The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent Rick E. McCoy is guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-30.005, Florida Administrative Code; and (b) if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 38725. On May 17, 1995, Respondent signed and sealed Standard Dock System Drawings 1 and 2. The drawings signed and sealed by Respondent on May 17, 1995, do not show design load criteria for wind loads and gravity load imposed on the structure. The drawings signed and sealed by Respondent on May 17, 1995, do not show the details for the assembly of the laminated lift beam to the structure. On December 1, 1998, Respondent submitted a signed and sealed document enclosing a post splice detail drawing and calculations for a typical dock post splice to the Building Department as an addendum to Respondent's dock design already on file. The post splice detail drawing and calculations show only tension load capacity and do not show compression, moment, and shear capacity or limitation of the splice design. Respondent submitted a letter to the Building Department advising it of the revised detail for a typical dock post splice. The only documents that Petitioner will rely upon to tend to prove that Respondent committed negligence as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint are: (a) the expert report of Nasir Alam, P.E., and Iqbal Shaikh, P.E., dated August 15, 2001; (b) the law and rules governing professional engineers; (c) Respondent's Standard Dock System Drawings 1 and 2; and (d) the investigative report in the instant case. The only documents that Petitioner will rely upon to prove that Respondent committed negligence as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint are: (a) the expert report of Nasir Alam, P.E., and Iqbal Shaikh, P.E., dated August 15, 2001; (b) the law and rules governing professional engineers; and (c) Respondent's December 1, 1992, document enclosing a post splice detail drawing and calculations for a typical dock post splice. The only documents that Petitioner will rely upon to prove that Respondent committed a violation of Rule 61G15-30.005, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint are: (a) the December 1, 1998, letter from Respondent to D.T. Greiner, the Building Department's director; (b) calculations prepared by WTL Engineering, Inc., dated November 23, 1998; and (c) a dock post details drawing signed and sealed by Mr. Lindemann on November 23, 1998. Respondent was charged with negligence in the practice of engineering by Petitioner in FEMC Case No. 99-00059. FEMC Case No. 99-00059 was returned to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Professional Engineers and the complaint was dismissed without further prosecution. The master dock plan at issue in FEMC Case No. 99-00059 is the same master dock plan at issue in FEMC Case No. 01-0022, the instant case. Petitioner's prosecution of Respondent in FEMC Case No. 01-0022, the instant case, pertains to Respondent's master dock plan or the dock post splice detail or other revisions or other supplements to that master dock plan. FEMC Case No. 01-0022, the instant case, does not allege any facts that are not relevant to Respondent's master dock plan or the post splice detail or other revisions or other supplements to that master dock plan. The Administrative Complaint in FEMC Case No. 01-0022, the instant case, pertains to actions or omissions taken by Respondent before October 22, 1999. FEMC Case No. 01-0022, the instant case, does not allege any facts that are not relevant to Respondent's actions or omissions before October 22, 1999. The Florida Legislature has not amended Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statues, since October 22, 1999. The Board of Professional Engineers has not amended Rule 61G15-30.005, Florida Administrative Code, since October 22, 1999. The Florida Legislature has not amended the investigative and prosecutorial powers granted to Petitioner in Section 471.038(3), Florida Statutes, since October 22, 1999. FEMC Case No. 01-0022, the instant case, is not supported by any facts that have occurred since October 22, 1999. FEMC Case No. 01-0022, the instant case, is not supported by any laws or rules that have been enacted, adopted, or amended since October 22, 1999. No events relevant to FEMC Case No. 01-0022 have occurred since October 22, 1999. Joseph Dougherty furnished information to Petitioner, which was relied upon or referred to in FEMC Case No. 99-00059. Joseph Dougherty furnished information to Petitioner, which was relied upon or referred to in FEMC Case No. 01-0022, the instant case. Facts Determined at Hearing Respondent's professional engineering experience primarily involves land development with a focus on drainage, water, and sewer. Prior to signing and sealing the engineering documents at issue here, Respondent had never designed a structure as a licensed professional engineer. Ken Norquist owns Norquist Construction Company, Inc. (Norquist Construction). Since its creation in 1972, the company has constructed approximately 200 boat docks in Lake County, Florida. In 1995, the Building Department started requiring contractors to present engineering plans in order to receive building permits for the construction of boat docks. The Building Department did not require the plans to identify a specific project. Instead, the Building Department required a contractor to identify the project when he pulled the building permit. The building department held the contractor and not the engineer responsible for project administration on such specific projects. In 1995, the Building Department requested Mr. Norquist to file some standard dock drawings. The Building Department made this request because Mr. Norquist was building the same kind of dock over and over again. In 1995, Mr. Norquist requested Respondent to review drawings that the construction company allegedly had utilized to build docks in Lake County, Florida, for several years. In fact, the construction company had not used any engineering drawings in the construction of the boat docks because, according to Mr. Norquist, they were "cookie cutter" stuff. By letter dated May 17, 1995, Respondent submitted a signed and sealed Standard Dock Design to the Building Department. The letter stated that the design had been developed in conjunction with Norquist Construction. The letter stated that Mr. Norquist had successfully constructed the design numerous times in the past. The letter requested the Building Department to place the design on file in an effort to simplify future permit requests for Norquist Construction. Respondent reviewed but did not create the drawings for the Standard Dock Design (master plan) that he signed, sealed, and submitted on May 17, 1995. There is no evidence that Respondent was ever retained to become the engineer of record for the construction of any specific boat dock that the Building Department permitted and that Mr. Norquist constructed using the master plans. Respondent never visited the site of any such construction; no one ever requested him to do so. Respondent considered the following in reviewing the master plan: (a) boat docks constructed consistent with the drawings would withstand a 100-mile per hour wind load and gravity loads of 100-pounds per square inch; (b) six-by-six inch posts would result in a safe structure; (c) the boat docks, if constructed pursuant to the master plan, would be safe because the displayed dock enclosure measured 10 x 24 feet and the largest boat that could fit in the enclosure was approximately 2,500 to 4,000 pounds; (d) the boat docks would withstand gravity loads of an 8,000-pound boat; and (e) an 8,000-pound boat stored in the dock would cause only a quarter-inch of deflection in the structure. Respondent reached these conclusions but did not show them on any of his plans. Respondent made several changes to Mr. Norquist's drawings. Respondent changed the drawing to show the posts being inserted into the lake bottom five feet and not three feet as originally shown and to show braces installed on the posts. Respondent's master plan did not show that the posts were spliced. The record is unclear as to when Respondent first became aware that the posts were spliced. Respondent did not provide a detail for the assembly of the boatlift on the drawings because it is a pre-engineered structure. Respondent knew that the owner of the dock would choose the boatlift on a specific project. Mr. Norquist did not request Respondent to design the details for optional boatlifts that might or might not be installed on a specific boat dock. In March of 1997, the Building Department issued a permit to Norquist Construction to build a boat dock for John Winner in Lake County, Florida. The master plan was included in the permit documents. There is no evidence that Respondent was aware of this particular permit in 1997. The construction of the Winner boat dock was completed in April 1997. In June 1997, the Building Department issued another permit to Norquist Construction to build a boat dock for Patricia Harvey who subsequently married Joe Dougherty. Respondent was not aware of this permit when it was issued in 1997. The Winner and Dougherty boat docks subsequently were under water for approximately 96 days until the water in the lake receded. The owners of the docks became dissatisfied with the condition of their docks. On August 25, 1997, Respondent submitted a revision to the Standard Dock Design for Norquist Construction to the Building Department. In 1998, Mr. Norquist requested Respondent to analyze the way in which Mr. Norquist was using post splices in the construction of boat docks. Post splices were not shown on the master plan even though Mr. Norquist had been using them in the construction of boat docks for 15 years. In fact, every dock that Mr. Norquist constructed utilized such dock post splices. The post splices were necessary to allow for the elevation of the docks in the event that the lake had unusually high water. Respondent performed an analysis and concluded that Mr. Norquist's post splices were safe. However, in an abundance of caution, Respondent requested Mr. Lindemann to review the post splice connection for Mr. Norquist. Respondent made it clear to Mr. Lindemann that he would be working for Mr. Norquist and not Respondent. Before beginning his analysis, Mr. Lindemann confirmed with Mr. Norquist that the dock post splice would be used to support an open pier, without columns and a shelter, to which a 3,000-pound boat could tie