNR intended to recommend approval of the permit. The permit was scheduled for a vote by the Governor and Cabinet on October 16, 1984. The staff of DNR recommended approval of the permit. By telegram dated October 15, 1984, the petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and on October 22, 1984, petitioner filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The application for permit No. ME-89 is a complete application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line. On October 5, 1983, the Superintendent of Public Works of the City of Holmes Beach certified that this project does not violate any ordinance of the City of Holmes Beach. The plans for the proposed project are signed and sealed by an architect registered in the State of Florida, and the submitted plans comply with the design standards established in Rule 16B-33.07, Florida Administrative Code to resist adequately the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event. The plans, specifications, drawings and other information submitted to DNR with the application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line are complete and accurate, and meet the requirements of DNR for that purpose. Under the provisions of Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, the application was determined to be complete on August 6, 1984. The proposed construction is located landward of an existing vertical concrete bulkhead. The seawall was built jointly by the Scoggins and Mr. McLean, who owns the property immediately to the south of the Scoggins' property. The seawall was built after the hurricane of 1972 because the existing dune system had been destroyed. Since that time, the mean high water line has continued to encroach landward to the point where it is now east of the wall. However, the seawall is not necessary for the protection of the proposed building. Although the seawall would fail under the direct impact of a major hurricane, the proposed building is adequately designed to withstand the impact erosion, the wave loads, the winds, and the water forces associated with a major hurricane. The necessity and justification for the project's location in relation to the control line is stated in the application, and petitioner has not challenged the necessity or justification. The City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance requires that the buildings be separated by a minimum of 30 feet. Since the proposed buildings are separated by 30 feet, the proposed seaward building is located as far landward as possible without violating the zoning ordinance. Erosion and structural damage occurred as a result of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and the "No Name" storm in 1982 in the area between 1,000 feet south of the Scoggins' property and 500 feet north of the Scoggins' property. Although the beach was fairly stable from 1974 to 1979, the beach began to erode in 1980. When the seawall was built in 1974, the dune line was even with the seawall. However, as can be seen from a comparison of the photographs taken in June of 1979 with those taken in early 1985, the beach has eroded since June of 1979 and the dune line is now several feet landward of the seawall. The DNR recommendation for approval of the Scoggin's permit application was based upon historical erosion data for the period between 1940 and 1974, which was the most recent data available that could be used to review the project. Mr. Clark stated that the application was recommended for approval based on the design of the proposed building and its alignment with existing structures built seaward of the control line. The proposed project is located landward of a line of existing structures. Although the adjacent properties have been affected by erosion, there was no evidence presented to show that the existing structures located seaward of the control line have been unduly affected by erosion. In 1974, when the seawall was being constructed, the worker building the seawall dug up part of the petitioner's property and destroyed the sea oats he had planted. However, the proposed project has a driveway encircling the building which would provide vehicular access to the seawall if necessary. The proposed project will partially obstruct petitioner's view to the southwest. However, there was no evidence presented that petitioner's property or the other adjacent property, would be adversely affected in any other way by the proposed project. There was no evidence presented that the proposed project would be affected by, or have an effect on, beach or coastal erosion. The proposed project would have no effect on the beach dune system.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that DNR issue Permit Number ME-89 to Nannette K. Scoggins. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 28th day of June, 1985.
The Issue Whether Amendment 99-1-NOI-5017-(A)-(I), Ordinance Number 509, to the Town of Juno Beach's (Town) Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) is "in compliance" as defined in chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and as alleged in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing.
