Findings Of Fact Ben A. Posdal is the owner of property commonly known as 166 Brightwater Drive, in the City of Clearwater, Florida. On August 7, 1986, he applied for variances to construct two wooden decks on his property, located at the above address. The property which is the subject of the variance request is a building which contains four apartments, which are rented by Ben A. Posdal to various tenants. On August 28, 1986, the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) denied the variance requested by Mr. Posdal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated a hardship and that he had not demonstrated that the requested variance would not violate the general spirit and intent of the Clearwater Land Development Code. On September 9, 1986, an appeal was filed by Ben A. Posdal from the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board. The appeal alleges that the DCAB decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable on the following grounds: Other properties allegedly are in violation of the back line setback regulations; The DCAB failed to give enough evidentiary weight to photographs he submitted; and Appellant allegedly is being deprived of the beneficial use of the property in a manner commensurate with the community. There are no physical conditions which are unique to the property. There is no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition that would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the Appellant. Failure to obtain a variance would not impinge upon Appellant's use of the property in any way. The record on appeal contains competent, substantial evidence to support the DCAB decision. Nonconforming uses in the area of the subject property are legal nonconforming uses.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, David E. Musselman, is the owner of Lot 23, Block 22, Cudjoe Gardens Eighth Addition, Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida. The lot measures 127 feet along its front and rear property line, 135 feet along its side property lines and, similar to adjacent lots, its rear property line abuts an artificially created waterway. Currently, most of petitioner's lot enjoys an elevation of six feet; however, from the edge of the waterway landward a distance of approximately 20 feet [to what has been referred to as the "toe of the existing slope" in these proceedings] the surface consists of exposed caprock at an elevation of approximately four inches above mean high water. It is petitioner's desire to construct a single family residence upon such lot and, incident to such construction, to erect a seawall along the edge of the waterway such that the elevation at the waterway will be increased by two feet, and to backfill from the seawall to his home. Such backfilling would require the deposition of approximately 3,540 square feet of fill within the Department's jurisdiction, which was shown to extend from the edge of the waterway to the toe of the existing slope, and would raise the elevation in such area two feet above existing grade. On December 16, 1991, petitioner filed an application with respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department), for an exemption from the Department's wetland permitting requirements. If approved, such exemption would allow petitioner to construct the vertical seawall along the waterway, and backfill from the seawall to his proposed home. By notice of agency action dated February 14, 1992, the Department proposed to deny petitioner's application predicated on its conclusion that his proposal did not meet the exemption criteria established by Rule 17- 312.050(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner filed a timely protest to contest the Department's conclusion. The exemption Pertinent to this case, Rule 17-312.050(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, exempts from permitting the following activities: (g) Construction of seawalls or riprap, including only that backfilling needed to level the land behind the seawalls or riprap, in artificially created waterways where such construction will not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or adversely affect flood control. An artificially created waterway shall be defined as a body of water that has been totally dredged or excavated and which does not overlap natural surface waters of the state. For the purpose of this exemption, artificially created waterways shall also include existing residential canal systems . . . . At hearing, the parties stipulated that the waterway which abuts the rear property line of petitioner's lot is an artificially created waterway, as well as an existing residential canal, and that the proposed project will not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation, or adversely affect flood control. Notwithstanding, the Department contends that petitioner's application should be denied because no need has been demonstrated that would support the construction of the seawall along the edge of the waterway, as opposed to locating it further inland, and therefore the amount of backfill, with its attendant loss of wetlands, is excessive. For the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law, the Department's position is untenable as a matter of law. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving petitioner's application for an exemption to construct a seawall, and to backfill from such seawall to his proposed home, as applied for. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of June 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June 1992.