up. Mr. Lindemann then reviewed the dock post splice construction as requested. He determined that the dock post splices would resist an uplift exerted by a boat. He tested the tension loads that could be sustained by the boat docks and concluded that a boat dock constructed with the splice would sustain more than 3,000 pounds of uplift. On April 15, 1998, Mr. Lindemann signed and sealed a drawing of a post splice connection with a maximum uplift not to exceed 5,000 pounds. Mr. Lindemann did not create the drawing but signed and sealed the one already in the possession of Mr. Norquist. On June 18, 1998, Respondent signed and sealed what appears to be Mr. Lindemann's April 15, 1998, drawing. However, Respondent's drawing shows a maximum uplift not to exceed 3,000 pounds and contains some notes not included with Mr. Lindemann's drawing. On August 28, 1998, Respondent submitted a standard post connection detail to the Building Department. The cover letter states that the post connection detail had been developed in connection with Norquist Construction. The drawing was an addendum to the dock design on file with the Building Department. In the Fall of 1998, Mr. Norquist requested Mr. Lindemann to prepare additional post splice detail drawings and calculations for tension load. Mr. Lindemann once again made sure that the post splice detail was not supposed to include columns for boat shelters. Thereafter, Mr. Lindemann complied with this request, signing and sealing the drawings and calculations on November 23, 1998. The calculations show that the dock would withstand 11,900 pounds of uplift. By letter dated December 1, 1998, Respondent advised the Building Department that he was submitting revised detail for a typical dock post splice developed in conjunction with WTL Engineering, Mr. Lindemann's firm. The letter stated that the documents were submitted as an addendum to the dock design currently on file. The Building Department received Respondent's December 1, 1998, letter on December 21, 1998. The December 1, 1998, letter covered the post splice detail drawing signed and sealed by Mr. Lindemann on November 23, 1998. The documents did not identify a specific project or include other information such as load criteria, which is generally required on structural engineering documents for a specific structure. The documents became part of the master plan that was not site specific. When Respondent submitted Mr. Lindemann's November 23, 1998, post spice detail drawings and calculation to the Building Department, he adopted and incorporated Mr. Lindemann's work into the master plan. However, Respondent's submittal of Mr. Lindemann's work does not indicate that Respondent "delegated" responsibility for the drawings and calculations to Mr. Lindemann or that Mr. Lindemann was the "delegated engineer" for a component of the master plan because Mr. Lindemann performed the work for Mr. Norquist, not Respondent. In February 1999, the Building Department wrote Mr. Dougherty a letter regarding his boat dock. The letter stated that the Building Department had requested and Mr. Norquist had submitted certain engineering documents for the boat dock. The letter advised that the Building Department could not complete inspections of the boat dock until Mr. Dougherty allowed Mr. Norquist on the property to finish the construction. In February 1999, a Circuit Judge conducted a civil trial in Winner v. Norquist Construction Company, Inc., Circuit Court Case No. 98-163-CA. In that trial, Mr. Lindemann testified that he was only requested to design a splice that would withstand 3,000 pounds of uplift but he had designed one that would withstand 11,900 pounds of uplift. On April 22, 1999, the judge entered a Final Judgment finding that Mr. Winner was not entitled to damages. By letter dated May 7, 1999, an attorney representing Mr. Winner and Mr. Dougherty filed a complaint with Petitioner. The complaint alleged that Respondent's master plan did not show a splice joint detail and that such detail had been filed with the Building Department after the Winner boat dock had been completed. The letter raised engineering concerns regarding the engineering drawings, the splice joints including their ability to withstand 100-mile per hour wind, and the piling depth. Petitioner received this complaint on May 10, 1999. Under cover of a letter dated May 12, 1999, the attorney representing Mr. Winner and Mr. Dougherty sent Petitioner a report prepared by an engineering intern under the direction of Ted Holtz, P.E. According to the report, the intern had examined the Winner boat dock and concluded that it would not withstand 100-mile per hour wind. The report also discussed the adequacy or inadequacy of the structure in relation to moment, shear, and deflection, among other things. Based on the complaint filed on behalf of Mr. Winner and Mr. Dougherty, Petitioner initiated investigations to determine if Respondent and/or Mr. Lindemann were guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering contrary to Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes. These investigations resulted in FEMC Case No. 99-00059 against Respondent and FEMC Case No. 99-00092 against Mr. Lindemann. On or about July 14, 1999, Stanley Ink, P.E., one of Petitioner's consulting engineers, reported on his review of the case against Respondent. Mr. Ink reached the following conclusions: (a) the master plan did not show column splices or code criteria for live or wind loads; (b) anchors were noted in the plans but fasteners were not specified; (c) No. 4 pine lumber was specified in the plans; (d) Respondent's and Mr. Lindemann's splice drawings do not address moment, shear, height of the post, or the maximum load on the post; (e) if a boatlift were installed as set forth in the master plan, it would increase loads and forces to the posts; (f) the location and weight limitations on the boatlift were not specified in the plans; (g) the master plans were not adequate for the pictured docks because they left too much for a contractor to assume; the Building Department should not have allowed a permit to be issued with this master plan and post splice detail; and both engineers should have placed limits on the splice detail. On or about August 12, 1999, Mr. Ink filed a report on his review of the case against Mr. Lindemann. Mr. Ink reached the following conclusions: (a) it appears that Respondent is the project engineer with Mr. Lindemann brought into the case because he signed a splice detail that was included in the file; the splice detail signed by Mr. Lindemann in April 1998 is the same detail that Respondent signed after removing Mr. Lindemann's name and changing the date; (c) Mr. Lindemann should not be charged with any violation but he should be cautioned to put a specific limitation on any future drawings; and (d) if Mr. Lindemann had stated that the splice was to be used in tension only applications, it could not have been used on (the Winner or Dougherty) dock. On October 6, 1999, Petitioner's Probable Cause Panel met to consider the FEMC Case No. 99-00092 against Mr. Lindemann. The panel concluded that there was no probable cause to issue an administrative complaint against Mr. Lindemann. On October 19, 1999, Petitioner entered a Closing Order dismissing the FEMC Case No. 99-00092 against Mr. Lindemann. That same day, Petitioner sent Mr. Lindemann a letter advising him that the case was being dismissed. This letter did not contain a caution for Mr. Lindemann to place appropriate limitations on his drawings in the future. Based on Mr. Ink's report, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint dated October 22, 1999, against Respondent in FEMC Case No. 99-00059. Petitioner subsequently referred this complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings in DOAH Case No. 99-5136. The 1999 Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleged as follows: (a) Respondent signed, sealed, and submitted a master plan in 1995 and a revision to that plan in 1997 for use in the Building Department's dock permitting process; (b) Respondent signed and sealed the design of a dock post splice detail to supplement the master plan in August 1998; the master plan included a dock with a boatlift which increased loads and forces to dock posts; and (d) the splice detail design was deficient because it did not specify the location or weight limitations on the boatlift and because Respondent did not place any limitation on the use of the splice detail. By letter dated November 15, 1999, Mr. Lindemann offered his support to Respondent in defending himself before the Probable Cause Panel. Mr. Lindemann's letter stated that he had reviewed the master plans, finding them structurally adequate and in conformance with the building code adopted by the Building Department. Mr. Lindemann concurred with the master plan subject to its adaptation to a specific site with the owner specifying the boat load to be accommodated and subject to the Building Department performing inspections. On February 17, 2000, George Hovis, Esquire, representing Respondent, filed a Motion to Strike and Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, in DOAH Case No. 99-5136. The motion reviewed the following facts of the case: (a) Respondent did not design the splice used on the boatlift in question because the splice design was not created until after the boat dock was constructed; (b) the master plan dated May 17, 1995, did not contain a splice design and had never been questioned; (c) the August 25, 1997, master plan was filed months after the Winner dock was completed and had never been questioned; (d) Respondent filed the original L-splice design on August 28, 1998; (e) the record in Mr. Winner's civil trial against Mr. Norquist established that the November 23, 1998, drawing was prepared after the Winner dock was constructed; and (f) Respondent was not a party in the Winner civil suit. The motion alleged that Petitioner had ignored the rulings of the Circuit Judge in the Winner civil suit. On February 25, 2000, Petitioner filed a response in opposition to Respondent's Motion to Strike and Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees. The response states that, based on additional evidence submitted subsequent to the finding of probable cause, Petitioner's counsel had agreed to resubmit the DOAH Case No. 99-5136 against Respondent to the Probable Cause Panel. Subsequently, the Administrative Law Judge in DOAH Case No. 99-5136 placed the case in abeyance. In February 2000, Petitioner submitted the case