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 The Respondent Louis C. Eder (hereafter Respondent) is a registered building contractor holding license number RB 0010762. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Lujack Construction Company. On September 11, 1979, Dennis Ecks, a complainant in this proceeding, entered into a written contract with Abco Contracting and Construction Company, through its agent Jack Greenblatt, for remodeling his residence for the sum of $5,200. The permit for the Ecks job was pulled by the Respondent in the name of Lujack Construction Company. Ecks paid $4,900 to Abco for the job. He withheld $300 to compensate for the failure of Abco to install a screen door. Ecks paid the $4,900 directly to Abco and never met or spoke to the Respondent during the time the contract was being negotiated and executed. After the job was started, the Respondent sent letters to Ecks rescinding the permit for the job and orally communicated his concern that Ecks should exercise caution in his business dealings with Abco. The Respondent received no monies from either Ecks or Abco for the Ecks' job. On January 21, 1980, Dominic Sicilian, the other complainant in this proceeding, entered into a written contract with Abco General Contracting and Construction Company, through its agent, Jack Greenblatt, to enclose a carport for $11,675. The permit for the Sicilian job was pulled by the Respondent in the name of Lujack Construction Company. Sicilian paid $9,000 of the contract sum directly to Abco. This job was abandoned after approximately fifty percent of the construction work was completed, Sicilian, like Ecks, had no discussions with the Respondent before the contract was executed. Approximately one year after the contract was executed, Sicilian spoke to the Respondent concerning his problems with Abco. At that time the Respondent offered to finish the job for the remainder of the contract price. Additionally, shortly after Abco started the job, the Respondent informed Sicilian, both orally and in writing, that he would not be working on the job because he had not been paid by Abco and Sicilian should exercise caution in his business dealings with Abco. Both Ecks and Sicilian believed that they were dealing with Abco and neither had any knowledge of Lujack Construction or its relationship to Abco. The Respondent did not enter into construction contracts with either Ecks or Sicilian. The Respondent began working for Abco in the capacity of foreman. Shortly after commencing employment with Abco, the Respondent was requested by Abco to obtain permits for pending jobs due to a problem Abco encountered in obtaining permits. The problem resulted from Abco maintaining a business in an area zoned noncommercial. Approximately two weeks after commencing employment with Abco, the Respondent's relationship with Abco changed and he became the contractor on the job under the name Lujack Construction Company, a name which the Respondent had used for many years. Shortly after commencing work at Lujack Construction, the Respondent quit when he was not paid from the first draw. The Respondent terminated his relationship with Abco and notified Ecks and Sicilian that he was no longer working on the job due to non-payment and was rescinding the permits which he had pulled. The Respondent attempted without success to as certain the proper procedure to terminate the permits by directing inquiries to the Cooper City Building Department, Broward County Building Department, Palm Beach County Building Department and the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent has been a licensed general contractor for fourteen years. During that period of time, he has built hundreds of homes in the Palm Beach area. Other than the complaints filed in the instant case, the Respondent has not been the subject of any previous complaint or disciplinary proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner Construction Industry Licensing Board dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Louis C. Eder. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 15th day of March, 1983.
The Issue All Three Cases Whether the Petitioners have standing to bring their respective challenges pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes? Case No. 10-5348RU Whether either or both Original Specific Condition 1 and the Department ECL Position constitute a rule? Case Nos. 10-6205 and 10-8197 Whether Specific Condition 5 constitutes a rule? Attorney's Fees Whether an order should be entered against the Department for costs and attorney's fees under Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Draft Permit The Draft Permit (and its revisions) authorizes the County "to construct the work outlined in the activity description and activity location of this permit and shown on the approved permit drawings, plans and other documents attached hereto." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9, page 3 of 26. The "activity description" and the "activity location" are detailed on the first page of the Draft Permit. See Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9 (first page of 26). The drawings, plans and other documents attached to the Draft Permit are contained under Tab 10 of Volume III of the Joint Exhibit. The Parties Petitioner Guidry is co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust (the "Guidry Living Trust"). He has independent authority to protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber or otherwise dispose of trust assets. Those assets include a condominium unit in the Oceania Condominium. The condominium unit owned by the Guidry Living Trust includes an undivided interest held with all other unit owners in the common property at the Oceania Condominium. The common property includes real property that fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 720 Gulf Shore Drive in the City of Destin, Florida. The real property has the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico as its southern boundary. Petitioner Oceania is a condominium association established pursuant to Florida's Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. It does not own any real property. Mr. Guidry testified that he is authorized in his capacity as president of the Association to initiate and pursue this administrative proceeding on its behalf. No documents were entered in evidence reflecting that Oceania's Board of Directors approved the filing of the petition. The owners of condominium units at the Oceania Condominium, including the Guidry Trust, comprise the membership of Oceania. The unit owners all own undivided shares in the Oceania Condominium common property including the real estate that extends at its southern boundary to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The owners did not vote on whether to file the petition in Case No. 10-05348RU. Petitioners David and Rebecca Sherry are leaseholders of real property where they reside. Located at 554 Coral Court, Number 511, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, the property is in an area in Okaloosa County on Santa Rosa Island that is known as Okaloosa Island. The property leased by the Sherrys is not within the Western Destin Project. Petitioner John Donovan is a leaseholder of real property located at 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Numbers 131-132, El Matador Condominium, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, in the same area as the Sherry's residence. Petitioner MACLA II, Ltd., is a Texas Limited Partnership. Louise Brooker is its president. It owns real property which fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 620 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. The southern boundary of the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The MACLA property is located adjacent to the shoreline that is the subject of the Western Destin Project. The Betty Price Hughes Qualified Vacation Residence Trust (the "Hughes Trust") owns real property at 612 Gulf Shore Drive. Its southern boundary is deeded the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Petitioner H. Joseph Hughes is a trustee of the Hughes Trust. Petitioner Kershaw Manufacturing Company, Inc., an Alabama corporation, is the owner of real property located at 634 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. Its southern boundary the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Royce Kershaw is the president of the Kershaw Manufacturing Company. He testified that as president of the company, he has the authority to act on behalf of the company and has the power to bind the corporate entity. The Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for the administration of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, Parts I and II, the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act." § 161.011, Fla. Stat. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund is responsible for stewardship of its public trust properties under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. Included among those properties is the sovereignty submerged lands along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The ECL and the MHWL In the context of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, the MHWL and the ECL were discussed by the Florida Supreme Court in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2008) (the "Walton County Supreme Court Case"): Pursuant to section 161.141, when a local government applies for funding for beach restoration, a survey of the shoreline is conducted to determine the MHWL for the area. Once established, any additions to the upland property landward of the MHWL that result from the restoration project remain the property of the upland owner subject to all governmental regulations, including a public easement for traditional uses of the beach. § 161.141. After the MHWL is established, section 161.161(3) provides that the Board must determine the area to be protected by the project and locate an ECL. In locating the ECL, the Board "is guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible." § 161.161(5). Pursuant to section 161.191(1), this ECL becomes the new fixed property boundary between public lands and upland property after the ECL is recorded. And, under section 161.191(2), once the ECL has been established, the common law no longer operates "to increase or decrease the proportions of any upland property lying landward of such line, either by accretion or erosion or by any other natural or artificial process." Walton County, at 1108. The Pre-project MHWL in This Case and the ECL The Pre-project MHWL called for by Original Specific Condition 1 was never established. No evidence was introduced as to where the Pre-project MHWL would have been located had it been set and in particular, where it would have been located in relation to an ECL. Rod Maddox is a long-time surveyor with the Department's Division of State Land in the Bureau of Survey & Mapping. See P-244. Mr. Maddox testified about his experience with pre-project MHWLs and where they are located in relation to ECLs. Familiar with the term "pre-project mean high water line," Mr. Maddox defined it as the mean high water line prior to the placement of fill used in a beach restoration project. See id. at 29. He testified that pre-project MHWLs have been required in the many beach restoration cases with which he is familiar. He testified further that when it comes to location, there is no difference between a pre-project MHWL and an ECL. The denominations may be different but Mr. Maddox testified "as to how . . . established, I see them as one and the same." Id. at 30. Original Special Condition 1: the Pre-project MHWL On December 31, 2009, the Department issued the NOI. Attached to it was the Draft Permit. The Draft Permit contained the following paragraph as Special Condition 1: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Permittee must record in the official records of Okaloosa County a Certificate, approved by the Department, which describes all upland properties (including their owners of record) along the entire shoreline of the permitted project, with an attached completed survey of the pre-project Mean High Water Line ("Mean High Water Line Survey") conducted along the entire permitted project shoreline length. The Mean High Water Line Survey must have been completed in a manner complying with Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, as determined by the Department. No construction work pursuant to this joint coastal permit shall commence until the Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line Survey have been approved and archived by the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping, and the Department has received proof of recording of such documents (see Specific Condition No. 4.c.). The approved Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line survey shall be attached to, and kept as part of this joint coastal permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. If in the future the Permittee seeks reimbursement from the State for costs expended to undertake (construct) the permitted project, then, prior to, and as a condition of receipt of any authorized and approved reimbursement, the Board of Trustees will establish an ECL consistent with the provisions of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. The Permittee shall be required to record such a line in the Okaloosa County official records. Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, No. 9. The Oceania Petitioners, as landowners within the Project area, challenged the issuance of the Draft Permit on January 14, 2010. See Case No. 10-0516. Among the bases for the challenge was that the Department lacked authority to implement Original Special Condition 1 and, in particular, its requirement that the County record a completed survey of the pre-project MHWL in lieu of the establishment of an ECL. On July 26, 2010, the Department revised the Draft Permit to eliminate from the Project the common property owned by the unit owners of the Oceania Condominium. The change was supported by a letter from Michael Trudnak, P.E., of Taylor Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the County which stated: "On behalf of Okaloosa County, Taylor Engineering submits this request to modify the project area and Draft Joint Coastal Permit for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project [file nos. excluded]. The applicant has decided to remove the Oceania Condominium property from the beach fill placement area." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, Exhibit A. The revised project, as described in permit drawings enclosed with Mr. Trudnak's letter includes two reaches: Reach 1 extends from the east jetty of East Pass to approximately 600 ft east of FDEP reference monument R-22 (R22.6) and Reach 2 extends from approximately 200 ft east of R-23 (R-23.2) to R-25.5. The Oceania Condominium property is in the gap between the two beaches. Additionally, the letter requested that the Department modify Specific Condition 1 of the Draft Permit to reflect the modified project area so that the MHWL Survey requirement of Specific Condition 1 would exclude the Oceania Condominium property. In accord with the request, Special Condition 1 was amended to add the following language: "With respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc., members' common elements property, neither a pre-project Mean High Water Line survey, nor a Certificate with a description of the pre-project Mean High Water Line shall be recorded in conjunction with this coastal permit." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 5 of 26. On August 4, 2010, as the Department neared the end of its case in the third day of the hearing, it announced that the Revised Draft Permit would "be revised [again, this time] to require the establishment of an ECL under the applicable statute." Tr. 621. The draft permit, accordingly, was revised for a second time (the "Second Revised Draft Permit"). The Department carried out the second revision in a notice filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 18, 2010 (the August 18, 2010, Notice). The August 18, 2010, Notice contains two changes to the First Revised Draft Joint Permit. The first change deletes the existing language in Original Specific Condition 1 (the language challenged in Case No. 10-5348RU) in its entirety. It substitutes the following language: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Board of Trustees will establish an Erosion Control Line along the shoreline of the beach restoration project. The Erosion Control Line shall be established consistent with the provisions of ss. 161.141-161.211, Florida Statutes. An Erosion Control Line shall not be established in conjunction with this joint coastal permit with respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc. members' common elements property. In lieu of conducting a survey, the Board of Trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by Okaloosa County if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. Department of Environmental Protection's and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund's Notice of Revisions to the Proposed Joint Coastal Construction Permit, page 3 of 4. The second change is made with respect to Specific Condition No. 4(c) of the First Revised Draft Permit, one of a list of items to be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the Department. The existing language is deleted in its entirety and the following language is substituted: Written documentation that the Erosion Control Line required by Special Condition Number 1 has been filed in the public records of Okaloosa County. Id. The Department ECL Position Chapter 161: Beach and Shore Preservation Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, governs "Beach and Shore Preservation." "Parts I and II of this chapter may be known and cited as the 'Beach and Shore Preservation Act.'" § 161.011, Fla. Stat. Part I governs "Regulation of Construction, Reconstruction, and Other Physical Activity." Sections 161.011 through 161.241 comprise Part I. The Department developed its position on ECLs claimed by Petitioners to be an Unadopted Rule by considering Part I, in particular Sections 161.088 (which declares the public policy to properly manage and protect Florida's beaches) through 161.211. At some point in 2009, the Department saw a distinction related to ECLs in Sections 161.088-161.211 between beach restoration projects where state funding was used for construction and projects where no state funds were used. The former seemed to require ECLs, the latter not. Several statutory provisions were viewed as particularly relevant. For example, Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, declares that it is the public policy of the state "to cause to be fixed and determined, pursuant to beach restoration . . . projects, the boundary line between sovereignty lands . . . and the upland properties adjacent thereto " The section that mainly governs ECLs is Section 161.161. It provides the procedure for approval of projects for the restoration and maintenance of critically eroded beaches, subject to a beach management plan which is funded, in part, by the state. With regard to ECLs, the statute provides: Once a project [for the restoration and maintenance of a critically eroded beach] is determined to be undertaken, a survey of all or part of the shoreline within the jurisdiction of the local government in which the beach is located shall be conducted in order to establish the area of beach to be protected by the project and locate an erosion control line. * * * Upon completion of the survey depicting the area of the beach erosion control project and the proposed location of the erosion control line, the board of trustees shall give notice of the survey and the date on which the board of trustees will hold a public hearing for purpose of receiving evidence on the merits of the proposed erosion control line and, if approval is granted, of locating and establishing such requested erosion control line in