Findings Of Fact Ramchandra Jakhotia and Rashmi Jakhotia, his wife, acquired the King Cole Motel at 401 East Shore Drive, Clearwater, Florida in 1983 and have owned the property since that time. At the time of acquisition and for some time prior thereto the property included a commercial marina with 22 slips. In 1985 the City of Clearwater revised its Development Code effective October 13, 1985 and, incident thereto, effective July 7, 1988, enacted Section 114.05, Live-Aboard Vessels as Ordinance 4597, Clearwater City Code. That enactment provided, in part, that: Prohibited; exceptions: It shall be unlawful for any person to moor any live-aboard vessel at any location within or upon the navigable waters in the City for any period of time in excess of seventy-two (72) hours, except as follows: At a marina facility for which conditional use approval has been obtained, or a marina facility in existence as of October 13, 1985 for which conditional use approval would otherwise be required;... In January 1986 a survey was taken of all marinas within the City of Clearwater to determine the number of live aboard vessels coming within the purview of the revised Development Code. At this survey eight live aboard vessels were occupying berths at the King Cole Motel marina and this was the number determined to be grandfathered for which no conditional use approval would be required. In 1988 King Cole Motel applied for conditional authorization to utilize 14 additional berths for live aboard vessels. This conditional use was approved subject to the applicant installing a pump-out facility and meeting the parking requirements. Although the parking requirements for a commercial marina, i.e., 0.5 parking space per slip, is the same as the parking requirement at marinas for live aboard vessels, the latter generally place a greater demand on parking spaces than does non-live aboard vessels. To change the approved use from commercial marina without live aboards to live aboards is a change in the use and requires conditional use approval. Before conditional use approval can be granted the applicant must comply with all code requirements, such as required parking spaces, at the time of the change in use. At the time Appellant acquired the King Cole Motel the 22 commercial slips were grandfathered as an authorized use without any parking being provided. Accordingly, as a 22-slip commercial marina Appellant did not have to provide parking. When the eight slips used for live aboards were counted in 1986 they too were grandfathered in without the need for parking spaces. However, when Appellant applied in 1988 for authorization to use 14 other slips for live aboard vessels, the code required the applicant to provide seven parking spaces. To his credit Appellant obtained the use of seven parking spaces down the road from the marina but those spaces were not contiguous to Appellants' marina as required by the code. Therefore, Appellants' use of the additional slips for live aboards did not meet the parking requirement in his conditional use approval. In 1992 Appellant applied for a variance of the seven parking spaces required to allow the use of these additional slips by live aboard vessels. This hearing was held before the Development Code Adjustment Board on February 11, 1993 and it is from the denial of this variance that this appeal is taken. The Board denied the variance requested because the Appellant failed to demonstrate that the standards established by Section 45.24 Land Development Code were met. In these proceedings Appellant presented no additional evidence to support the variances requested than was submitted to the Board.
The Issue Whether Building permit no. 93-2-4072 issued to Respondents William Lledo, Owner, and Key Marine Equipment, Inc., General Contractor by Monroe County violated Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provisions and Land Development Regulations.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1996, Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), received Monroe County Permit 93-2-4072 issued to Respondents, William Lledo (Lledo) and Key Marine Equipment, Inc., to construct a seawall with a five-foot wide cap which would serve as a docking facility. The project is proposed to be constructed on an undeveloped piece of real property owned by Lledo. The property is known as Lot 37, Sombrero Anglers Club South Subdivision, Boot Key, Monroe County, Florida. The property is located within the Keys Area of Critical State Concern. The proposed seawall/dock will not be supported by pilings or other supports and will not act to stabilize a disturbed shoreline. The shoreline at the subject property is not eroding. An eroding shoreline shows signs of the water undercutting the shoreline and contains no vegetation on the shoreline and submerged shelf. The subject property’s shoreline and adjacent submerged shelf are vegetated. The project will not be replacing a deteriorating seawall or bulkhead. The project, as proposed, requires the placement of fill in a manmade canal below the mean high water line. No principal use or structure has been established on the property nor is there any plan to construct a principal use on the property.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Studebaker's Restaurant (Respondent), owns a 50's theme bar in Clearwater which offers entertainment and dancing and serves alcoholic beverages and food. Studebaker's has a nationwide policy, also followed at the Clearwater establishment, of restricting admittance to persons aged 23 and older. In the same building housing the Clearwater Studebaker's, Respondent also owns and operates a theme bar called the Palm Beach Club which is under common management and which is operated like Studebaker's except that the theme and music is contemporary and anyone who has attained the legal drinking age is allowed admittance. Petitioner, Ronald M. McElrath, is the coordinator for the Community Relations Board established under Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code. He is approximately 38 years of age. In May or June 1985, McElrath witnessed an employee of the Clearwater Studebaker's refusing admission to a female on the basis that she was not at least 23 years of age. Investigating further, McElrath