Findings Of Fact Patterson, Bisbee, and McLeod Petitioners, Dr. Patricia M. Patterson and James M. Bisbee, are husband and wife and have resided at 431 Olympus Drive, Town of Juno Beach, Florida, since February, 1999. Dr. Patterson is a Professor of Public Administration at the Florida Atlantic University. Prior to occupying this residence, Dr. Patterson investigated the neighborhood and wanted to reside in an ungated, single-family neighborhood. Dr. Patterson describes her neighborhood as the Ridge Area, which has a southern border of Olympus Drive or south to a new development, a western border of U.S. Highway 1 (U.S. 1), an eastern border of Ocean Drive or A1A, and a northern boundary of the Ocean View Methodist Church (Church). The linear Ridge bisects this area, running approximately north and south. See (Town's Exhibit 1A); (Petitioners' Exhibits 9A & 9B). The top of the Ridge consists predominantly of single- family residences. There is a significant increase in elevation from the U.S. 1 corridor, east to the top of the Ridge. The Patterson/Bisbee residence is located on the top of the Ridge, toward the middle of Olympus Drive. Mr. McLeod resides in a single-family residence, east and adjacent to the Patterson/Bisbee residence. There is a rental, single-family home immediately adjacent to the west of the Patterson/Bisbee residence. The lots to the west of the rental property are vacant and include the corner property (+/-.34 acre) subject to the Plan Amendment, which is at the bottom of the hill on the U.S. 1 side. Shortly after they moved into their new residence, Dr. Patterson learned from a neighbor that a Key West-style home was proposed to be built on a portion of the vacant lot. Dr. Patterson attended the Town's Land Planning Agency (LPA) April 1999, meeting and learned that there was a proposal to change a portion of the use of the vacant lot to "commercial." She learned that an application was filed on behalf of the Town's former Mayor and a former Councilman. Dr. Patterson expressed concern that the area should remain residential and not be changed to commercial. Dr. Patterson appeared at the May 1999, Town Council meeting and objected to the proposal on behalf of herself and Mr. Bisbee. Dr. Patterson also furnished the members of the Town Council with a letter dated May 17, 1999, which set forth her objections to the proposed changes. Dr. Patterson also attended part of the November 1999 Town Council meeting. Mr. Baird appeared before the LPA and the Town Council on behalf of Mr. McLeod. Dr. Patterson objects to the proposed Plan Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan based on the proposed "commercial" use of the site, rather than the architectural style of the building proposed by Celestial. The Petitioners are "affected persons" as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to participate as parties in this proceeding. Celestial Celestial is a partnership, which owns property and conducts a business in the Town of Juno Beach, Florida. In or around March of 1999, Celestial, the applicant, submitted an Application for an amendment to the Town of Juno Beach Comprehensive Plan. Celestial proposed to re-designate a +/-.34 acre portion (the Property) of a +/-.57 acre parcel owned by Celestial. The entire +/-.57 acre parcel is vacant property at the northeast corner of U.S. 1 and Olympus Drive. Celestial sought to amend the Town's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) from the existing "low density residential" classification to the "commercial" classification for the western or corner portion, which is approximately +/-.34 acre. Celestial proposes to build a two (2)-story structure, with a professional office with residential units on the second level. The structure would be of an architectural style that will be compatible with surrounding, existing residential developments. Celestial has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. Section 163.3184(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Town The Town is a local government subject to the provisions of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act (Act), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. On November 17, 1999, the Town adopted Ordinance Number 509 as an amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. The Town also adopted Ordinance Number 510, which rezones the Property to "commercial office." The Department The Department is the state land planning agency, having authority to administer and enforce the Act. Among other responsibilities of the Department under the Act, the Department has the responsibility to review comprehensive plan amendments submitted by local governments and to determine if the plan amendments are in compliance with the Act. Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes. The Department reviewed the Plan Amendment and determined that it was "in compliance" pursuant to Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Town of Juno Beach, the Property, and the "Neighborhood" The Town is a small coastal community consisting of approximately 903 acres. The Town is located along the U.S. 1 corridor in Northern Palm Beach County, with municipalities, Jupiter and Tequesta to the north, and Palm Beach Gardens, North Palm Beach, Lake Park, and Riviera Beach to the south. The Town is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The U.S. 1 corridor was the subject of a study, conducted by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council in 1999, which became known as "Seven Cities: Northern Palm Beach County US 1 Corridor Study." "[T]he 16-mile corridor is primarily a four-lane facility involving a mixed bag of landscape and lighting treatments, roadway designs, land uses, access management, and drainage infrastructure. Conditions in the corridor range from urban to rural, from healthy to blighted. Long range transportation plans have called for the corridor to be widened to six lanes over times, but the need for this widening has been called into question." "Juno Beach's segment of US 1 is a long expanse with a variety of situations, ranging from the semirural or naturalistic sea scrub landscape to suburban areas of shopping malls & hotels, to strategically located vacant parcels ideal for infill development. The planning team recommends that each of these areas have its own distinct planning approach for improvement over time." Several recommendations are made for the Town, including the provision of "[a] variety of uses" for the town center location at the intersection of Donald Ross Road and U.S. 1, north of the Property, "including adding 'in-town' residential options: apartments above shopfronts, rowhouses along intimate