against Respondent for review by James Power, P.E., another of Petitioner's consulting engineers. Mr. Power's report dated March 7, 2000, indicated that he reviewed the following: (a) the 1995 master plan; (b) the 1997 revision to the master plan; (c) the August 1998 standard post connection documents; and (d) the December 1999 submittal of a typical dock post splice developed in conjunction with Mr. Lindemann. In his report dated March 7, 2000, Mr. Power concluded as follows: (a) there was no evidence that Respondent ever accepted responsibility for the design, construction, or inspection of the Winner or Dougherty docks; (b) none of the drawings that Respondent signed and sealed referred to a specific project; (c) Respondent was not responsible for the Building Department's issuance of improper permits; and (d) there was no evidence to justify a charge against Respondent. By letter dated April 5, 2000, Petitioner's counsel advised the Building Department that Petitioner had filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging negligence in the practice of engineering due to structural deficiencies in the master plan. The letter stated that Petitioner was concerned because the Building Department was not requesting project-specific engineering plans but was issuing permits based on the master plan. On June 6, 2000, Mr. Power reviewed the file against Respondent for the second time. Once again he reached the following conclusions: (a) Respondent's submissions to the Building Department were not sufficiently complete to justify the issuance of building permits; (b) it was regrettable that Respondent allowed his drawings to be used like he did but that the Building Department was responsible for issuing the permits; (c) Respondent's drawings were of marginal quality but acceptable if supplemented by complete drawings of a specific installation; (d) the splice detail did not specify where or under what circumstances it was to be used; (e) the splice detail contained a drafting error; (f) Respondent was not obligated to provide a design for any structure which might make use of his splice detail; and (g) it was for an engineer of record, a role Respondent never undertook, to determine the suitability of the detail in a specific structure for which he had assumed design responsibility. In sum, Mr. Power disapproved of the Building Department's permitting policy and the manner in which Respondent's drawings were used, but he did not believe the evidence justified a charge of negligence against Respondent. After receiving Mr. Power's reports, Respondent's attorney and Petitioner's counsel agreed that Petitioner would resubmit the case against Respondent to the Probable Cause Panel with a recommendation to dismiss the case without further prosecution. Respondent agreed to withdraw his Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees and to specify all limitations on the use of his future drawings. Upon learning that Petitioner might dismiss the Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Mr. Dougherty became concerned. Petitioner's former president responded to Mr. Dougherty's concerns in a letter dated June 15, 2000. The letter stated that Petitioner's consulting engineer had concluded that Respondent was not negligent in preparing and submitting the master plan to the Building Department. The letter also stated that the Winner and Dougherty docks were not the same or similar to the dock in the master plan. According to the letter, there was no evidence that Respondent designed the Winner and Dougherty docks. On July 13, 2000, the Probable Cause Panel discussed the case against Respondent. Based on the prosecutor's recommendation and review of the entire file including Mr. Power's reports, the panel decided to find no probable cause and to dismiss the case against Respondent without further prosecution. On July 28, 2000, the Probable Cause Panel issued a Closing Order in FEMC Case No. 99-00059. The Order stated that the case would be dismissed with a letter to Respondent advising him in the future to specify on his plans conditions under which his seal was not valid. On August 2, 2000, Petitioner's counsel filed a Status Report in DOAH Case No. 99-5136. This pleading stated that the Probable Cause Panel had reconsidered the case, closing it without further prosecution. The pleading requested that the Administrative Law Judge close the file. By letter dated August 2, 2000, Petitioner advised Respondent that the Probable Cause Panel had reconsidered his case and directed the case to be dismissed without further prosecution. The letter also advised Respondent that in the future he should specify on the face of his plans any limitations or conditions under which his seal would not be valid. Respondent has complied with this request. The Administrative Law Judge entered an Order Closing File in DOAH Case No. 99-5136 on August 17, 2000. Subsequently, Mr. Dougherty contacted Petitioner's prosecuting attorney by telephone. The prosecuting attorney advised Mr. Dougherty that if Petitioner were presented with new evidence showing that Respondent was the engineer of record for his dock, Petitioner would reopen the case against Respondent. In February 2001, Mr. Dougherty furnished Petitioner with the deposition testimony of one of the Building Department's inspectors. The deposition testimony had been taken in August 22, 2000, in conjunction with a civil suit filed by Mr. Dougherty against Norquist Construction. See Joseph Dougherty and Patricia Dougherty v. Norquist Construction Company, Inc., Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and for Lake County, Florida, Circuit Court Case No. 98-986 CA. The deposition testimony indicated that Respondent was the engineer of record for the Dougherty boat dock. This was the first time that the deposition testimony had been provided to Petitioner. Mr. Dougherty's second complaint also included the following: (a) a copy of Mr. Lindemann's November 15, 1999, letter, offering to support Respondent in his defense of Petitioner's 1999 case against Respondent; (b) a report prepared by R. Alan Lougheed of Lougheed Resource Group, Inc.; and (c) a report prepared by Robert White. After receiving Mr. Dougherty's second complaint, Petitioner's investigator reviewed Respondent's and Mr. Lindemann's files. He determined that, in the prior cases against Respondent and Mr. Lindemann, Petitioner had overlooked whether the master plan and post splice detail contained information regarding the capacity of structures built pursuant to the plans to withstand a 100-mile per hour wind. Therefore, Petitioner's investigator concluded that Mr. Dougherty's second complaint did not represent an exact duplicate of the 1999 cases against Respondent and Mr. Lindemann. Mr. Dougherty's second complaint resulted in the opening of FEMC Case Nos. 01-0022 and 01-0023 against Respondent and Mr. Lindemann respectively. Petitioner's investigator referred Respondent's file to another consulting engineer, Iqbal Shaikh, P.E. The purpose of the referral was to determine once again if Respondent and/or Mr. Lindemann had committed negligence in the practice of engineering. In a report dated August 16, 2001, Iqbal Shaikh, P.E., reviewed the following documents: (a) Mr. Dougherty's second complaint; (b) the 1995 master plan; (c) the August 28, 1998, post connection splice detail; (d) Mr. Lindemann's November 15, 1999, letter; (e) Mr. Lindemann's November 23, 1998, post splice drawings and calculations; (f) the August 22, 2000, deposition testimony of the building inspector; and (g) an inspection report prepared by Lougheed Resource Group, Inc. Mr. Shaikh's report found that Respondent's work was deficient for the following reasons: (a) the 1995 master plan did not identify the project, show design load criteria for wind loads and gravity load, or show the details for the assembly of the laminated lift beam; and (b) the December 1998 submittal of Mr. Lindemann's November 23, 1998, post splice drawings and calculations did not identify the project and did not show compression, moment, and shear capacity of the splice. Mr. Shaikh's report concluded that Mr. Lindemann's November 23, 1998, post splice detail drawings and calculations were deficient because the documents failed to identify the project and failed to show compression, moment, and shear capacity or limitation of the splice design. Based on Mr. Shaikh's report, Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint against Respondent in FEMC Case No. 01-0022. Petitioner also issued the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Lindemann in FEMC Case No. 01-0023. The parties agreed to present the deposition testimony of Mr. Power in lieu of testimony at hearing. Mr. Power testified that he would not rely solely on the testimony of a building inspector to determine whether Respondent was engineer of record for a project. Mr. Power reaffirmed his earlier opinions that Respondent was not the engineer of record for any specific dock and that he was not guilty of negligence of violating a rule because the master plan and parts thereof were not site specific. Mr. Power's testimony is credited here. On the other hand, Petitioner presented the testimony of Nasir Alam, P.E., another of Petitioner's consulting engineers and a member of Mr. Shaikh's firm. Mr. Alam testified that Respondent was the engineer of record for any project constructed using the master plan signed and sealed by Respondent. Mr. Alam testified that Respondent was engineer of record for the November 23, 1998, post splice detail drawings and calculations created by Mr. Lindemann if Respondent submitted the documents after delegating the responsibility to Mr. Lindemann to create or review the them. Mr. Alam also testified that it was immaterial to this case whether Respondent was engineer of record for the Dougherty dock because the master plan and post splice detail drawings and calculations on their face represented the negligent practice of engineering. Mr. Alam's testimony is not persuasive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint and denying Respondent request for attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 9th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Riley, Esquire Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189 George E. Hovis, Esquire Gray, Harris & Robinson, P.A. Post Office Drawer 120848 Clermont, Florida 34712-0848 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue is whether Terry Carlson's application to construct and install a single-family