verified through the manager of the Clearwater Studebaker's that Respondent did have a policy restricting admission to the Clearwater Studebaker's to persons at least 23 years of age. Based on McElrath's knowledge and information, McElrath and the Community Relations Board attempted to conciliate with Respondent the alleged conflict between Respondent's age policy at the Clearwater Studebaker's and Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code. By November 13, 1985, McElrath and the Community Relations Board concluded that their attempts at conciliation would not be successful, and the Community Relations Board filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent. That charge of discrimination was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-3513. On or about February 11, 1986, Case No. 85-3513 was dismissed and the file closed based upon the Community Relations Board's report that it was withdrawing its petition in the case and that an individual other than the Community Relations Board would file a separate petition as Charging Party. Actually, on or about January 9, 1986, McElrath, in his capacity as coordinator for the Community Relations Board, had filed a Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination against Respondent on the same alleged facts that formed the basis of Case No. 85-3513. McElrath's Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about February 4, 1986, resulting in this case. McElrath has never attempted to file any other complaint under Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code in his capacity as coordinator for the Community Relations Board. Because no further investigation was necessary and no further attempts to conciliate were reasonably likely to succeed, McElrath made no further investigation and made no further attempts to conciliate with Respondent after filing the Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination. Before filing of the Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination in this case, McElrath did not make a formal probable cause determination and did not serve notice of determination of probable cause on the Respondent. Respondent and its management has a commendable and appropriately implemented policy of being a responsible seller of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. However, contrary to Respondent's assertions in this case, the policy of allowing only persons 23 years of age and older in the Clearwater Studebaker's is not significantly motivated by a desire to reduce alcohol-related traffic accidents. The primary motivation for the age limit is to establish and maintain an economically successful theme bar. Any contribution towards reducing alcohol related traffic accidents is an after thought rationalization. This was proven by Respondent's willingness to divert patrons younger than 23 next door to its Palm Beach Club where Respondent willingly serves them alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on the uncontested facts alleged in Petitioner's Motion For Summary Recommended Order and from the Final Orders issued in Bayshore Homeowners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. On December 29, 1980 DER entered a Final Order on the application of Petitioner for a 90 slip marina in Biscayne Bay, Florida. The Order denied the permit because Grove Isle had not demonstrated that the project is "affirmatively in the public interest" and because the applicant had not demonstrated that it "can meet ambient water quality standards within the project area itself." In the Recommended Order on Remand the Hearing Officer had defined "existing ambient waters" to be the area in the cove between Grove Isle and the Miami mainland. The Final Order rejected that concept and held if any waters others than those contained within the immediate project site were to be considered as ambient, Petitioner must request a mixing zone as part of its application. See Section 17-4.242, (1)(a)2.b. and Section 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code. By a letter received at the Department of Environmental Regulation on May 20, 1981, Grove Isle reapplied for the boat dock permit which was the subject of the foregoing proceedings. Petitioner's application, which was in the form of a letter from counsel, stated: May 18, 1981 Mr. Larry O'Donnell Department of Environmental Regulation Post Office Box 3858 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 RE: GROVE ISLE - Application for Boat Dock Dear Mr. O'Donnell: On behalf of Grove Isle, LTD, I am reapplying for the boat dock permit previously applied for by Grove Isle, LTD. Please consider this a short-form application. Your office designated a previous file number, DF 13-7956, to this matter. In conjunction with that application I am applying for a mixing zone, pursuant to Rule 17-4.244, for both the construction and operation of this marina. Please refer to your file on the previous application and incorporate said documents into this reapplication. I am submitting with this application: A scale drawing (one inch = 100') of the proposed facility. (which you have) A certified survey of the proposed mixing zone. (one inch = 100') An application fee of $20.00 A copy of the Final Order issued by Jacob D. Varn, former secretary of DER, on the previous application. A copy of the Notice of Intent previously issued for this project, dated 9/23/79. (which you have) As you will note from reading Mr. Varn's Final Order, he concluded that issuance of this permit was not appropriate inasmuch as the applicant had not applied for nor received a designated mixing zone. We do not necessarily agree with this order and have, in fact, appealed this decision to the First District Court of Appeal. However, in an attempt to keep this matter from becoming any more complicated, we have decided to reapply for the permit and to apply for a mixing zone. We do not concede that a mixing zone should