streets, live/work loft combinations and so on would complement Juno Beach other excellent housing offerings." The Study also generally encourages attractive building facades with doors and windows facing the street, as opposed to "[b]lank, windowless facades facing streets [which] are absolutely deadening to the scene for pedestrians and motorists alike." There seems to be some criticism of the existence of "halfhearted 'buffer' of landscaping between the highway and a 'sound wall,'" in the Town area, which does appear along U.S. 1, north and south of the Property. The lands contiguous to the +/-.34 acre Property, on the north and east, are designated "low density residential," on the Town's FLUM. The land to the immediate east of the subject property is vacant and owned by Celestial. See Finding of Fact 3. The land to the immediate north is developed with a single-family home. A four-lane divided highway (U.S. 1), with a 120-foot right-of-way, is located to the west of the vacant Property, and extends from the Town's southern boundary to its northern boundary. There are approximately 24,000 daily trips of traffic passing the Property on U.S. 1. The speed limit on U.S. 1 is fifty (50) miles-per-hour, a speed not consistent with low residential development. The southern and western borders of the Town consist of lands owned by Palm Beach County and maintained as conservation areas. The land immediately to the west of the Property from U.S. 1 is designated "commercial" on the Town's FLUM and is called Seminole Plaza (Seminole), a 65,400-square foot, fairly large-scale, shopping center with various commercial and professional tenants, located on approximately five (5) acres. The property west of U.S. 1, north and south of Seminole, is owned and maintained by Palm Beach County as conservation areas. A short distance south of Seminole are Florida Power and Light's Juno Beach Offices and West Offices, both of which are office developments approved for land totaling over sixty (60) acres. To the immediate south of the Property is Olympus Drive. The land across Olympus Drive, to the immediate south of the Property, is designated "low density residential," and is developed as a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) consisting of single-family homes. This is the "Seaside" area and is bounded on the north by a white picket fence, which does not provide access to "Seaside." Pedestrian and vehicle traffic enter the Seaside development from the east along Ocean Drive or A1A. The southeast corner of Olympus Drive and U.S. 1, which is directly across from the Property, is within Seaside. There is no residential development on the southeast corner. Rather, the corner is developed with a concrete cul-de-sac. This parcel is not eligible for residential development under the Town's zoning code. The Town presented a composite exhibit of photographs of various commercial and other non-residential uses which are interspersed in the vicinity of the Property. The photographs were overlaid onto an aerial photograph of the general area between Donald Ross Road to the north of the Property, and Juno Road, to the south of the Property. The Property is located approximately mid-point between these roads. This visual depiction of the area demonstrates the variety of the uses and structures, which have developed along this segment of the U.S. 1 corridor within the Town, as well as the impact of that highway upon the development in the vicinity of the Property. The developments, north and south of the Property, include office buildings, the Church, an automotive repair business (e.g. Goodyear), motels (e.g. Hampton Inn) and a golf course. For example, the two-story, 9,000 square foot Juno Beach Professional Office Building, is located four-tenths of a mile north of the Property, east and fronting U.S. 1, and between a duplex and a single-family house. (This house has a yellow retaining wall directly fronting U.S. 1.) The Church is directly east of the office building. There are several vacant lots south and east of U.S. 1, designated "low density residential," which are undeveloped. There is a vacant, two (2) acre, commercially-designated parcel, two-tenths of a mile to the south of the Property on the east side of U.S. 1. Compare with Findings of Fact 1-3. Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan In April of 1999, Celestial filed a revised Application requesting an amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan, changing the FLUM classification of the Property from "low density residential" to "commercial." Among other things, Celestial advised that its Application was for a low-density project on the northeast corner of U.S. 1 and Olympus Drive. Celestial further stated that the proposed commercial (mix-use) land is compatible with the commercial uses adjacent to and across from U.S. 1 from the Property and that the residential component of the mixed-use proposal will be compatible with the residential uses to the north, east, and south of the Property. Celestial did not request a change to the Town's "commercial" FLUM designation. Several documents were attached to the Application including a vegetation survey with indicated that the Property had no environmental constraints which would prohibit its development. Other correspondence included with the Application indicate that all major utilities including telephone, electric, water, and sanitary sewer, would be provided. The described project also met the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. Further, the Florida Department of Transportation concluded that the placing the drive on Olympus Drive would better serve the development for the convenience and safety of the proposed access. On April 19, 1999, the Town of Juno Beach Planning and Zoning Board considered the proposed Plan Amendment to the Town's Comprehensive Plan's FLUM. Mr. Peduto, Director of Planning and Zoning, reviewed the