dock in Lee County, Florida, is exempt from the need for an Environmental Resource Permit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: On April 27, 2007, Mr. Carlson filed with the Department an application to modify a single-family dock in a man-altered waterbody in Section 13, Township 46 South, Range 23 East, Lee County (County), Florida. In geographic terms, the property is located at 18570 Deep Passage Lane, which is at the base of a peninsula which extends for around one-half mile south of Siesta Drive, a roadway that appears to be in an unincorporated area of the County between the Cities of Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach. See Carlson Exhibits 10A and 10B. Although Respondents have not stipulated to the facts necessary to establish Petitioner's standing, that issue is not identified in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation as being in dispute. Because no member of the Association testified at final hearing, the number of members in the Association, the number who operate boats and their size, and the nature and purpose of the organization are not of record.5 It can be inferred from the record at the final hearing, however, that at least one member of the Association, Mr. Kowalski, who lives at 12228 Siesta Drive, operates a boat on the affected waterway. Carlson Exhibits 10A and 10B are maps of the general area and reflect that Siesta Drive begins at an intersection with San Carlos Boulevard (also known as County Road 865) to the east and terminates a few hundred yards to the west. (County Road 865 is a major roadway which connects Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach.) On the south side of Siesta Drive are three man- made, finger-shaped canals, which extend to the south and provide access for boaters to the Gulf of Mexico. According to one expert, the finger canals are between one-fourth and three- quarters of a mile in length. The canals run in a straight line south for perhaps two-thirds of their length, then bend slightly to the southwest at "elbows" located a few hundred feet north of their outlets. Basins are located at the northern end of each canal. The third canal is the western most of the three canals and is at issue here. Carlson Exhibit 9 (an aerial photograph) reflects that a number of single-family residences, virtually all of whom have docks, are located on both sides of two peninsulas which lie between the three canals. Mr. Carlson owns property on the southern end of the peninsula between the second and third finger canals. It can be inferred from the record that Mr. Kowalski resides in or close to the basin in the third canal. Boaters wishing to depart the third canal must travel south to the end of the canal, make a ninety-degree turn to the east, pass through a channel which lies directly south of Mr. Carlson's proposed dock, head slightly northeast for a short distance, and then make another ninety-degree turn to the south in order to gain access to a channel (directly south of the second finger canal) leading into Pelican Bay and eventually the Gulf of Mexico, approximately one mile away. Boaters entering the third finger canal would travel in a reverse direction. At the point where the dock will be constructed, the channel appears to be around two-hundred fifty feet wide (from the applicant's shoreline to a cluster of mangrove trees to the south), but much of the channel, as well as the three canals themselves, have a soft bottom consisting of sand and silt, which limits the speed and accessibility of vessels. The original application requested authorization to construct a floating dock anchored by concrete pilings at the southern end of the finger canal in front of Mr. Carlson's property. (The proposed dock replaces an older wooden dock which has now been removed.) That application represented that the dock is private and less than 1,000 square feet; it is not located in Outstanding Florida Waters; it will be used for recreational, noncommercial activities associated with the mooring or storage of boats and boat paraphernalia; it is the sole dock constructed pursuant to the requested exemption as measured along the shoreline for a minimum distance of sixty- five feet; no dredging or filling will occur except that which is necessary to install the pilings necessary to secure the dock in place; and based upon the depth of the water shown in accompanying documents and the dock's location, the dock will not substantially impede the flow of water or create a navigational hazard. These representations, if true, qualify the dock for an exemption from permitting by the Department. See § 403.813(2)(b), Fla. Stat.6; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.051(3)(b)1.-4. Based upon the information supplied in Mr. Carlson's application, Mark R. Miller, Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program Manager in the Department's South District Office (Fort Myers), issued a letter on May 8, 2007, advising Mr. Carlson that his application qualified for an exemption from Department permitting requirements and that the letter was his "authorization to use state owned submerged land (if applicable) for the construction of [his] project." After receiving the Department's first letter, Mr. Carlson elected not to publish notice of the Department's decision or provide notice by certified mail to any third parties.7 Therefore, third parties were not barred from challenging the Department's decision until after they received actual notice. The parties no longer dispute that after the Association received actual notice of the construction activities, it filed a request for a hearing within twenty-one days, or on December 26, 2007. Therefore, the request for a hearing is deemed to be timely. Section 403.813(2)(b)3., Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b)3. are identical in wording and provide that in order to qualify for an exemption, a dock "[s]hall not substantially impede the flow of water or create a navigation hazard." In its Petition, the Association contended that this requirement had not been satisfied. It also contended that the documents used in support of the initial application may not be valid. In the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the Association clarified this objection by contending that the exemption may have expired because site conditions have materially changed from those initially reviewed by the Department. This allegation is presumably based on the fact that during the course of this proceeding, Respondent submitted two revisions to its original construction plans. Sometime after the first letter was issued, new information came to light and on May 16, 2008, Mr. Miller issued a Revised Letter which stated that the Department had "determined that the proposed project as described in the above referenced application . . . does not involve the use of sovereignty submerged lands[,]" and that "no further authorization will be required from the Submerged lands and Environmental Resources Program." See Department Exhibit 2, which is a disclaimer for the relevant waters issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The effect of the disclaimer was to render Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 inapplicable to this proceeding. By the time the Revised Letter had been issued, the original application had been revised twice, the last occurring sometime prior to the issuance of the Revised Letter. Among other things, the size of the dock has been increased to 997 square feet, and the dock will be placed nineteen feet landward and westward (or twenty-five feet east of Mr. Carlson's western property boundary) of the initial dock design for the purpose of improving navigation and creating less of an inconvenience to other boaters. The dock will now be located twenty-five feet from the seawall and is approximately seventy feet long and eight feet, five inches wide. A gangplank and floating platforms provide a walkway from the seawall to the proposed dock. On the western edge of the dock, running perpendicular to the seawall, will be pilings that will accommodate a boat lift for one of Mr. Carlson's boats. (The record reflects that Mr. Carlson intends to moor a forty-eight-foot Viking with a width of approximately sixteen feet, six inches, on the outside of the dock, parallel to the seawall, while a second boat will be stored in the boat lift.) A floating platform is located seaward of the main dock to allow access to the boat on the boat lift. After reviewing these changes, Mr. Miller reaffirmed his earlier determination and concluded that all criteria had still been met. In conjunction with the initial application, a Specific Purpose Survey of the channel dimensions was prepared by a professional surveyor, Mr. Timothy Mann, which reflects the bottom elevations of the channel in front of Mr. Carlson's property. The bottom elevations were calculated by taking manual and electronic readings using the national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) of 1929. This method is accepted in the surveying and mapping industry to calculate bottom elevations. The survey was signed and sealed by Mr. Mann. The updated applications relied upon the same survey. In calculating the water depth, Mr. Mann subtracted the mean low tide in the Pelican Bay area from the bottom elevation survey. Mean low tide is an elevation of the average low tide over a nineteen year period. Mr. Mann obtained these average low tide records from the State. Mean low tide for the Pelican Bay area was determined to be approximately -0.5 NGVD. Therefore, if Mr. Mann's survey showed a depth of -7.77 feet, the water depth would be -7.27 feet. The survey reflects that there is at least a sixty-foot wide area beyond the proposed dock with depths at mean low water of between four and five feet. See Carlson Exhibits 7A and 7B. The mean low water survey adds further justification for the Department's determination because it is not required by the Department, and applicants do not normally submit one. It should be noted that although the Department has no rule for how deep a channel needs to be, a three-foot depth is typically used. To satisfy the navigation concern raised by Petitioner, Mr. Carlson engaged the services of two long-time licensed boat captains, both of whom were accepted as experts. Besides reviewing the dock design, on May 13, 2008, Captain Joe Verdino navigated the entire length of the third finger canal using a thirty-foot boat with a five-foot beam and twenty-four inch draft. The