be required for this project or that the facility will result in the release of any pollutants so as to significantly degrade ambient water quality. However, should this project, through its construction or operation, result in the release of any pollutants, I believe they would be limited to: Bottom sediments placed in suspension by the installation of the concrete piles used to support the docking facility during construction; Minimal amounts of oil and grease which may escape from the various vessels moored to the docks; The constituants of anti-fouling paint which may be applied to the hulls of the various vessels moored at the docks. Turbidity will be controlled by the use of curtains during construction. If lowered water quality occurs at all in this project it would only occur within the designated mixing zone, as per Rule 17-4.242 (2)(b) F.A.C. Please advise me should additional information be needed to process this re-application. Yours truly, /s/ KENNETH G. OERTEL On June 19, 1981, DER sent a "completeness summary letter" to Petitioner which requested the following information: Your project is in Outstanding Florida Waters. Please provide the following items demonstrating compliance with Section 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Please demonstrate that this project is clearly in the public interest and that this project will not result in the degradation of ambient water quality beyond the 30 day construction period. Petitioner responded by letter dated June 22, 1981 and which was received at DER on June 25, 1981. Petitioner said in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Duke: If you would check your previous file no. DF-13-7956, I believe you will find all the information you have requested has previously been provided to your office either in that permit file or through the administrative hearings held in pursuit of this application. I think it would be more fruitful if you would communicate with Al Clark, Attorney for DER, with regard to the status of this application. As I do not wish to speak on behalf of Mr. Clark, I believe you should confirm the status of this application with him, particularly in view of our attempt to comply with Secretary Varn's Final Order which suggests the application for this mixing zone. The record reflects no further correspondence between the parties until September 23, 1981 when the Department entered a Final Order Denying Application for Permit. The Order provided that: This project was reviewed previously (DF 13-7956) and was determined not to be clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. No further evidence upon resubmittal, has been provided to clearly demonstrate that this project is in the public interest. Furthermore, the requested mixing zone exceeds that allowable pursuant to Section 17-4.244, F.A.C. and can be applied only during the construction period, pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. During the operation of this facility ambient water quality is expected to be degraded in violation of Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. This order was entered ninety-one days after DER received Petitioner's June 22, 1981 letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the permit applied for by Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. on May 20, 1981 subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent To Issue Permit dated October 23, 1979 which is a part of the record in Bayshore Homeowners Association et al., v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 12th day of February, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for conditional use approval from Respondent for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor (4-COP) at 2779 Gulf-To-Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, on or after September 4, 1987. The subject property is zoned general commercial (CG), and conditional use approval is required for package sales on property zoned CG. Conditional use approval was previously granted for this property on June 30, 1987, to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages, but this prior approval is not under review in this proceeding. On October 13, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny Petitioner's application for the package sale of beer, wine and liquor. Petitioner has timely sought review of the Planning and Zoning Board decision. It is undisputed that the subject property is less than 500 feet from an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which constitutes the residence of approximately 300 persons. Frank Pascoe, the President and representative of the ACLF, testified about the residents' concerns about security, and the adverse impact of this application on the general welfare of their neighborhood. Paula Harvey, Planning Director, testified about the adverse impacts of this application on neighborhood noise, traffic and parking. Ordinance 4470-87 applies to this application since said Ordinance, by its terms, governs applications filed subsequent to September 3, 1987. Petitioner offered no evidence in support of its application. Specifically, there is no evidence in the record favorable to the applicant concerning noise, parking and the compatibility of this application with the neighborhood.