Application, coordinated the review by other governmental entities, prepared the staff report, and recommended approval of the Plan Amendment. The report describes the proposal and sets forth an analysis which included, in part, the following: The proposal meets the adequate facilities standards and is not in the Coastal High Hazard area, as defined by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and State of Florida. The proposed change is an appropriate classification for the subject property. The proposed project is an "infill" development, as opposed to "sprawl" development. Infill development is supported by the TCRPC Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Sprawl, which is typical through "Euclidean" planning, creates isolated uses through non-flexible zoning districts, and also through "single-use" structures. The opposite of this is more "neo-traditional" planning, which encourages multi-use structures and is more community oriented, creating more livable, healthy and sustainable communities and neighborhoods. This is why infill development becomes so important to revitalizing and recreating community in a town's neighborhoods. The Town of Juno Beach has expressed through historical efforts and its Comprehensive Plan (as well as its Zoning Code) that it envisions a sustainable community atmosphere. Mixed-use projects play an important role in this long term, committed effort. While remaining consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, the subject property is an ideal location to further express this effort. The subject property is located along an "urban principal arterial" highway, within an older residential neighborhood. Just south of the subject property [across Olympus Drive] is an newer residential neighborhood [Seaside]. West of the subject property is a commercial plaza (Seminole Plaza) with various commercial uses, from office uses to restaurant, retail, service oriented, medical and private educational uses. Further east is a large public recreational area and the Juno Beach Town Center. In the general area there is an existing mixed use which functions as an important community/neighborhood element in this section of the town. As part of the revitalization process of this overall area of town, the proposed project and petition brings an element of balance between newer residential and older residential, introduces a mixed-use and creates an ideal "bridge" between the western commercial uses and eastern residential, community and recreational uses. The proposed project meets the standards set forth by the Goals, Objectives and Policies in the adopted Town of Juno Beach Comprehensive Development Plan. The report also indicated that "[t]he Comprehensive Plan directly encourages mixed-uses throughout the document," and cited to several Objectives and Policies. The report confirmed that utilities and service providers have sufficient capacity to serve the Property for a potential project within the proposed designation/classification; that there are no environmental concerns concerning the entire +/-.57 acre site including the Property (+/-.34 acre); that the existing level of service standards of the adjacent U.S. 1 will not be adversely impacted by the proposed change of land use; that water and wastewater facilities exist nearby the site and will be able to provide for appropriate services to the site; that solid waste removal services will also be provided; and that all specific drainage designs must be acceptable to the Town engineer upon submittal of any site plan. The report concluded that the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan and, in part, that the proposed change is "an appropriate land use classification for the subject property, providing for an appropriate use of the property considering existing, surrounding uses and land uses " The Town's Planning and Zoning Board considered the Application. Numerous local residents, including Dr. Patterson and Attorney Thomas Baird representing Petitioner McLeod, opposed the Application. A motion to approve the Application to amend the Comprehensive Plan's FLUM failed with a 3 to 2 vote. Further, a motion to approve a request for a change in zoning from the existing designation of residential single-family to the designation of commercial office was not approved by a vote of 3 to 2. On or about May 12, 1999, Celestial submitted a "memorandum on proposed land use changes" to the Town, which provided a historical analysis of the development of the Town, including but not limited to changed circumstances around Olympus Drive and U.S. 1. The Town Council (Council) of the Town of Juno Beach met on May 26, 1999, to consider Ordinance Number 509 which provided the amendment vehicle to the Town's Comprehensive Plan requested by Celestial. This was the first reading and public hearing for this Ordinance. Several area residents and others were in attendance. The results were mixed with some residents speaking in favor and some against approval of Ordinance Number 509. After some discussion by the Council members, and responses from the Town planner and Celestial's representative, the Council approved Ordinance Number 509 on first reading by a vote of 4 to 1. The Council also discussed, on first reading and during a public hearing, Ordinance Number 510, which proposed to approve a rezoning request for the Property to "commercial office." Attorney Tom Baird, on behalf of Petitioner McLeod, opposed the rezoning request. Dr. Patterson also opposed the request. "Town Planner Peduto pointed out the property that was annexed into town with a residential zoning designation, surrounded on three sides by residential and rezoned to Commercial. This parcel is known as Dr. Hinman's Building, Juno Beach Professional Building. He also pointed out another parcel on U.S. 1 surrounded by residential that was given a commercial land use classification and commercial general zoning designation upon its recent annexation into the town." The minutes indicate that the Council was aware that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended denial. The Council had before it the Town's Staff Report and Recommendation, which was previously presented to the Town's Planning and Zoning Board in substantially the same form. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 30. The Council unanimously approved Ordinance Number 510 on first reading. On or about August 5, 1999, the Town submitted numerous documents to the Department of Community Affairs, including but not limited to, the Town's Staff Report and Recommendation and proposed Ordinance Number 509. The Town requested no formal review. By letter dated September 3, 1999, the Florida Department of Transportation advised the Department that it did not recommend a formal review of the proposed amendment. By letter dated September 16, 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection offered no comments to the Department. The staff at the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) submitted a memorandum dated September 17, 1999, for the Council members. The TCRPC is required to review the Plan Amendment prior to formal adoption by the Town Council. The TCRPC stated, in part, in its evaluation: The Town indicates that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development represents infill. Mixed-use projects of the nature are intended to play an important role in the Town's efforts to create a sustainable community. The amendment is consistent with several objectives of the Town Comprehensive Plan and also with the SRPP which encourages infill development and multi-use structures. The Town indicates that the proposed development will bring a balance between newer and older residential areas and creates a good transition between commercial and residential uses. All urban services are available to the site, there are no level of service concerns, and an environmental survey indicates that there are no environmental concerns relating to development of the site. According to the TCRPC, the proposed Plan Amendment would not have adverse effects on significant regional resources or facilities. The TCRPC concluded that "[b]ased on the lack of extrajurisdictional impacts or effects on significant regional resources and facilities, [TCRPC] does not recommend that the amendment be formally reviewed." However, the [TCRPC] noted: According to the SRPP, a mix of uses on a single property is desirable. However, the first mixed-use development in an area which has previously been devoted entirely to residential use can create controversy and result in opposition from nearby property owners. According to the Town, this has been the case for the subject amendment. Some of this controversy can be avoided and property owner objections lessened by creating a very fine-grained plan. The Town's comprehensive plan contains only a single commercial FLUM category. Therefore, neighbors are understandably concerned about what the type of commercial use might occupy the subject property. During the preparation of its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, the Town should consider the preparation of a more fine-grained plan for those parts of town where the "richness" of the urban fabric is important to protect, preserve, and enhance. On September 17, 1999, the Department advised the Town of its determination that the proposed Plan Amendment should be formally reviewed for consistency. On October 26, 1999, the South Florida Water Management District advised the Department that the District had no water resources related comments regarding the Town's proposed Plan Amendment. No state, regional, or local governmental entity requested review of the Plan Amendment. On November 12, 1999, the Department advised the Town that the Department had no objection to the proposed Plan Amendment. This letter served as the Department's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. On October 27, 1999, Celestial provided the Town with a Supplemental Memorandum regarding land use changes in the Town since 1990. On November 17, 1999, the Council met to consider Ordinance Numbers 509 and 510 for second reading and received a Staff Report and Recommendation, authored by Mr. Peduto, which contained similar data and analysis from the prior report. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 30. The Town's staff also prepared a report and recommendation regarding the rezoning request/petition, Ordinance Number 510. During the hearing held regarding Ordinance Number 509, the report and recommendation, with backup, and the file for both this hearing and from the previous approval hearing, were entered into the record. During the hearing, the Council was apprised, in part, that the Planning and Zoning Board had recommended denial, by a three-to-two vote, "based on traffic concerns." The minutes further reflect that "[t]he [t]own traffic consultant agrees to the traffic studies from the applicant and the County. He reviewed other areas in [t]own that similar re-zoning occurred located on a local collector, abutted by residential and located on a major thoroughfare." During the public hearing, attorney Baird, representing Petitioner McCloud, advised the Council that Ordinance Number 509 needed to be corrected in the second "WHEREAS" clause stating that the land planning agency had recommended that the Town not adopt the ordinance. "He said the primary reason (to not approve the ordinance) is that the land use classification was incompatible with the residential neighborhood." Several persons opposed the Ordinance, whereas others favored the Ordinance. The Council received numerous letters both for and against Ordinance Number 509. The Council also received petitions for and against the Ordinance. After discussing the issue, the Council approved Ordinance Number 509 by a vote of 4 