boat was equipped with a GPS sonar calibrated at the hull of the craft to verify the depth of the water shown in the Specific Purpose Survey. Based upon his measurements, Captain Verdino determined that there is at least another sixty feet beyond the proposed dock for other vessels to safely travel through the channel and that vessels with a draft of four to five feet would be able to safely navigate the area. Therefore, he concluded that a fifty-five-foot boat with a sixteen to eighteen-foot beam could safely navigate on the channel. Even though the measurements were taken when the canal was closer to high tide than low tide, the witness stated that this consideration would not alter his conclusions. He further opined that wind is not a major factor in this area because the channel is "well-guarded" by Fort Myers Beach, which essentially serves as a large barrier island to the southwest. He discounted the possibility of navigational concerns during nighttime hours since boats have lights for night travel. Significantly, he noted that the tightest navigable area in the third canal is at an elbow located several hundred feet north of Mr. Carlson's property, where a dock extends into the canal at the bend. Therefore, if vessels could navigate through a narrower passageway further north on the canal, then vessels would have no difficulty navigating safely in front of Mr. Carlson's proposed dock. After reviewing the plans for the proposed dock, Captain Michael Bailey also navigated the third canal and concluded that the canal can be safely traversed by a fifty-two- foot boat. This is the largest boat presently moored on the third canal. After Mr. Carlson's dock is constructed, he opined that there is at least "fifty plus" feet and probably sixty feet of width for other boats to navigate the channel, even if a forty-eight-foot boat is moored at Mr. Carlson's dock. In reaching these conclusions, Captain Bailey used a PVC pipe and staked out depths in the channel beyond the proposed dock to verify the figures reflected in the Specific Purpose Survey. PVC pipes provide the most accurate measurement of the actual distance from the water's surface to the bottom of the channel. Like Captain Verdino, he noted that the narrowest point on the canal was at the elbow several hundred feet north of the proposed dock where boats must navigate between a private dock on one side and mangrove trees on the other. Captain Bailey discounted the possibility of navigational hazards during nighttime hours since a prudent mariner always travels slowly and would not enter a finger canal at nighttime unless he had lights on the boat. Mr. Mark Miller also deemed the navigation issue to be satisfied. He did so after reviewing the Specific Purpose Survey, the aerial photograph, the location of the dock, the results of a site inspection, and other dock applications for that area that had been filed with his office. Based upon all of this information, Mr. Miller concluded that there is an approximate sixty-foot distance to the south, southeast, and southwest beyond Mr. Carlson's dock before the waters turn shallow (less than four to five feet deep), and that the dock would not pose a navigational hazard. In response to Petitioner's contention that the third set of drawings was not signed and sealed by a professional surveyor, Mr. Miller clarified that drawings for dock applications do not have to be signed and sealed. (The third set of drawings was based on the first set submitted to the Department, and which was signed and sealed by a professional surveyor.) He also responded to an objection that the Department's review did not take into account the size of the boat that Mr. Carlson intended to dock at his facility. As to this concern, Mr. Miller pointed out that the Department's inquiry is restricted to the installation of the dock only, and not the size of the boat that the owner may intend to use. Finally, even though the County requires that a building permit be secured before the dock can be constructed, and has its own standards, that issue is not a statutory or rule concern in the Department's exemption process.8 Petitioner further alleged that site conditions have materially changed since the original application was filed and that the exemption determination should automatically expire. (This allegation parrots boilerplate language used in the Rights of Affected Parties portion of the Department's two letters.) As to this contention, the evidence shows that the applicant revised its dock plans twice after its initial submission. The Association does not contend that it was unaware of these changes or that it did not have sufficient time to respond to them prior to final hearing. The third (and final) revision is attached to Respondents' Joint Exhibit 2 (the Revised Letter) and indicates that the dock will be 997 square feet, which is larger than that originally proposed, but is still "1000 square feet or less of surface area," which is within the size limitation allowed by the rule and statute. It will also be further west and closer to Mr. Carlson's seawall. These revisions do not constitute a substantial change in site conditions, as contemplated by the Department in its exemption process. In order to have materially changed site conditions, Mr. Miller explained that there must be an event such as a hurricane that substantially alters the nature of the channel. Therefore, there is no basis to find that a material change in site conditions has occurred and that the original determination of exemption, as revised, should automatically expire. Petitioner presented the testimony of Captain Marcus Carson, a licensed boat captain, who moved to the Fort Myers area in 2000. He noted that the three canals (known as "the three finger area") have always been a "little hazardous" and because of this he cautioned that only residents familiar with the waters should use them. On May 12, 2008, he accompanied Mr. Kowalski on a "brief trip" in Mr. Kowalski's boat up and down the third canal. Using a dock pole to measure depths, he found the deepest areas of the channel below Mr. Carlson's home to be between 4.6 and 5.0 feet. However, he conceded that a dock pole is not as accurate as a PVC pipe, which Captain Bailey used to take the same type of measurements. Based upon the first set of plans, which he used in formulating his opinions, Captain Carson criticized the dock as being "out of place," "overbearing," and not aesthetically pleasing. He also opined that once the dock is constructed, the channel would be too small for two fifty-foot boats to pass through the channel at the same time. However, these conclusions are based upon the assumption that the original dock plans and pilings would be used. The witness agreed that if the original plans have been modified, as they have, and the dock moved further west and closer to the seawall, he would have to reevaluate his opinions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that Mr. Carlson's project is exempt from its permitting requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and developer of the Plaza Venetia Marina, located in Biscayne Bay in Dade County, Florida, immediately north of the Venetian Causeway. The marina is constructed on submerged lands leased from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. On May 4, 1976, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-0364-6E to Respondent. That permit authorized the construction of two concrete marina docks, one "T" shaped and 255 feet long, and the other "J" shaped and 500 feet long. The project site is north of the Venetian Causeway on the western edge of Biscayne Bay, Section 31, Township 53 North, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida. On August 18, 1977, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-3984 to Respondent. That permit authorized the construction of a 700 foot long "J" shaped pier with 24 finger piers and associated mooring pilings, and the construction of a 280 foot long "T" shaped pier. This permit authorized construction to be undertaken directly north of the docks authorized by Permit No. 13-30-0364-6E described above. On August 18, 1977, Respondent applied to DER's West Palm Beach office for a permit to construct the center pier of the Plaza Venetia Marina. On October 27, 1977, DER issued Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E to Respondent. This permit, which is the only one of the three permits at issue herein, authorized construction of a boat tie-up and fueling facility for a public marina. This facility represented a final phase of a master plan which includes the two other marinas with tie-up accommodations authorized by Permit Nos. 13-30-0364-6E and 13-30-3984. The drawings which accompanied the permit application carried the designation "FUEL" on the large platform at the end of the center pier of the marina. The cover letter from Respondent's authorized agent explained that " . . . the fueling area has been made sufficiently large so as to isolate the fuel pumps." No specific mention was made in the application or supporting materials of any building to be constructed on the central pier, and none of the permit drawings initially filed with DER depict any such building. DER employees who processed the permit, however, knew at some time during the processing of the permit application that some sort of structure would likely be constructed on the platform at the end of the center pier, although the plans did not disclose such a building, and the agency made no inquiries about, nor requested any additional information from Respondent concerning the type of structure contemplated. At the time of the issuance of Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E Respondent did not know the exact nature, size, or height of any structure that it might wish to build on the central platform. At the time, Respondent had only a conceptual idea of a structure that might accommodate the uses it contemplated for the platform. The words "fueling station" appear on the platform at the end of the center pier in one of the drawings attached to Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E. That drawing was not initially filed with the original permit application, but was provided during the permitting process by Respondent prior to issuance of the permit. Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E was issued to Respondent on October 27, 1977, pursuant to the authority granted DER under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes. Nowhere in the permit is there any reference to Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. The permit, by its expressed terms, authorized the following: To construct a boat tie-up and fueling facilities [sic] for a public marina. The facility will extend approximately 390 feet into Biscayne Bay from the bulkhead line. The dock will provide tie-up spaces for 20 boats and six fuel slips, and will contain floating oil collars in case of oil or gasoline spillage. This facility represents the final phase of a master plan which includes two other marinas with tie-up facilities . . . On January 11, 1979, some approximately fourteen months after issuance of the permit for the center pier, Respondent sent a letter to DER's West Palm Beach office which read as follows: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter as sent to the Army Corps, re: the service facility you and I discussed for the already approved fuel dock (State No. 13-30-0740-6E) for the Plaza Venetia Marina. I also enclose copy of the plans. Please review as quickly as possible since we intend to start construction on the marina within 30 to 45 days. (Emphasis added.) Enclosed with the January 11, 1979, letter to DER was a copy of a January 11, 1979, letter to the Army Corps of Engineers which read as follows: Recently I reviewed with [a Corps representative] the placement of a small service accommodation facility on the already approved fuel dock for the Plaza Venetia Marina . . . I left a set of plans with [the Corps] at the Corps office in Miami Beach. The facility is in close keeping with the permitted use of the marina. It will occupy less than half the already approved area of the fueling facility. It will be constructed on an already permitted facility. Included are a small bait and tackle shop; convenience store; captains' office; observation area and required bathrooms. The discharge from the bathrooms will flow directly into the main County sewer disposal system and will utilize a sewer pump-out facility located on the fuel dock. * * * After carefully reviewing my existing permit, the limited nature of the facility described, and its sole purpose of servicing the already permitted marina, please advise me if any modifications are required. I look forward to hearing from you as quickly as possible on this matter since construction of the marina is projected to begin within the next 30 to 45 days. A copy of the floor plan of the proposed building was attached to the January 11, 1979, letter received by DER. This floor plan indicates areas to be included in the building for bait and tackle facilities, a food store, storage areas, restroom facilities, and a marina office. Also shown on the floor plan is a storage area for electric carts to be used in servicing vessels utilizing the marina facility. The record in this cause establishes that Respondent never intended its January 11, 1979, letter to DER to be a request for a permit modification or an application for a new permit. Instead, the letter was intended only as a request for DER review of and comments on the proposed structure to be built at the end of the central pier. DER representatives in its West Palm Beach office forwarded the letter to the Tallahassee office of DER. DER never responded either orally or in writing to Respondent's communication of January 11, 1979, enclosing the building plan. On June 19, 1979, DER had opened its file No. 13-9916 in its standard form dredge and fill permitting section in Tallahassee in response to a letter received from Respondent requesting the addition of some dolphin pilings along the bulkhead at the Plaza Venetia Marina. The request from Respondent was treated as standard form application because the scope of the entire marina project exceeded short-form criteria. After receiving this request from Respondent, DER sent a completeness summary to Respondent within 30 days of receipt of the application requesting that Respondent provide approval from the Department of Natural Resources for the use of sovereignty submerged lands. Through various correspondence, this application was expanded to include several additional modifications to the overall marina, including reconfiguration of the fuel dock, addition of finger piers, reconfiguration of the "T" docks, and addition of a 12-foot boardwalk. Finally, the application was modified so that it constituted an application to consolidate the three existing permits. On January 29, 1980, Respondent submitted the last item of information required by the completeness summary except for DNR approval for use of sovereignty submerged lands. The aforementioned letter of January 11, 1979, from Respondent, which included the building floor plan, was apparently placed in DER file No. 13-9916 relating to Respondent's requested permit modification. Although the floor plan is contained in this file, the record in this cause clearly establishes that neither Respondent nor DER treated either the January 11, 1979, letter or the enclosed plan as a request for modification of Permit No. 13-30-0740-6E. DER file No. 13-9916 sat dormant for almost three years awaiting DNR consent for the use of state-owned lands. By letter dated July 10, 1981, DER requested Respondent to indicate whether it wished to pursue the permit modification application further since it had been 1,085 days since DER had notified Respondent of the necessity to furnish notification from DNR concerning further use of state sovereignty submerged lands. By letter dated July 15, 1981, Respondent withdrew its permit modification application. On April 20, 1979, the City of Miami issued a valid building permit for the marina fueling station. Respondent notified DER in July, 1979, that it was beginning construction of the marina. Construction of the central pier began on July 16, 1979, and ended on June 11, 1980. Construction of the fueling platform began on February 28, 1981, with erection of the fueling station walls beginning sometime after April 1, 1981. Subsequent to the commencement of construction DER representatives inspected the building site on several occasions. Respondent was not made aware in advance of when these inspections would occur since they were scheduled at the sole discretion of DER. DER first learned of the actual construction of the marina fueling station after receipt of a citizen complaint on December 1, 1981. Upon inspection of the site by DER personnel on December 2, 1981, it was discovered that the building on the fuel dock was partially complete with finish work and the placement of some interior and exterior walls remaining to be accomplished. DER served a warning notice on Respondent on December 7, 1981, advising Respondent of an alleged violation of its existing permit. A second warning letter was sent to Respondent on January 26, 1982, followed by the issuance of the Notice of Violation by DER. DER incurred costs and expenses of $405.40 in investigating the alleged violation. The structures authorized by Permit Nos. 13-30-0364-6E, 13-30-3984, and 13-30-0740-6E ("the structures") have been constructed by Respondent. The structures are located within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve ("the Preserve") established by Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. Biscayne Bay at the site of the structures is a navigable water of the State of Florida. A building with a floor area of approximately 3,800 square feet and a roof area of 5,292 square feet has been constructed at a cost of approximately $500,000 on the platform at the end of the center pier of the marina. The net area of the platform contains about 9,640 square feet. It has been stipulated by the parties that construction of the building on the center pier will not result in significant adverse water quality or biological impacts which were not contemplated when the above-referenced permits were issued for the marina. The building as presently constructed has provisions for the following uses: a waiting area for water-borne transportation, a bait and tackle shop and marine supply store, an electric cart parking and recharging station, and an attendant's room with cash register and equipment for the fuel pumps. All of these uses are customarily associated with the operation of marina facilities. The building as constructed differs in several minor respects from the one shown on the plans submitted to DER in the January 11, 1979, letter from Respondent. What had been shown on those plans as outdoor seating has been enclosed, walls and proposed uses have been relocated within the building, and the entire building has been moved back on the fuel dock. It is concluded, however, that these changes are of such a minor nature as to not constitute a material departure from the plans furnished to DER in January of 1979. As-built plans for the building have never been provided by Respondent to DER. At the time of Respondent's application for the permit for the center pier, DER rules required that a permit applicant provide cross-sectional drawings of proposed structures to be built in conjunction with docking facilities such as those proposed by Respondent. Drawings attached to the permit application show two cross sections through the center pier, but neither of these cross sections depict a building to be constructed on the pier. Respondent did not submit cross-sectional drawings for the building at the time of its application, and none had been submitted to DER as of the date of final hearing in this cause. However, DER at no time requested such cross-sectional drawings, despite the fact that those agency representatives processing Respondent's permit application assumed from the outset that some structure would and could be built by Respondent on the platform attached to the central dock under the terms of the October 27, 1977, permit. The estimated cost for removal of the building at the end of the central pier is $150,000-$200,000.