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's decision to reject all proposals on RFP No. 008-02 to design and build an ancillary building at the Tampa Service Office was arbitrary, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 21, 2002, Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), through its contracts manager, issued an Invitation to Proposal inviting interested persons to submit competitive sealed proposals on Request for Proposal No. 008-02 (RFP No. 008), which called for the design and construction of an ancillary building at its District Service Office (Tampa Service Center) located at 7601 Highway 301 North, Tampa, Florida. The proposed facility is an approximately 5,000 square foot metal building which will house the District's field staff. The last paragraph of the document provided that "[t]he District shall reserve the right to reject any or all bids/proposals received with or without cause." On May 24, 2002, the District placed an advertisement of its Invitation to Proposal in three local newspapers in Hillsborough County. The last paragraph of each advertisement also provided that the District reserved the right to reject all bids with or without cause. A mandatory pre-proposal conference was held on June 6, 2002, which was attended by various interested persons, including Petitioner, Paul J. Sierra Construction, Inc. (Sierra), a large construction firm located in Tampa, Florida. Although Sierra engages in general construction, it also has a division which specializes in projects using Butler building systems. A Butler building utilizes a combination of a metal roof with a pre-engineered structural system. At the pre-proposal meeting, Sierra requested a copy of RFP No. 008-02, which contained the general conditions for the project, nature of the services required, insurance requirements, and evaluation procedures. Section 1.13 of that document provided in relevant part that "the District reserves the right to reject all proposals and not grant any award from the issuance of this RFP." Five proposals, including Sierra's, were received and opened on June 26, 2002. All proposals were reviewed and independently scored by a three-person selection committee composed of District staffers. Although Sierra's proposal of $374,038.00 was not the lowest dollar amount submitted, it received the highest numerical score of 279, edging out two other proposers who both received scores of 277. The lowest dollar proposal submitted was $337,000.00. Under the process in place, the selection committee then referred the results of its evaluation to a three-person Facilities Ad Hoc Committee (Committee), comprised of the Governing Board's chairman, Mr. Ronnie E. Duncan, the Governing Board's vice-chairman, Mr. Thomas D. Dabney, II, and the treasurer of the Governing Board, Watson L. Haynes, II. The Committee was delegated the authority to reject any proposal without further action by the District's Governing Board; however, approval of a proposal had to be confirmed by the Governing Board. Committee members Duncan and Dabney are developers with extensive experience in construction while Mr. Haynes has a background in accounting. The Committee was formed in late 2001 for the purpose of achieving more efficiencies in the construction process, particularly in light of a newspaper's criticism of the money spent by the District while renovating Building 2 at its Brooksville office. The Committee was not obligated to accept the selection committee scoring. Rather, the Committee had a duty to make the ultimate decision as to how taxpayer dollars are best spent. The Committee met on July 30, 2002, to consider the results of the evaluation. Mr. Haynes was not present. The two other members voiced concerns regarding the cost of Sierra's proposal, which was more than $74.00 per square foot. For that reason, the Committee continued the decision on awarding the contract to its next meeting on August 28, 2002. It also requested the staff to determine how costs on the project could be reduced. On July 31, 2002, Sierra contacted the District's contract manager, Steven M. Long, by telephone and was told that Sierra had received the highest ranking from the selection committee, but that the Committee had postponed a decision until its next meeting because of concerns over the cost of the project. On August 28, 2002, the Committee reconvened. Due to a personal conflict, Mr. Haynes was not present. By a 2-0 vote, the Committee determined that because of the cost concerns, all proposals should be rejected, and that the 5,000 square foot ancillary building should be combined with two other projects being undertaken at the Tampa Service Center under a single construction manager to reduce costs and realize other benefits. This decision was conveyed by telephone to Sierra on September 1, 2002. On September 3, 2002, formal Notice of Rejection letters were sent to all five proposers. On September 5, 2002, Sierra filed its Notice of Protest. This was followed by a Formal Written Protest filed on September 12, 2002, in which Sierra contended that the Committee's decision was arbitrary. The Tampa Service Center is a branch office of the District and includes office, technical, maintenance, and garage facilities with accompanying parking and roadways. Existing Building 1 is outdated, crowded, and inadequate and must be replaced. It will be demolished once the new Building 1 is constructed. Although the District initially decided that the new building would need 30,000 square feet, it later determined that the approximately 5,000 square feet needed to house District field staff could be separated out as an ancillary building from Building 1 and built as a metal building. A preengineered metal building was selected since it would be cheaper and faster to build, and some of the field staff could be moved out of the crowded existing Building 1 to the ancillary building while new Building 1 was being constructed. In addition to the construction of the new Building 1 and the ancillary building, the District intends to re-roof existing Building 2, demolish Building 1, re-route traffic flow, install security gates, improve parking, improve the stormwater system, and install new landscaping. As a general rule, as a project gets larger, there are economies of scale that result in cost reductions because the cost per unit becomes less as a greater quantity is purchased. In deciding to reject all proposals, and combine all of the work at the Tampa Service Center, the Committee considered the following advantages to having a construction