order that any persons who have an interest in the location of such requested erosion control line can be present at such hearing to submit their views concerning the precise location of the proposed erosion control line. * * * The board of trustees shall approve or disapprove the erosion control line for a beach restoration project. In locating said line, the board of trustees shall be guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which the erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible. § 161.161, Fla. Stat. Development of the Department's Position on ECLs Prior to 2009, the Department's established ECLs for beach restoration projects whether the project's construction was supported by state funding or not. There was an exception: when the property landward of the MHWL was owned by the state. In such a case, the Department saw no need to set an ECL since both the sovereignty lands and the adjacent uplands property are owned by the state. This position held at least through January 15, 2009, when the Department held a workshop and hearing pursuant to Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, in Okaloosa County to establish an ECL for the Western Destin Project. The hearing officer who conducted the ECL hearing was West Gregory, Department Assistant General Counsel. While consideration of where the ECL should be established for the Western Destin Project was underway, there were ongoing discussions by e-mail and in briefings of whether the statute required an ECL. The discussion was prompted when Mr. Gregory, as Department Assistant General Counsel, drafted a memorandum (the "Draft Memorandum") to Michael Barnett, Chief of the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (the Bureau) to be sent through Paden Woodruff, an Environmental Administrator. The memorandum related to another beach restoration project in Okaloosa County: a project involving Eglin Air Force Base. The Draft Memorandum shows a date of January "XX", 2009, and is stamped "DRAFT." P-119. It presents the question "Should . . . [the Department] require the United States Air Force (USAF) to establish an erosion control line (ECL) for the beach restoration project located on Eglin AFB?" Id. The Draft Memorandum provides a brief answer: "No, . . . because the beach . . . is not critically eroded." Id. The memorandum recognizes the public policy of the state to fix the boundary between public and private lands for beach restoration projects in Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, and a requirement that the Board of Trustees "must establish the line of mean high water prior to the commencement of a beach restoration project," id., leading to the suggestion that each and every beach restoration project must establish an ECL. The Draft Memorandum, however, construes Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, with Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, and draws support from an Attorney General Opinion and the Walton County Florida Supreme Court case to conclude that it is only when a project is undertaken with state funding that an ECL must be established. In the case of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects, the Draft Memorandum concludes: Id. This determination not to establish an ECL on the Eglin AFB beach restoration project would not preclude the USAF from obtaining a JCP permit. Rather, it precludes the USAF from receiving state funding assistance. The Draft Memorandum was not sent to the intended recipients. It was submitted to two other lawyers in the Department. Mr. Gregory did not receive comments from them. Although no comments were made to Mr. Gregory after the draft of the memorandum was sent to other members of the legal staff, the subject remained under discussion in the Department in early 2009. Sometime in early 2009, based on a legal analysis of Department attorneys, the Department took the position that an ECL is required to be set when state funds are used for the construction of a project. The converse of this position, that an ECL is not required to be set when no state funds are involved, is the statement alleged to be an unadopted rule. Two permits were issued that did not require an ECL: one for the Eglin AFB beach restoration project in March of 2009, and another that was an emergency permit for Holiday Isle. As with Specific Condition 1 in the Western Destin Project, the determination to not require an ECL was because of the lack of state funding. As Mr. Barnett testified about the two permits, there "is no State cost share for construction . . . [and] that's the reason [the Department] didn't require establishment of an ECL." Tr. 1279. Mr. Gregory's Draft Memorandum was never finalized. The Department issued three permits or draft permits (including for the Western Destin Project) with specific conditions that required pre-project MHWLs and that did not require ECLs. Otherwise, the Department has not committed the Department ECL Position to writing. Nonetheless, the Department ECL Position was stated in a deposition taken in this case on July 26, 2010. On July 26, 2010, the deposition of Janet Llewellyn, the Director of Water Resources Management was taken by Petitioners. Director Llewellyn is "responsible ultimately for all the projects that are processed and actions taken out of [the] division." P-223 at 10. These include permits issued by the Bureau and in particular, the Draft Permit, First Revised Draft Permit and the Second Draft Permit for the Project. When asked about the Department's statement that an ECL is not required when there is not state funding, Ms. Llewellyn preferred to rephrase the Department position as to when an ECL is required rather than when it is not required. She then testified that an ECL is required when there is "state funding involved through [the Department's] funding program." Id. at 13. Ms. Llewellyn was unable to pinpoint the moment the Department reached such a position other than: [t]he question came up sometime in the last year or two -- I couldn't tell you when -- about what the statute actually required in terms of when it was proper to set an erosion control line or required. And our attorneys did a legal analysis, again, of the statute, and that was their legal opinion of what the statute required. Tr. 14. Whatever the date that such a position was precisely firmed up, Ms. Llewellyn was able to testify on July 26, 2010, "that if state funding is going to a project, than an ECL needs to be set. That's what the statute requires." Id. This statement was based on the opinions of Department attorneys prior to their use in connection with the issuance of beach restoration permits in Okaloosa County. The Department has not initiated rule-making with respect to its ECL Position. Whether rule-making would be initiated was not known by the Bureau Chief on August 24, 2010, during his testimony in the final hearing. Change of Position The Department modified its position on ECLs that it appeared to have at the time of Ms. Llewellyn's deposition on August 4, 2010. As detailed above, it announced that an ECL would be required for the Western Destin Project, after all. The modification was formalized with the filing of the Second Revised Draft Permit on August 18, 2010. Specific Condition 5 Before the challenged language in Specific Condition 5 was added by the First Revised Draft Permit, the Department had relied on General Condition 6 to give notice to permittees that the permit did not allow trespass: This permit does not convey to the Permittee or create in the Permittee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the Permittee. The issuance of the permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Joint Ex. 9. Based on the petitions in the Permit Challenge Cases, the Department proposed in the First Revised Draft Permit to add to Specific Condition 5 the language that is underscored in the following: The Permittee is advised that no work shall be performed on private upland property until and unless the required authorizations are obtained. Sufficient authorizations shall included: (1) written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project; (2) authorization for such use from the property owner which upland of mean high-water; (3) construction and management easements from upland property owners; or (4) a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction which reflects that such authorization, in whole or in part, is not required. The Permittee is also advised to schedule the pre-construction conference at least a week prior to the intended commencement date. At least seven (7) days in advance of a pre-construction conference, the Permittee shall provide the written authorizations for the portion of the project for which construction is about to commence, as required above, written notification, advising the participants (listed above) of the agreed-upon date, time and location of the meeting, and also provide a meeting agenda and a teleconference number. Joint Exhibit, Volume III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 7 of 26. There was no evidence that the language added to Specific Condition 5 by the First Revised Draft Permit had been in any other permits or that the Department intended to use the language in any other beach restoration permits. Other than whatever might be gleaned from the Draft Permit, itself (and its revisions), there was no evidence offered that the property of any of the petitioners, in fact, would be used in the Western Destin Beach Project.
The Issue Whether the Petitioners, and each of them, have standing to bring the instant action before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Whether the 5500 North Corporation has meets the requirements set forth in Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, for obtaining a permit to construct a structure seaward to the coastal construction control line (CCCL).