to 1. The Council also considered Ordinance Number 510 and after considering information both for and against, the Council voted 5 to 0 to approve Ordinance Number 510. On November 23, 1999, the Town submitted the adopted Plan Amendment to the Department. On January 7, 2000, the Department completed its review of the adopted Plan Amendment, Ordinance Number 509, and "determined that it meets the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), for compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(1)(b), F.S." Petitioners' Objections to the Plan Amendment Petitioners claim that the Plan Amendment, as applied to the Property, is inconsistent with and, therefore, does not further the "Goal," Objective 1, and Policy 1.3, of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners also claim that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with and fails to comply with Rules 9J-5.005(2)(a) and 9J-5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioners' claim that the Town has approved the Plan Amendment, which approves a mixed-use, without any specific provision in the Comprehensive Plan for a mixed-use designation. Petitioners further claim that the Plan Amendment is not supported by sufficient data and analysis, nor is the analysis professionally acceptable. Petitioners' inconsistency and incompatibility arguments focus primarily on Petitioners' description of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. James Fleischmann testified on behalf of Petitioners as to his definition of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. Fleischmann and Dr. Patterson carved out the area east of U.S. 1 and west of A1A and bordered on the north by the Church and on the south by the Seaside area, designated "low density residential," as the appropriate "neighborhood." They opined that any non-residential development within this area was inconsistent with this "neighborhood." See also Findings of Fact 1-3. The "Goal" of the Town's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides: A Town characterized by a community spirit that: recognizes its historical development patterns and styles; maintains its established neighborhoods in a safe, secure, beautified, and efficient manner by providing for both vehicular and pedestrian movement in, and around, town; which promotes future growth and development that is creative and enhances historical values and architectural styles that are indigenous to Juno Beach; which protects natural environmental features; and which reflects those development values by well defined neighborhoods and public areas that create an overall continuity to the Town while providing effective and efficient community services. There is no definition of "neighborhood" in the Town's Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 163, Florida Statues, or Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Fleischmann provided his definition based upon his experience and expertise. Mr. Fleischmann did not rely on any specific portion of the Town's Comprehensive Plan in defining his view of the relevant "neighborhood." Mr. Fleischmann testified that all of his opinions concerning compatibility and internal Comprehensive Plan inconsistency in this case are based upon his definition of the relevant "neighborhood." U.S. 1 is a major, four-lane highway, which accommodates traffic at speeds, which are incompatible with a low-density residential neighborhood. It was not unreasonable for the Town to consider that the "neighborhood" area is not as limited or restricted as proposed by Mr. Fleischmann. In fact, Seminole, across U.S. 1 from the Property, actually serves the identified "neighborhood" east of U.S. 1. The data and analysis presented in this hearing, most of which was presented to the Town Council, demonstrates that the area in proximity to the Property has changed over the years, including but not limited to the expansion of U.S. 1 and the development of Seminole directly across from the Property. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that approval of the Plan Amendment will not cause the "neighborhood," as defined by Mr. Fleischmann, to be unsafe, insecure, or not beautified, nor will it impede vehicular and pedestrian movement in and around the Town. The data and analysis presented in this record do not support Petitioners' argument that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with the "Goal." Also, the analysis was performed in a professional manner. Objective 1 of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan provides: To manage growth and development through the preparation, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of land development regulations which: coordinate future land uses with the appropriate topography, some of the conditions and the availability of the facilities and services; prevent, eliminate, or reduce uses inconsistent with the Land Use Goal, Future Plan, and Future Land Use Map; and which require redevelopment, renewal or renovation, where and when necessary through the establishment of standards or for density and intensity of land development. This Objective requires only the adoption of land development regulations to implement its provisions. The record is clear that the Plan Amendment, as a future land use amendment, is not a land development regulation. Petitioners also contend that the Plan Amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.3 of the FLUE and Rule 9J- 5.006(3)(c)(2), Florida Administrative Code. See Conclusion of law 87. Policy 1.3 states: "Implementing ordinances, regulations and requirements regarding the development of land shall consider adjacent land uses and promote compatibility with those uses." Mr. Fleischmann claimed that he was unaware of any analysis of compatibility in the Staff Report and Recommendation presented to the Town Council in support of the Plan Amendment. However, Mr. Peduto, in the staff