manager supervise the entire project: It would reduce potential confusion by better coordinating the number of contractors and subcontractors on the job and create a more efficient work flow. Task coordination is essential for safety since District employees and members of the public will have continuing access to the Tampa Service Center while all components of the project are under construction. There will be considerable underground construction work for the installation of electrical lines, telephone lines, computer cabling, water lines, fire protection water service lines, sewer lines, irrigation lines, and stormwater lines. Improved coordination reduces duplication and the possibility of putting recently completed work at risk for damage. By working with the architect and the construction manager, the District could use value engineering to reduce costs. Value engineering would allow the District to look at creative ways to reduce costs by substituting similar, less expensive items for more expensive items. Because the District is exempt from paying state sales tax, the District would save the 7 percent sales tax since the construction manager sets up accounts with vendors directly for the District. The District would also save the contractor's percentage markup that typically encompasses the 7 percent sales tax when it has to be paid. The construction manager system produces a better selection process and cost savings since the construction manager can be required to obtain at least three proposals for each of the sixteen divisions of labor. There will be benefits of accountability and uniformity from having only one person or entity responsible for any problems encountered. In addition, the following savings could be realized through economies of scale by including the ancillary building in the larger project and under a construction manager: mobilization; demobilization; site work; excavation for foundation; concrete for foundation; rough-in electrical work; rough-in plumbing; fire protection service line; electrical lines; water lines; computer cabling lines; plumbing; electrical; insulation; drywall; floor tile; ceiling grid; ceiling tiles; doors; air conditioning system; painting; landscaping; irrigation sprinkler system; paving work; stormwater system; and one project manager. At the same time, when the earlier decision was made to separate the construction of the ancillary building out from the rest of the Tampa Service Center project to save time and money, the Committee believed that the ancillary building would obtain its utility and communication services from an existing, adjacent building. After later learning that this was not the case, and that the scope of the work for the ancillary building had expanded to require considerable underground site work for its new utility and communication services, the Committee realized that the cost and other benefits originally intended had been lost. Finally, new Building 1 is only sixty feet from the ancillary building and will require considerable underground site work for its new utility and communication services. Therefore, the Committee concluded that it made more sense to combine the construction of the new Building 1 and the ancillary building to achieve cost savings and efficiencies in the installation of utility and communication services and to reduce other overlapping aspects of the Tampa Service Center project. Given the foregoing considerations, the Committee's decision to reject all proposals was not arbitrary in any sense. While it is true that the precise amount of savings to be realized cannot be quantified, the greater weight of evidence shows that some savings can be achieved, and that the Committee's decision was based on facts, sound reasoning, and logic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order rejecting all proposals on RRP 008-02. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Stephen H. Kurvin, Esquire 7 South Lime Street Sarasota, Florida 34237-6105 Stephen O. Rushing, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock and seawall by provision of reasonable assurances that the project is in the public interest.
Findings Of Fact On May 8, 1989, the Petitioner, Kathryn Haughney, applied to DER for a permit to construct a dock and seawall on the shore of the Halifax River in Volusia County. The portion of the Haughney property where the dock and seawall would be constructed is separated from the Haughney home by John Anderson Drive, which parallels the river's edge and is separated from the river by a ribbon of undeveloped property at that location and to the south. A house is located at water's edge on the lot to the north of the proposed construction site. The Haughney home itself is set well back from John Anderson drive on the side of the street away from the river. The Halifax River is classified as a Class III water body under DER rules. The particular part of the Halifax River where the Haughney property is located and where the dock and seawall are proposed is also within the Tomoka Marsh Aquatic Preserve, which is an Outstanding Florida Water under DER rules. The dock as proposed by Petitioner will be 320 square feet. DER denied the permit application on July 19, 1990, but in so doing did not deny the application on the basis of the proposed dock, which, because of its dimensions, is exempt from DER permitting requirements. The seawall as proposed is to be 137 feet long. Petitioner applied to extend it 16 feet out into waters of the state at the northern end, gradually increasing to 34 feet into waters of the state at the south end. Additionally, 5 feet of riprap would also extend out into waters of the state along the seawall's entire length. The waters of the state that would be filled by the proposed seawall contain lush wetland vegetation that provides habitat for a number of macroinvertebrate species which are part of the food chain feeding fish and wading