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Protection, f/k/a Department of Natural Resources, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating coastal construction under Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. 5500 North Corporation (Respondent/Applicant) is the owner of the property located at 5600 North Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Brevard County, Florida 32931. 5500 North Corporation submitted an application for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit to build on the vacant portion of its property, a seven (7) story building, along with required access drives and parking, as an addition to the Cocoa Beach Days Inn Hotel complex. The site of the proposed Days Inn Tower fronts on the Atlantic Ocean and is located three (3) miles south of Port Canaveral, near DNR survey monument R-16. The application and attached document were compiled and submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection by Plata Engineering, Inc., and consisted of the following documents: Application to the Department for the proposed construction of the building, consisting of three pages, front and back, six pages total. A legal description of the property, and a Warranty Deed for the property demonstrating ownership in 5500 North Corporation. Reduced certified survey of the site, showing control lines and other required information. Reduced Site Plan prepared by Plata Engineering, Inc. Section C - which is a section through the site plan, showing the dune configuration in relation to the proposed building and the construction control lines. A depiction of a section through the proposed building and some of its structural elements. Full size drawing of the proposed site. Turtle assessments form with attached lighting specifications of the manufacturer, and aerial of the site attached. Structural Design Calculations. Complete set of Building Plans, dealing with floor planning, and the structural elements of the calculations that were submitted with the structural calculations. The application was deemed complete, and on May 20, 1993, the Department issued a proposed Final Order issuing Permit Number BE-760 for the proposed structure. Standing of Petitioners Petitioner, Carole Pope, resides in the City of Rockledge, Brevard County, Florida. She is the owner of Lot 11, Block 101 of the platted subdivision known as Avon-By-The Sea which is located in unincorporated Brevard County, north of the existing north boundary of the City of Cocoa Beach. A duplex dwelling unit is located on the parcel. Petitioner occupies one unit annually during the summer. Petitioner Pope's property is not adjacent to the property where the proposed Days Inn Tower is to be located. The property is located approximately three blocks directly north of the proposed building and measures 475 feet east- west by 50 feet north-south and is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. Petitioners, Hugh and Cora Harris, own property located at Lot 13 of replat of Blocks 104 and 105, Avon-by-the Sea, in the unincorporated land of Brevard County, which borders on the City of Cocoa Beach. Petitioners' property is located across Young Avenue, and north of the property owned by 5500 North Corporation. The Harris's property contains a single family dwelling unit and is adjacent to the property were the proposed Days Inn Tower is to be located. Petitioners, Patricia A. and Eugene A. Wojewoda, own a unit at the Cocoa Beach Towers, a multi-family condominium, which is located north of the property owned by 5500 North Corporation, across Young Avenue, in the City of Cocoa Beach. The Wojewoda's unit is located on property which is adjacent to the property where the proposed Days Inn Tower is to located. Petitioners Wojewodas are Real Estate Brokers and owners of Professional Touch Realty, Inc. One of their four offices is located at 108 Young Avenue, immediately across the street and north of the subject property. Petitioners, Howard and Martha Crusey, own a unit, which they rent out, in the Cocoa Beach Towers, which is located north and adjacent to the property owned by 5500 North Corporation. Petitioners reside at 430 Johnson Avenue in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The Department sent out a notice for public comment to each of the immediate adjacent property owners. Existing Uniform and Continuous Line of Construction As part of the application process, the Department made a determination of the existing line of uniform and continuous construction. The existing line of uniform and continuous construction is a theoretical line that goes from the most seaward extent of the two adjacent structures, where adjacent structures exist, and extends north and south along the seaward edge of the structures. In the instant case, there is historical development of major habitable structures on either side of the parcel for which the proposed building is being constructed and which are co-terminus with the prior CCCL. The footprint of the proposed Days Inn Tower does not extend seaward of the existing uniform and continuous line of construction, although a new structure (Discovery Beach) north of the Cocoa Beach Towers has been constructed landward of the current CCCL. The existing structures, which form the existing line of uniform and continuous construction, have not been unduly affected by erosion. The property was purchased by 5500 North Corporation in 1988. The property was commercially developed with the existing hotel buildings between 1959 and 1962, and the site has been operated as a hotel since that time. The footprint of the building was set by the engineers based on the parking requirements of the City of Cocoa Beach, and environmental concerns. It was determined that if the parking were located on the seaward side of the building, there would be drainage problems, and the need for a storm water treatment system for the parking lot. With the parking lot located landward of the proposed building, there will be no drain off to the side areas, but rather drain off would be to the middle of the property where the exfiltration system is located. The parking lot located landward of the proposed building meets the City of Cocoa Beach parking requirements and the drainage requirements. When siting the footprint of the proposed building, the engineers also took into consideration the fact that if the parking were located on the seaward side of the proposed building, the headlights would shine out to the beach and possibly impact sea turtles nesting. The applicants stated that construction seaward of the control line or 50-foot setback is considered necessary for reasonable use of the property, for the following reasons: The proposed building is basically an addition to a completion of the original concept of the overall hotel complex that was never completed in the past due to either financial or room availability need. The proposed placement seaward of the CCCL can be attributed to the configuration of the existing on-site buildings and the require- ment to satisfy the City of Cocoa Beach's extensive parking and limited access point requirements that have been subjected to this proposed site development. Please note that the proposed building is not being placed seaward of the existing line of continuous construction that has been established by the adjacent buildings to the north and the south. The Department determines necessity based upon the impacts the proposed structure will have on the active beach, and the dune system, and the neighborhood properties including the subject property, how the property is zoned, and whether it is situated behind the existing continuous line of construction. It is the Department's opinion that if the proposed building is in compliance with the standards established in Chapter 16B-33, F.A.C., the necessity of the proposed building has been justified. Impacts to the Beach-Dune System The greater weight of evidence supports the conclusion that the shoreline fronting the site of the proposed Days Inn Tower is stable. This section of the coastline has historically been accretional, and still continues to be accretional. There exists adequate evidence of current littoral trends. There exists accepted methodologies for determining evidence of expected wind, wave, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces associated with the design storm event which was presented in 5500 North Corporation's application for CCCL permit. Based on the 1989 Brevard County Study conducted by Olsen and Associates, Inc., there is no erosion at the location of the proposed building, instead the shoreline is prograding seaward instead of landward. Therefore, the shoreline is at least stable or accretional. Based on its in-house analysis, the Department of Environmental Protection conservatively adopted an erosion rate of one foot per year, which is considered a relatively minor erosion rate. Based on the Department of Environmental Protection's projection of the erosion for the area being one foot per year, the location of the proposed building lies well in excess of 200 feet landward of the thirty-year seasonal high water line. Although the proposed structure extends 118 feet seaward of the CCCL, the setback of the proposed building from the existing dune line is significant; therefore, there was no evidence of a threat of impact on the beach, to the beach or dune system as a result of the construction at the specific site. There are existing devices (i.e., an existing fence on the property which funnels people into boardwalks so that people cannot walk uncontrolled on the beach dune system) implemented in Brevard County and specifically on the site which will help manage people impacts as well. The setback between the dune and the proposed construction qualitatively relates to the ability of the site to recover after a one-hundred year storm. If a structure is located too far seaward, either immediately adjacent to or on top of the dune, it would inhibit the natural storm recovery process. The proposed building is set a significant distance landward of the dune formation itself, so there will be adequate room for the dune to recover in the future should there be a one-hundred year storm event. The