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, dismissing the Notice of Violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 3rd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Clifford A. Shulman, Esquire and Thomas K. Equels, Esquire Brickell Concours 1401 Brickell Avenue, PH-1 Miami, Florida 33131 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee Rohe, Esquire Assistant Department Attorney Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 82-1640 FLORIDA EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Application On or about November 8, 1994, Raymond and Nancy Swart, Trustees, applied for a permit to construct a private multislip dock facility at their property on Little Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, DEP File No. 5826007043. As proposed, the dock would consist of: 237' of five foot wide access pier; a terminal dock 45' long and 5.5' wide; and eight finger piers 20' long and three feet wide. All of the structures were proposed to be three feet above mean high water (MHW). Normal construction procedures would be used to "jet" pilings into place, including the use of turbidity screens. As proposed, the dock would provide nine slips for the use of the owners of the nine lots in the Swarts' subdivided property, known as Sunset Place. There would be no live-aboards allowed, and there would be no fueling facilities, sewage pump-out facilities or any other boating supplies or services provided on or at the dock. Under the proposal, verti-lifts would be constructed for all of the slips at a later date. (When boat owners use verti- lifts, there is less need to paint boat bottoms with toxic anti-fouling paint.) As part of the application, the Swarts offered to grant a conservation easement encumbering approximately 400' of shoreline. The Intent to Issue Because Little Sarasota Bay is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), and because of concerns regarding the maintenance of its environmental quality, the DEP required that the Swarts submit additional information for review in connection with their application. Specifically, the DEP wanted them to perform a hydrographic study to assure adequate flushing at the site and a bathymetric survey to assure adequate water depths and minimal impacts on seagrasses. After review of the additional information, the DEP gave notice of its Intent to Issue the permit, with certain modifications and conditions. The Intent to Issue would require that the "most landward access pier . . . be extended an additional 15 feet to avoid the mooring of watercraft within seagrasses." It also would require the decking of the main access pier (155' long), which would cross seagrass beds, be elevated to a minimum of five feet above mean high water (MHW). (This would reduce shading and minimize impacts on the seagrasses.) The Intent to Issue included specific measures for the protection of manatees during and after construction. The Intent to Issue specifically prohibited hull cleaning, painting or other external maintenance at the facility. The Intent to Issue specified the width of the 400' long conservation easement (30', for an area of approximately 0.27 acres) and required the Swarts to "plant a minimum of 50 planting units of Spartina patens and 50 planting units of Spartina alterniflora at appropriate elevations imediately waterward of the revetment along the northern portion of the property . . . concurrrent with the construction of the permitted structure." It specified planting procedures and included success criteria for the plantings (an 85 percent survival rate). The Objection On or about March 30, 1995, Raymond and Norma Komarek, the owners of property next to the Swart property, objected in writing to the "magnitude" of the proposed dock facility. They complained that the proposed dock facility "will not enhance anyone's view, but it will create disturbance with noise, night lights, wash and erosion on shore, even possible pollution from up to 35 foot boats." They continued: "We prefer not to live next to a Marina. This appears to be a commercial venture tied to the sale of real estate and/or houses . . .." They conceded that their concerns for manatees had been addressed, but they raised questions regarding the impact on commercial fishermen running crab trap lines, scullers, jet skis, and water skiers. They objected to restrictions on "one's personal rights to use the water by obstruction of navigable waters." They also alleged that the proposed dock facility would be a navigation hazard, especially in fog. The Komareks suggest that the three exempt 125' docks to which the Swarts are entitled under Sarasota County regulations, with the two boats allegedly allowed at each, should be adequate and are all the Swarts should be allowed. The Komareks' objections conclude by questioning the alleged results of alleged "turbidity tests" showing that there is "good action" (apparently on the ground that they believe Little Sarasota Bay has "declined") and by expressing concern about the cumulative impact of future dock facilities if granting the Swart application sets a precedent. The Komareks' Evidence The Komareks were able to present little admissible evidence at the final hearing in support of their objections. Much of the environmental evidence they attempted to introduce was hearsay. Moreover, at best, most of it concerned Little Sarasota Bay in general, as opposed to the specific location of the proposed docking facility. The alleged "turbidity tests" called into question in the Komareks' objection apparently refer to the hydrographic study done at the request of the DEP. The evidence the Komareks attempted to utilize on this issue apparently were the kind of general information about Little Sarasota Bay on which the DEP had relied in requesting the hydrographic study. There was no other evidence presented to contradict the results of the Swart study. While the proposed dock facility would project into the view from the Komarek property looking towards the north (and from the property of the neighbors to the north looking towards the south), there was no other evidence that the proposed dock facility "will create disturbance with noise, night lights, wash and erosion on shore . . .." "[P]ollution from up to 35 foot boats" is "possible," but there was no evidence that pollution is probable or, if it occurred, that the kind and amount of pollution would be environmentally significant. The application clearly is a "commercial venture tied to the sale of real estate and/or houses . . .." But the use of the dock facility would be personal to the owners of lots in Sunset Place; the use would not be public. The Komareks presented no evidence "regarding the impact of the dock facility on commercial fishermen running crab trap lines, scullers, jet skis, and water skiers." Clearly, the dock facility would extend approximately 250' into Little Sarasota Bay. But there was no other evidence either that it would restrict "one's personal rights to use the water by obstruction of navigable waters" or that it would be a navigation hazard. (There was no evidence to support the suggestion made at final hearing that an access dock built five feet above MHW would be a dangerous "attractive nuisance" or that it would be more hazardous than one built three feet above MHW.) Evidence Supporting DEP Intent to Issue Very little pollution can be expected from the actual construction of the dock facility. Primarily, there is the potential for temporary turbidity during construction; but the use of turbidity screens will help minimize this temporary impact. The conditions volunteered in the Swart application, together with modification and additional conditions imposed by the DEP Intent to Issue, limit other potential pollutant sources to oil and gas spillage from the boats using the dock facility. The Swarts' hydrographic study demonstrates that, notwithstanding relatively poor circulation in the general area of Little Sarasota Bay in which the proposed dock facility is located, there is adequate flushing at and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility, at least to the limited extent to which pollutants may be expected to be introduced into Little Sarasota Bay from construction activities and use of the facility with the conditions volunteered in the Swart application and imposed by the DEP Intent to Issue. A primary goal of the Komareks' objection is to "downsize" their neighbors' proposed dock facility. They object to its length and its height above MHW. Presumably, they believe that "downsizing" the Swart dock facility would improve their view. If it could not be "downsized," they would prefer that the Swart application be denied in its entirety and that three exempt docks, accommodating two boats each, be built in place of the proposed facility. Ironically, the evidence was that if the Komareks' primary goal is realized, more environmental harm would result. The evidence was that a shorter, lower dock would do more harm to seagrasses, and three exempt docks (even if limited to two boats each) would have approximately three times the environmental impact. Indeed, based on environmental considerations, the DEP Intent to Issue required the Swarts to lengthen the access dock proposed in their application by 15 feet and elevate it by two feet. Lengthening the access dock would move the part of the facility where boats would be moored to deeper water with fewer seagrasses. In that way, fewer seagrasses would be impacted by construction, fewer would be shaded by the mooring of boats, and fewer would be subject to the risk of prop scarring. In addition, the risk of scarring would be reduced to the extent that the water was deeper in the mooring area. Finally, DEP studies have shown that elevating the access dock would reduce shading impact on seagrasses under and adjacent to the dock. Besides having more than three times the environmental impact, exempt docks would have none of the conditions included in the DEP Intent to Issue. Verti-lifts would not be required. Methods of construction would not be regulated by the DEP. Measures for the protection of manatees, before and after construction, would not have to be taken. Hull cleaning, painting or other external maintenance would not be prohibited. Live-aboards, fueling facilities, sewage pump-out facilities and other boating supplies and services would not be prohibited (although County regulation may prohibit some of these activities). Finally, there would be no conservation easement and no planting of seagrasses. The Komareks suggest that County regulation may prohibit construction in accordance with the DEP Intent to Issue. But that would be a question for the County to determine in its own proceedings. All things considered, the DEP Intent to Issue is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order granting the application of Raymond and Nancy Swart, Trustees, (the Swarts) for a permit to construct a private multislip dock facility at their property on Little Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County, DEP File No. 5826007043, with the modifications and conditions set out in the Notice of Intent. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 29th day of September, 1995.