birds such as egrets and herons. Fiddler crabs and colonies of mussels have been observed on the site. The area to be filled provides a valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. There was no mitigation offered by Petitioner to make up for the loss of habitat to be occasioned by the proposed construction. Although Petitioner asserted DER had named no "endangered species" and that the Environmental Protection Administration had not designated this area as "endangered," those federal concerns were not at issue. If such federally designated species or location designation existed in the locale, it might militate against granting this application for permit, but in the negative, it is irrelevant. A vertical seawall exists immediately north of Petitioner's shoreline. The shoreline to the south remains undeveloped. (See Finding of Fact 2). Construction of seawalls, especially those that extend out from the existing shoreline, typically causes erosion on adjacent shorelines, and additional seawalls exaggerate wave energy and can have a cumulative erosive effect. The foregoing fact is found in reliance upon the testimony of Don Medellin, an Environmental Specialist II for DER, and Barbara Bess, an Environmental Manager for DER, both accepted as experts in environmental aspects of dredge and fill permits. The assertion that actual erosion on the property to the south has already occurred was contained in a letter from Petitioner's southern neighbor (DER Exhibit 6). Petitioner's representatives objected to consideration of this exhibit as "hearsay." They are correct and current erosion to the south is not found as a fact. Nonetheless, actual erosion in a pocket on the north end of Petitioner's shoreline has been shown by the direct testimony of Emmett and Martha Haughney, who assert that their property is eroding due to the existing seawall and that Petitioner wants a permit for a seawall to alleviate this erosion. Their evidence is confirmed by the personal observations and testimony of Mr. Medellin and Ms. Bess. Further, upon their testimony, it is accepted that this minimal pocket of erosion is most likely due to the existing seawall to the north and that if the Petitioner builds a seawall to the specifications now set out in the permit application, there is potential for similar and perhaps cumulative erosion to the shoreline to the south of Petitioner's lot. Neither the city nor county involved has land use restrictions which would prohibit Petitioner's proposed seawall except that Volusia County advocates riprap requirements if this permit application were granted. In its Notice of Permit Denial, DER advised Petitioner as follows: The Department has determined that the follow- ing changes to the project may make the project permittable: The vertical seawall should be eliminated and replaced with coquina rock riprap revet- ment. The riprap should be located further landward and conform to the slope of the existing embankment. Backfilling on the north property line is acceptable provided the fill area does not extend more than 10 feet westward in the most eroded area. Accordingly, the riprap could extend to the adjacent seawall and gradually extend in a more landward direc- tion to prevent excessive elimination of the littoral zone vegetation. Whatever alternative the applicant elects to choose, the removal or elimination of littoral zone vegetation must be offset in the form of mitigation if the impacts can not be reduced any further. Finally, the agent should eliminate the use of generic drawings which must be continually revised. All drawings should reflect the existing and proposed conditions and the impacts associated with the project. Petitioner's contractor, Andy Harris, testified to other alternatives that could be used by Petitioner in constructing her seawall, but the evidence of Mr. Medellin and Ms. Bess is persuasive that the alternative measures proposed by Mr. Harris would not provide the reasonable assurances the law requires DER to obtain from Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order affirming its July 19, 1990 Notice of Permit Denial. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7215 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's letter to Hearing Officer (filed March 22, 1991) The first paragraph complains that a VCR was unavailable in the hearing room so that Petitioner's videotape could not be shown. Petitioner should have made arrangements for showing the tape and did not. Likewise, Petitioner never offered the tape in evidence (for viewing by the Hearing Officer afterwards in preparation of this Recommended Order). Therefore, it very properly was not considered. The next 3 paragraphs refer to the Casden letter (DER Exhibit 6), which is covered in FOF 8-9. The remaining paragraphs are rhetoric and legal argument upon which no ruling need to made under Section 120.59(2) F.S.; however, they are alluded to in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner's letter to DER Counsel (filed March 25, 1991 by DER, suggesting it was Petitioner's proposed findings of fact) 1-3 For the reasons set out above, the Petitioner's videotape was not considered. The subject of erosion to the degree proved at the hearing is covered in the Recommended Order. 4-5, PS 1-3 Mere rhetoric and legal argument upon which no ruling need be made under Section 120.59(2) F.S.; covered in the Conclusions of Law to the degree appropriate. Respondent's PFOF: 1-11 Accepted as modified to reflect the greater weight of the credible and probative record evidence as a whole. That which is rejected is rejected as not proven or not persuasive. Unnecessary or irrelevant material has likewise been excluded. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kathryn Haughney 2301 John Anderson Drive Ormond Beach, FL 32074 Emmett and Martha Haughney 2301 John Anderson Drive Ormond Beach, FL 32074 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