proposed structure is located at a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve the dune stability and the natural recovery following storm induced erosion. The proposed construction will not have a cumulative impact that will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. low. Impacts to Adjacent Property Owners The probability of potential impacts to adjacent property owners is One reason the proposed building will not have adverse impacts to adjacent properties is that the proposed building is located significantly landward, and does not go further seaward than the existing line of construction. The adjacent buildings were constructed landward of the previous CCCL. The nature of the design associated with the particular project or the structural components of the design also minimize the impact to the parcel and to adjacent parcels. The first feature of the design of the proposed building is that the major habitable floors of the building are above the elevation of the one- hundred year storm and wave activity on top of the storm surge, so they will not be impacted by the water height or the wave activity of the storm. The second feature of the design of the proposed building is that everything below the habitable floors is designed to break away and lie down during any impact by wave activity, which allows the storm to go through the building rather than having those forces exerted on the building itself. The frangible driveway is designed so that the individual stones will fall as the grade falls, and most of them will end up buried in the event of a storm. The third feature of the design of the proposed building is that the building is elevated on a pile foundation which is sunk to a depth which is sufficient to accommodate for the anticipated erosion of a one-hundred year storm, and the pile caps are sunk well into the ground so that they do not contribute to erosion. Therefore, the building has been designed to withstand the one-hundred year storm, and the dynamics of the storm are allowed to go through the building and to be dissipated, in contrast to endangering the building or endangering adjacent properties. Due to the fact that the proposed building is "super-elevated and the portions that are actually impacted by the one-hundred year storm being frangible," the proposed building will not impact the adjacent properties. The proposed Days Inn Tower would serve to protect the adjacent Cocoa Beach Towers, and Petitioner Harris's property, by blocking the impact of a storm coming from the southeast. The proposed structure is designed so as to minimize any expected adverse impact on the beach dune system or adjacent properties or structures and is designed consistent with Section 16B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed building meets the requirements of Chapter 161, Chapter 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code. Structural Design of Proposed Building The applicant provided adequate engineering data to the Department concerning the construction design of the building. The structure is designed in accordance with the minimum building code adopted for the area pursuant to Section 553.70-553.895, Florida Statutes. The proposed building is designed in accordance with the local code, and, in the opinion of the structural engineer who designed the building, either meets or exceeds the required codes. The proposed building is designed in accordance with Section 6, American National Standards/American Society of Civil Engineering 7-88 (July 1990) "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures", and has a minimum basic wind speed of 110 miles per hour. The proposed building is designed so that the building and its components will not become airborne missiles. The plans for the windows and doors require that they meet the 110 miles per hour wind loads. The proposed building is made of concrete reinforced masonry, and does not have bricks or attached masonry which could detach in a storm and become airborne. There are no substantial walls or partitions to be constructed below the level of the first finished floor, except for the elevator and stairs, seaward of the CCCL. The walls on the first floor are frangible walls which are designed to resist the 110 mile per hour wind pressure, but they lie down or collapse into the erosion hole created under wave surge pressure. The frangible walls are made of 4-inch thick concrete with reinforcing rods inside them, and are cut into 4 foot by 4 foot panels. The Department of Environmental Protection requires that any walls constructed below the one-hundred year storm surge plus storm wave elevations be frangible walls. The structural design considered the hydrodynamic loads which would be expected under the conditions of a one-hundred year storm event. The calculation for wave forces on building foundations and building superstructures is based on minimum criteria and methods given in professionally recognized documents accepted by the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation with the Department. The structural design considered hydrostatic loads which would be expected under the conditions of maximum water height associated with a one- hundred year storm event. The calculations for hydrostatic loads considered the maximum water pressure resulting from a fully peaked, breaking wave superimposed on the design storm surge. Both free and confined hydrostatic loads were considered in the design calculations. Hydrostatic loads which are confined were determined using the maximum elevation to which the confined water would fully rise if unconfined. Vertical hydrostatic loads were considered as forces acting both vertically downward and upward; however, there is no action upward because the maximum water level is at midlevel of the first floor and does not reach the second floor. The structural design considered the hydrodynamic loads which would be expected under the conditions of a one-hundred year storm event. The calculations for hydrodynamic loads considered the maximum water pressure resulting from the motion of the water mass associated with a one- hundred year storm event. Full intensity loading was applied on all structural surfaces above the design grade which would effect the flow velocities, which are above the first floor and are not reached by the wave surge. The proposed building is elevated on, and securely anchored to, an adequate pile foundation in such a manner as to locate the building support structure above the design breaking wave crests or wave uprush as superimposed on the storm surge with dynamic wave set up of one-hundred year storm. The piling foundation is designed to withstand anticipated erosion, scour, and loads resulting form a one-hundred year storm, including wind, wave, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces, and the pile caps are located below the erosion line as indicated by the Department's information and graphs. The elevation of the soil surface used in the calculation design grade is less than that which would result from the anticipated beach and dune erosion due to the one-hundred year storm event. The erosion calculations for foundation design account for all vertical and lateral erosions and scour producing forces. The pile caps are set below the design grade which includes localized scour, and are designed for the erosion of soil during the one-hundred year storm event. The piles are driven to a penetration which achieves adequate bearing capacity taking into consideration the anticipated loss of soil above the design grade, based on information provided by the geotechnical engineer's recommendation and the Department's requirements. The design plans and specifications submitted as part of the permit application for the proposed Days Inn Tower are in compliance with the standards established in Rules 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code. Turtle Impacts There is a two prong test which the proposed structure must meet to determine if the proposed building would have an adverse impact on nesting sea turtles. First, the proposed structure must not occupy marine turtle habitat, and second, the proposed structure's lighting must be adequate to eliminate adverse impacts to marine turtles. The effects of pedestrian traffic or flashlights on the beach are not considered by the Department when reviewing a permit application for adverse impacts to the marine turtles. The proposed building is sited significantly landward of the nesting beach, which is evidenced by the 75-foot wide dune stretch; therefore, it is not anticipated that the structure will result in any direct mortality of any marine turtle, nor would the building result in the degradation of the marine turtle nesting habitat. The proposed seven story structure will not occupy marine turtle habitat. The permit requirement to do dune restorative work, proposed by the Department, enhances the marine turtle habitat by further building the dune and enhancing the dune. Although the turtles do not nest beyond the dune crest, the dune is an integral part of protecting the habitat. There is a potential that the building, due to its height, could enhance marine turtle nesting habitat by blocking out the ambient glow from the City of Cocoa Beach which would create a dark beach directly in front of the proposed structure which could attract nesting. The applicant submitted a lighting plan to the Department which complied with the guidelines that are established in the information form entitled "Assessment to reduce impacts to marine turtles for lighting to reduce adverse impacts associated with coastal lighting." There are two main components of the lighting plan associated with the proposed building: the parking lot lights and the structural lighting. The parking lot lighting is designed as low-level Ballard-style lighting which is only 48 inches above the grade and emits light in a downward direction which will not be directly visible from the beach. The parking lot lighting design is the type recommended by the Department for parking