report, analyzed the relationship of the Plan Amendment to the surrounding properties, and stated, in part: "[T]he proposed project and petition bring an element of balance between newer residential, older residential and existing commercial, introduces a mixed- use and creates an ideal transition between the western commercial uses and eastern residential, community, and recreation uses." Mr. Peduto also considered the issue of compatibility and stated: "[The Plan Amendment] is an appropriate land-use classification for the subject property, providing for an appropriate use of the property considering existing, surrounding uses and land uses " Petitioners next contend that the Plan Amendment is not in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, because the "commercial" FLUM land-use category is not a "mixed-use" category, does not contain a percentage mix of uses, and does not contain densities and intensities of use for all identified land uses. The Town's Comprehensive Plan has numerous future land use classifications, including a classification called "commercial." This definition provides: Land Uses and activities within land areas which are predominantly related to and used for the sale, rental, and distribution of products; the provision or performance of business, personal and professional services. However, in order to allow for mixed uses, a maximum of 75 percent of the total gross floor area on the site may be used for residential development, not to exceed a density of 22 dwelling units per gross acre. The land uses allowed in the "commercial" category include mixed uses, such as residential and commercial. These general descriptions are consistent with the requirements of Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes, and the definitions in Rules 9J-5.003(21)("commercial uses") and 9J- 5.003(108)("residential uses"), Florida Administrative Code. The mix of uses is established within the description of the "commercial" land use category itself. A maximum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the total gross floor area on-site may be residential, with the remainder being commercial. The residential density is also established in the definition of "commercial" for a maximum of twenty-two (22) units per gross acre. Further, it appears the intensity standard for allowable commercial uses is found in FLUE Object 1, Policy 1.13 b. of the Town's Comprehensive Plan which provides: "The Building Site Area Requirements, as established in the CG-Commercial General and CO-Commercial Office zoning districts, shall provide the basis for intensity of use and be the development criteria standards for general commercial and commercial office development, respectively, in Juno Beach." The definition of "commercial" includes, and authorizes a "mixed-use" of the Town's property, including the Property, which is the subject of the Plan Amendment. Petitioners also claim that the Plan Amendment is not supported by data and analysis as required by Rule 9J- 5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Fleischmann opined that based upon his examination of the record as it existed on November 19, 1999, the data submitted to the Town was insufficient and the analysis not professionally acceptable. Conversely, the data available to the Town and the evidence presented at the de novo hearing, is adequate to support a finding that the Town's decision to change the land use category for the Property from "low density residential" to "commercial" is at least fairly debatable. Mr. Fleischmann's disagreement with Mr. Peduto and the Town staff's analysis of the facts is not conclusive. Mr. Fleischmann offers a different opinion, which failed to overcome the data and analysis of record in this case. Petitioners also argue that the Plan Amendment could not be approved without the Town, and the Department's, requiring an analysis of a "worst case scenario." However, Mr. Wilburn's testimony in this regard is persuasive in that this analysis is normally employed in the planning field for a FLUM amendment only in terms of analyzing the five areas that a local government is required to set level of service standards, i.e., roads, water, sewer, recreation, and open space. It is not appropriate to use a "worst case scenario" when reviewing issues of compatibility. Importantly, the record indicates that there is no issue raised in this case regarding the sufficiency of the existing or proposed level of service standards. The Town Council held two public hearings regarding the Plan Amendment, heard from the public, including Petitioners, and was presented with adequate data and analysis to reasonably conclude that the Plan Amendment was consistent with its Comprehensive Plan and the relevant statutes and rules at issue in this case. In summary, the Plan Amendment's change of the FLUM land use category for the Property is fairly debatable, particularly in light of the historical development occurring within the Town, and the changing conditions affecting the U.S. 1 corridor in the vicinity of the Property. Based upon the totality of the circumstances and factors presented in this case, the Plan Amendment is consistent with the Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued concluding that the Town of Juno Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Ordinance Number 509, is "in compliance" as defined in chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Baird, Esquire Thomas J. Baird, P.A. 11891 U.S. Highway One Suite 105 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-2864 Daniel K. Corbett, Esquire 300 Mercury Road Juno Beach, Florida 33408 W. Jay Hunston, Jr. Esquire Gregory S. Kino, Esquire Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens McBane & O'Connell 515 North Flagler Drive Northbridge Center-19th Floor, Suite 190 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-4330 Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