lots, and is a good lighting design. The Department also recommends that an applicant plant hedges or landscape features to block out parking lights. The applicant is proposing to plant hedges in front of the 18 parking spaces that are on the seaward side of the proposed building. The structural lighting plan does have lighting on the seaward facade of the proposed building, which is not recommended by the Department, but the lights are designed to eliminate or significantly reduce the impact to marine turtles. The lights consist of canister, shielded, down-casting lights on the balconies which house a yellow bug lamp which is less impactive to turtles, and which is acceptable to the Department. The Department issued an approval letter regarding the proposed building to the project engineer which contained permit conditions for the protection of the marine turtles in association with the project. The permit conditions are as follows: No construction, operation, transportation or storage of equipment or materials is authorized seaward of the existing chain link fence located approximately 175 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. No temporary lighting of the construction area is authorized at any time during the marine turtle nesting season (March 1 through October 31). All permanent exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained as depicted in the approved lighting schematic. No additional permanent exterior lighting is authorized. c All windows and glass doors visible from any point on the beach must be tinted to a transmittance value (light transmission form inside to outside) of 45% or less through the use of tinted glass or window film. Pursuant to the Department's requirements, the proposed construction will not have an adverse impact on nesting sea turtles, their hatchlings, or their habitat. Vegetation Impacts The vegetation patch on the dune system is approximately seventy five feet wide under today's conditions, and is probably growing to some degree. The vegetation system is basically comprised of a low-level dune which is planted both naturally and artificially with indigenous, salt-tolerant type vegetation, and sea oats. The existing line of construction which the proposed building is set behind is well landward of the zone of indigenous vegetation. Special condition #4 contained in the permit issued by the Department requires the applicant to convert some of the existing sodded area between the vegetation limits and the proposed construction to plantings with indigenous vegetation, which will serve to enhance the dune system. The native beach vegetation will be adequately protected by the permit conditions, given the location of the construction. Local Government Approvals On June 3, 1992, the Cocoa Beach Board of Adjustment granted a variance to the CCCL to the 5500 North Corporation for construction of the proposed building. Challenges to decisions of the City's Board of Adjustment is to the circuit court. In the instant case, the time for challenging the decision of the Board has expired. The City of Cocoa Beach Planning Board has the authority to approve site plans for site specific construction. The City's Planning Board has the responsibility of ensuring that the site plan conforms with the Comprehensive Plan and to recommend changes, if needed, to the City Commission. On July 13, 1992, the Cocoa Beach Planning Board voted to approve the site plan for the proposed building submitted by the 5500 North Corporation. The decision of the Planning Board granting approval of the 5500 North Corporation's site plan showed part or all of the building was seaward of the CCCL. The Petitioners did not file an appeal of the Planning Board's decision with the City Commission. Nor did they challenge the Planning Board's action in the circuit court. The 5500 North Corporation was not required to apply to the city commission for an amendment to the Cocoa Beach Comprehensive Plan in order to permit the proposed hotel tower to be located in the designated high hazard area. On July 6, 1993, the Building Official issued a building construction permit to the 5500 North Corporation for the proposed building, which has been subsequently extended for an unknown period of time. There are no other permits or local government requirements which have not been met by 5500 North Corporation. The applicant submitted written evidence to the Department from the City of Cocoa Beach, who has jurisdiction over the project, which stated that the project does not contravene local setback requirements, or zoning and building codes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue Permit Number BE-760 to the 5500 North Corporation, subject to the conditions proposed in the proposed Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 (in part) 2, 3 (in part), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (in part), 10, 12 (in part), 13, 16 (in part), 17, 18, 19, 23 (in part), 24 (in part), 26 (in part), 27 (in part), 29 (in part), 31 (in part), 38 (in part), 49, 51, 63, 68 (in part), 69, 70, 71, 73 (in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 15 (in part), 16 (in part), 27 (in part), 46, 50 (in part), 82 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, argument or Conclusions of law: paragraphs 1 (in part), 14, 15 (in part), 16 (in part), 21, 23 (in part), 25, 26 (in part), 27 (in part), 28, 29 (in part), 30, 31 (in part), 32, 33, 34 (in part), 35, 36, 37 (in part), 38 (in part), 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50 (in part), 52, 56, 57, 58 (in part), 59 (in part), 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 (in part), 72 (in part), 73 (in part), 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 (in part), 83, 84. Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial: paragraphs 3 (in part), 5, 8 (in part), 9, 11, 12 (in part), 20, 22, 24 (in part), 34 (in part), 53, 54, 55, 58 (in part), 59 (in part), 60, 72 (in part), 74, 75. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in Substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (in part), 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36 (in part), 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 92, 93 (in part) 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 16 (in part). Rejected as subsumed, argument or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs 21, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36 (in part), 61, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93 (in part), 103. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Hugh and Cora Harris (pro se) 208 Young Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Howard and Martha Crusey (pro se) 430 Johnson Avenue, Apartment #304 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Carole Pope (pro se) 715 Rockledge Drive Rockledge, Florida 32955 Patricia and Eugene Wojewoda 830 North Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS-35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire Kelly Brewton Plante, Esquire Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene 225 South Adams Street, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant the application of the City of Destin (City) and Walton County (County) for a Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization (Application) to restore a 6.9 stretch of beach in the City and County.
Findings Of Fact The Gulf of Mexico beaches of the County and City were critically eroded by Hurricane Opal in 1995. The erosion problem was identified by DEP, which placed the beaches on its list of critically-eroded beaches, and by the County and City, which initiated a lengthy process of beach restoration through renourishment (also called maintenance nourishment.)1 The process, which included an extensive studies2 and construction design, as well as pre-application conferences with DEP staff, culminated in the filing of the Application on July 30, 2003. The Application proposed to dredge sand from an ebb shoal (i.e., a near-shore) borrow area south of (i.e., offshore from) East Pass in eastern Okaloosa County, using either a cutter head dredge (which disturbs the sand on the bottom of the borrow area and vacuums it into a pipeline which delivers it to the project area) or a hopper dredge (which fills itself and is moved to the project site). On the project site, heavy equipment moves the dredged sand as specified in the design plans. The project is executed in this manner and progresses along the beach, usually at a pace of about 300-500 feet a day. Each day work is in progress, public access to the beach is restricted for a length of about 500-1000 feet in the immediate vicinity of the area of beach being worked. Water Quality Increased turbidity is the primary water quality concern in a project of this nature. Increased turbidity can adversely impact submerged seagrasses and hard-bottom habitat, along with the benthic communities depending on them. When sand in the borrow area is disturbed by dredging, sand and silt become suspended and increase turbidity to some extent and for some duration, depending primarily on the nature of the bottom material and the dredging method. (The cutter head dredge vacuums most if not all of the disturbed sand and silt into the pipeline while, by comparison, the hopper dredge would result in higher turbidity in the water in the borrow area.) Sand delivered to the project site via pipeline must remain suspended in water for transport. When the sand is deposited on the beach, the excess water, with suspended particulate matter, will drain off and return to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if hopper dredges are used, and if material is deposited on the project site other than via pipeline, some of the material will be deposited in the littoral zone, and some material deposited landward of the waterline will be inundated by the tides and wave action and potentially re-suspended in water in the littoral zone. If the water is turbid upon discharge in the littoral zone, the near-shore can become more turbid. Sand Quality The primary determinant of the amount and duration of turbidity generated in the borrow area and in the littoral zone of the project site is the quality of the bottom material in the chosen borrow area. The coarser the material, the less turbidity. The best quality bottom material usually is found in the kind of borrow area proposed for use in the Application. Sand in the borrow area came from some of Florida's finest beaches. It has been cleaned of fine material (silt) not only by wave action but also as the sand moved along shore in the littoral zone and by the currents in the East Pass inlet. Numerous tests of the bottom material in the proposed ebb shoal borrow for the project indicate that it generally has less than one percent silt. Expert witnesses for the City, County, and DEP testified that, with such low silt content, turbidity increases of no more than 5-10 Nephalometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background levels are expected at the edge of the mixing zone--150 meters down- current from the borrow area, and down-current and offshore from the discharge points on the beach. Moreover, they testified that turbidity levels are expected to return to background levels quickly (i.e., within an hour or so.) SOB and STBR questioned whether the experts could be certain of their testimony based on the test results. But SOB and STBR called no expert to contradict the testimony, and it is found that the expert testimony was persuasive. Standard Mixing Zone Initially, the City and County applied for a variance from the turbidity standards to allow them to exceed 29 NTUs more than 150 but less than 1660 meters down-current from the borrow area, and down-current and offshore from the discharge points, based on Attachment H, the Water Quality Impact analysis in the Application. The analysis was based on an assumption of five percent silt content in the bottom material in the borrow area. SOB and STBR attempted to use the five percent assumption to impeach the expert testimony on water quality. But when the quality of the bottom material was ascertained to be less than one percent, the variance request was withdrawn at DEP's request as being unnecessary and therefore inappropriate. SOB and STBR also argued in their PRO that, if a 1660-meter mixing zone was needed for five percent fines, then a 332-meter mixing zone would be needed for one percent fines. This argument was based entirely on counsel's arithmetic extrapolation. There was no evidence in the record from which to ascertain the validity of the extrapolation. In addition, the evidence was that the bottom material in the borrow area in this case will be less than one percent fines. Shore-Parallel Sand Dike Specific Condition 6 of the Draft Permit requires the permittee to "construct and maintain a shore-parallel sand dike at the beach placement area at all times during hydraulic discharge on the beach to meet turbidity standards prescribed by this permit." The shore-parallel sand dike is essentially a wall of sand built parallel to the shoreline to keep the sand slurry (the mixture of sand and water) being pumped onto the beach from washing back in the water, thereby giving the materials more time to settle out of the water before the water returns to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if this condition were not in the Draft Permit, the City and County would be required to build the dike since it is part of their design for construction of the Project. Turbidity Monitoring The Application included a proposal to monitor turbidity, and the Draft Permit includes the proposed monitoring as a Specific Condition 38. Every six hours during dredging and pumping operations, the City and County are required to sample 150 meters down-current of the borrow area, and down-current and offshore of the discharge point, and report the results to DEP within a week. In addition, Specific Condition 38 requires work to stop if turbidity standards are exceeded, which must be reported immediately. Work may not proceed "until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels." If more than one exceedence of the turbidity standard is reported, DEP will require the City and County to redesign the project to address and cure the problem. These conditions are part of the reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan Pursuant to Special Condition 4.b. of the Draft Permit, the City and County are required to do a Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan, which requires them to measure the quality of the sand as it comes out of the pipeline before it can cause a turbidity problem. If the dredge hits pockets of bad material, which is not expected in this case, work could be stopped before it creates a turbidity problem. Absence of Natural Resources in Project Area DEP performed side-scan sonar tests in the vicinity of both the borrow site and near-shore in the Project area and determined that there were no hard bottoms or seagrasses in either area. Therefore, there are no natural resources within the project area that would be covered or placed in jeopardy by a turbidity plume. Reasonable Assurance Given For all of these reasons, the City and County have provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. Required Riparian Interest Generally, and in the beach nourishment project area, the BOT owns seaward of the mean high water line (MHWL). The City and County own some but not all of the beachfront landward of the MHWL.3 In anticipation of the beach nourishment project, the City and County had the MHWL surveyed as of September 7, 2003.4 The surveys state that the MHWL as of that date shall also be known as the ECL. The surveys also depict the landward and seaward limits of construction and the predicted post-construction MHWL. The surveys indicate that construction is planned to take place both landward and seaward of the ECL. The predicted post-construction MHWL is seaward of the ECL. By resolution, the BOT approved the surveys and established the ECLs for the Project. The City survey was approved, and ECL established, on December 30, 2004; the County survey was approved, and ECL established, on January 25, 2005. The BOT's decisions are being challenged in court. If the decisions are upheld, the BOT intends to file its resolutions and record the surveys. There was no evidence that the City and County have an easement or the consent of all of the other beachfront owners to undertake the proposed beach nourishment project. Some of the other beachfront owners do not consent, including members of SOB and STBR. Standing SOB was incorporated not-for-profit in Florida on January 28, 2004. STBR was incorporated not-for-profit in Florida on February 16, 2004. Both were incorporated to protect and defend the natural resources of the beaches, protect private property rights, and seek redress of past, present, and future unauthorized and/or inappropriate beach restoration activities. No evidence was presented by any party as to whether SOB and STBR have filed their annual reports with the Department of State, and no party filed a Department of State certificate of status as to either SOB or STBR. STBR has six members, all owners of beachfront property in the area of the proposed beach nourishment project.5 SOB has approximately 150 members. These members own approximately 112 properties in the City, approximately 62 of which are beachfront and the rest condominium units of beachfront condominium developments. However, it is not clear from the evidence how many of these beachfront properties are in the area of the proposed beach nourishment project (beyond the four owned by Linda Cherry, who testified). The testimony of Slade Lindsey was sufficient, together with member affidavits, to prove that all six members of STBR use the beaches and waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Project area for swimming, fishing, boating, and/or enjoying beach and Gulf vistas. As a result, the construction of the Project will affect their interests at least during the time construction is taking place near their property. If the Project were to result in violations of water quality standards for turbidity, their interests would be affected as long as the violations lasted and perhaps longer if lasting damage to natural resources were to result. However, as found, there will not be any lasting damage to natural resources, and reasonable assurance was given that no water quality violations will occur and that exceedences of water quality standards in the mixing zone will be of short duration, lasting for no longer than an hour. These effects will not be substantial. The evidence was not sufficient to prove that construction of the Project will affect the interests of a substantial number of the members of SOB. First, it was not clear how many of them own beachfront property or even condominium units in developments adjacent to the Project area. Second, the only witness on the subject, Linda Cherry, does not know all of SOB's members and did not state how many of the 39 SOB members who signed affidavits as to their use of the beaches and waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Project area are known to the witness. Even if a substantial number would be affected, their interests would be affected no more than the STBR members' interests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Draft Permit DEP JCP File No. 0218419-001-JC. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 30th day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Delbert W. Ogden holds license number CR 0051562 as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida. He held this registration at all times material to this action. Mr. Ogden was the qualifying agent for Sealtite Roofing and Waterproofing, Inc. from December 15, 1986 through May 30, 1987. The Watkins Contract On April 1, 1987, Sealtite Roofing and Waterproofing entered into a contract with Pauline Watkins (Ms. Watkins' name is now Pauline Watkins- Biddulph), to replace the roof on her home. The work included both a cement tile roof and a flat gravel roof. In her dealings with Sealtite Ms. Watkins dealt with a salesman, Tom Pagano. She never dealt with Mr. Ogden. Sealtite Roofing agreed to provide a written warranty on the roofing work for a period of 10 years. It delivered the Warranty when the work was completed. Ms. Watkins made a deposit with Sealtite at the time the contract was signed. A further amount was paid to Sealtite when the work has halfway finished, on April 27, 1987, and the final payment was made when the work was completed on May 1, 1987. At the time the house was reroofed, the weather was dry. After rain which occurred in late June, 1987, (almost two months after the work had been completed) Ms. Watkins had a number of leaks, the most serious being a leak in the kitchen. Ms. Watkins notified Mr. Pagano of the problem on June 30; the next day an inspector from Sealtite came to the house. Ms. Watkins then spoke with the office manager of Sealtite who informed her that the roofing would be removed and all water damage would be repaired, that new material to replace the roof had been ordered, and the new roofing material should arrive so that the corrective work could be done during the week of July 6, 1987. No one came in early July to repair the damage, so Ms. Watkins contacted the engineering department of the building division of the Village of North Palm Beach. Nothing came of that contact. Ms. Watkins again called the building inspector for the Village of North Palm Beach on July 22 and was advised to contact the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, because by that time Sealtite's phone had been disconnected. On July 23, 1987, a Mr. Slee, the owner of Sealtite, informed Ms. Watkins that her roof would be inspected again the next day. On July 24, two men appeared at Ms. Watkins' home, inspected the roof and left without speaking with Ms. Watkins. Ultimately, by August 13, 1987, Ms. Watkins complained to investigators with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation about the roofing company's failure to honor its warranty. On August 14, 1987 she was contacted by a Mr. Greg Martin, who claimed to be the qualifier for Sealtite at that time, and Mr. Slee. They were to arrange for repair of the roof by August 31, 1987, but they never did so. Mr. Ogden Delbert Ogden had disagreements with Mr. Slee, the owner of Sealtite Roofing, which caused him to resign as the qualifier for Sealtite with the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board. His letter of resignation was mailed to the Palm Beach County Board on April 27, 1987. He followed this action with a latter to the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, resigning as the qualifier for Sealtite with the State on May 14, 1987. As a result of his letter to the State, he received a receipt from the Jacksonville office of the Construction Industry Licensing Board on May 30, 1987, acknowledging that his license was placed on an inactive status. Mr. Ogden's first contact with Ms. Watkins was on November 6, 1987. He suggested that Ms. Watkins retain a lawyer to sue Mr. Slee and Sealtite. Ms. Watkins declined, maintaining that the dispute was between Mr. Ogden as the qualifier and Mr. Slee as the owner of the corporation which Mr. Ogden had qualified. Necessary Repairs Due to the inadequate work that was done on Ms. Watkins' roof by Sealtite, the roof had to be repaired. She paid $2,572.50 to remove and replace the roof Sealtite had installed, and also paid B & N Building Services $950.25 to repair the kitchen and porch ceilings and to replace a beam. She also paid 375 for new drywall, a repair to another damaged ceiling and other work done by another repair firm. Mr. Ogden's Past History with the Board On two occasions complaints had been made about Mr. Ogden's work to the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On September 9, 1987, the Board chairman signed a closing order finding there was probable cause to believe that Mr. Ogden did not obtain a permit in a timely manner, and on January 7, 1988, the chairman signed a closing order finding probable cause that Mr. Ogden had failed to honor a guarantee for work on a residential room addition. In both cases, Ogden was sent a letter of guidance. It appears that as the result of receiving the letter of guidance, Mr. Ogden was never provided an opportunity to formally dispute either of the complaints made against him. The mere fact that the Board found probable cause to believe Mr. Ogden may have violated Chapter 489 on prior occasions in no way proves that Mr. Ogden was actually guilty of misconduct on either occasion. There is no factual basis in the record for concluding that Mr. Ogden has been guilty of misconduct on prior occasions.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against Delbert W. Ogden be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute my rulings on proposed findings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Findings Proposed by Department Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 4 Covered in paragraph 4. Covered in paragraph 4. Covered in paragraph 4. Covered in paragraph 4. Covered in paragraph 7. Subsidiary to the first clause in paragraph 7. To the extent relative, covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 1. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected for the reasons stated In finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Delbert W. Ogden 360 Selve Terrace West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Drawer 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent Howard B. Berman has been a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0178090. At all times material hereto Respondent Michael J. Weil has been a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0179132. At all times material hereto Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc., has been a corporation licensed as a broker having been issued license number 0196048. Although Respondent Berman was a director of Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc. since at least March 7, 1979, he did not become an officer or stockholder in that corporate broker until December of 1982 or January of 1983. Although Respondent Weil was a director of Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc. since at least March 7, 1979, he did not become an officer or stockholder in that corporate broker until January of 1984. Prior to the time that Respondent Berman and Respondent Weil became officers and stockholders of Paramount Realty, Inc., they were not employed by Paramount but rather had an independent contractor relationship with that corporate broker. On or about June 13, 1979, Respondent Weil, acting as trustee for himself and for Respondent Berman, entered into a contract to purchase a certain parcel of land located in Broward County, Florida, with the intent of developing that land by building a condominium thereon. On or about October 18, 1979, Respondent Weil as trustee sold the above-referenced parcel of land to an investors group known as North Beach Development Group, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, which the Respondents organized. The general partner in that limited partnership was North Beach Development Company, a Florida corporation, in which none of the Respondents had an interest. On or about October 18, 1979, Respondents Berman and Weil, as employees of North Beach, Inc., a Florida corporation, negotiated and obtained a consultation agreement between North Beach Development Group, Ltd. and North Beach, Inc. under which Respondents Berman and Weil would provide consultation services in connection with the development of a 34 unit condominium complex on the above-referenced parcel of land. On or about October 19, 1979, the general partner North Beach Development Company, and each of its stockholders, and each of the limited partners of North Beach Development Group Ltd. executed an Approval, Consent and Ratification agreement approving the above mentioned consultation agreement, establishing Respondent Paramount as the exclusive real estate agent for the condominium units, and approving the purchase by Respondents Berman and Weil of condominium units Nos. 604 and 607 for a combined total purchase price of $185,000. Prior to the creation of North Beach Development Group, Ltd., Respondents Berman and Weil placed $25,000 of their moneys on deposit under the contract to purchase the above-referenced land. During the existence of the limited partnership Respondents Berman and Weil loaned approximately $40,000 to the partnership. Respondents Berman and Weil also personally guaranteed the three million dollar construction loan involved in the project. Accordingly, both Respondents Berman and Weil had their personal funds at risk in the development of the condominium project. At no time did either Respondent Berman or Respondent Weil represent to Pat Dalton or any other investor or potential investor that either or both of them had invested or would invest any of their personal moneys in either the general partner North Beach Development Company or the partnership North Beach Development Group, Ltd. Five changes were made to Respondent Berman's unit 604, the total cost of all five changes being approximately $2,300. On May 19 and May 20, 1981, two checks were written off the account of North Beach Development Group, Ltd. to pay for the five changes to unit 604. On May 26, 1981, Respondent Berman (and his wife) closed on their purchase of unit 604. At the closing, Respondent Berman totally reimbursed North Beach Development Group, Ltd. the moneys it spent six days earlier for the five changes to unit 604.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered finding Respondents Howard B. Berman, Michael J. Well and Paramount Realty, Inc., not guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against them and dismissing that Amended Administrative Complaint with prejudice. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard S. Rachlin, Esquire 1810 New World Tower 100 N. Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132