Findings Of Fact On March 10, 1986, Respondents, Charles R. Moeller and Julia Moeller (Applicants) entered into a consent order with Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) pursuant to which their request for an "after the fact" permit to construct an 5-slip docking facility in Florida Bay, Upper Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida, was granted. Petitioners, James E. Williams and Charles W. Causey (Protestants) filed a timely request for formal administrative review of the Department's action. The Applicants are the owners of a 2.2 acre parcel of property situated on the northwestern side of central Upper Matecumbe Key, with approximately 280' frontage on Florida Bay. Since 1983, the Applicants have sought authorization to construct a multi-family dock facility for use in conjunction with their plans to develop the uplands as a condominium community. Protestants, James E. Williams and Charles W. Causey, are neighbors of the Applicants. Mr. Williams' property abuts the north boundary of Applicants' property, and extends northerly with 230' frontage on Florida Bay. Mr. Causey's property abuts the north boundary of Mr. Williams' land, and extends northerly with 230' frontage on Florida Bay. Protestants have used, and use, the waters adjacent to their residences, the project site, and Florida Bay for fishing, swimming, boating and other recreational pursuits. Protestants have standing to maintain this action. Background On February 28, 1983, Applicants filed their first request with the Department and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for authorization to construct a docking facility to serve their proposed uplands development. That application sought authorization to construct a 10-slip docking facility, roughly "L" shaped, with a main pier extending into Florida Bay in a westerly direction and measuring 90' by 5', and the terminal section of the dock running southerly parallel to the shore line and measuring 100' by 5'. A row of 11 mooring piles spaced 10' apart, 20' landward of the terminal section of the dock, formed the 10 boat slips. As proposed, the facility was less than 1,000 square feet (sq. ft.), and exempt from the Department's permitting requirements. 1/ The Corps declined, however, to permit the facility as proposed. Noting that "a mixture of lush vegetation including mixed searasses and the hard corals" was located in the 2' to 3' MLW (mean low water) docking area, the Corps requested that the Applicants extend their pier further offshore to create dockage in waters of no less than -5' MLW depth. Consistent with the Corps' request, Applicants modified their proposal by extending their pier 170' offshore. In all other respects, their proposal remained unchanged. On August 12, 1983, Applicants received Corps' approval for their modified docking facility; however, their extension of the pier increased the docks' square footage to over 1,000 sq. ft., and subjected the project to the Department's permitting requirements. Accordingly, on October 7, 1983, Applicants filed a request with the Department for authorization to construct the dock facility approved by the Corps. On November 7, 1984, the Department issued its intent to deny the requested permit predicated on its conclusion that, inter alia, degradation of local water quality was expected, as well as destruction of marine habitat and productivity to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. Although advised of their right to request formal administrative review of the Department's proposed action. /2 Applicants took no action. On December 13, 1984, the Department entered a final order, which adopted the reasons set forth in its notice of intent to deny, and denied the Applicants' requested permit. The current application On January 24, 1985, Applicants filed their request with the Department for authorization to construct the docking facility which is the subject matter of these proceedings. The application sought permission to construct an 8-slip 3/ docking facility of the same configuration as previously applied for, but with a main pier measuring 170' by 4', and a terminal section of 79' by 4'. A row of 9 mooring piles spaced 10' apart, 20' landward of the terminal section of the dock, formed the 8 boat slips. Applicants still proposed the same wood construction, and wood dock piles, as well as using the terminal section of the dock as a batterboard type breakwater by attaching heavy boards to the waterward side of the dock. 4/ As proposed, the dock facility was less than 1,000 sq. ft. and exempt from the Department's permitting requirements. Accordingly, on January 30, 1985, the Department issued the Applicants a copy of their application marked "EXEMPT FROM DER D/F PERMITTING PER FAC RULE 17-4.04(9)(c)," and apprised the Applicants of the need to secure approval from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for use of state-owned submerged lands. Applicants promptly applied for DNR approval. On February 22, 1985, they received their first completeness summary, which was responded to on April 26, 1985, and on September 4, 1985, they received their second completeness summary, which was responded to on October 15, 1985. Finally, on December 5, 1985, Applicants received DNR approval conditioned upon Applicants execution and recording of a 10' conservation easement along the shoreward extent of Applicants' property to prevent the construction of any further dock facilities. Applicants duly executed and recorded the conservation easement. On December 24, 1985, Applicants received their Monroe County building permit, and commenced construction on January 22, 1986. On January 23, 1986, Protestants contacted the Department's local environmental specialist, David Bishof, to complain of the construction. Mr. Bishof promptly telephoned the applicant, Mrs. Moeller, and advised her that the subject waters had been designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), and that docks in excess of 500 sq. ft. were no longer exempt. 5/ At this point in time, only 6-8 pair of pilings had been set. Notwithstanding Mr. Bishof's advice, Applicants continued to construct the dock facility until all pilings were in place and 500 sq. ft. of the main pier area was decked. On March 10, 1986, the Department and Applicants entered into the consent order which is the subject matter of these proceedings. That order granted the Applicants an "after the fact" permit to construct their 8-slip docking facility, and granted substantially affected persons the right to petition for formal administrative review. The project site The waters of Florida Bay which abut the Applicants' 280' shoreline are classified as Class III waters and have, since May, 1985, been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). At Applicants' shoreline, erosion has cut an escarpment into the limestone such that the land's elevation drops abruptly from approximately 1' above MH to 2'-3' below MHW. Along much of the shoreline, erosion has undercut the limestone, forming small cliffs with an overhang of up to 5'. Very little vegetation exists on the exposed edge of the solution-faced limestone which forms the Applicants shoreline. What does exist consists of a few moderate to small red and black mangrove trees. On the face of the shoreline escarpment a rich biota is found, which includes star arene, bearded periwinkles, and star coral. A narrow band of turtlegrass, with some Cuban shoalweed, is found at the base of the escarpment. At 50' from shore along the path of the proposed pier, 6/ the depth is 4+- MHW and the bottom consists of gently sloping bedrock, with a thin layer of sediment. Sparse vegetation, consisting of patches of turtlegrass and Bataphora are found at this point, along with a healthy fauna community consisting of numerous sponges and moderate sized colonies of star coral. At a distance of 100' along the proposed dock route, the bottom is covered by a thin layer of sediment which allows for a fairly constant growth of turtlegrass. Depths at this point are approximately 6' MHW. The turtlegrass bed continues to the end of the proposed dock and generally covers the entire proposed docking area. Depths in the proposed docking area range between 6'-7' MHW. Lobster frequent the area, together with fish common to the Florida Keys. Areas of concern The only permit application appraisal conducted by the Department was done in connection with the Applicants' October 7, 1983 permit request, and at a time when the waters of Florida Bay did not carry the OFW designation. At that time, the Department's environmental specialist, David Bishof, found that: The proposed dock, along with the boats moored to it, when it is complete and in use, can be expected to shade approximately 2,000 ft 2 of seafloor. Much of the area that will be shaded, is covered by seagrass. A general decline in the quantity of seagrass in the shaded areas, can be expected to result from the project. With the loss of seagrass vegetation in the marina area, will also be the loss of the functions of habitat, sediment stabilization, primary production and pollution filtration. Activities that can normally be expected to be associated with the use of the proposed dock will result in the discharge of toxic metals, hydrocarbons, organic debris, detergents and miscellaneous trash. With a dock of the size being proposed, the above discharges are expected to be moderate in magnitude, but will probably not lower water quality below class III standards. These findings were not disputed in this proceeding. Although the dock area has been reduced from 100' to 79' in length, from 5' to 4' in width, and the number of boat slips from 10 to 8, the proposed dock, with the boats moored to it, can still be expected to shade approximately 1,900 sq. ft. of seafloor. 7/ This shading effect will result in the general decline in the quantity of seagrass in the dock area, and the consequent loss of habitat, sediment stabilization, primary production, and pollution filtration. Loss of seagrass in the dock area and surrounding area will be intensified by "prop dredging" and "scaring" due to seasonal tidal fluctuations of 1-3 feet. As sited, the proposed docks are located in waters of 6'- 7' NHW depth, as opposed to the 5' NLW depth recommended by the Department and the Corps. Other environmental consequences associated with the proposed facility include the discharge of hydrocarbons, toxic metals, detergents and organic debris into the surrounding waters. Mr. Bishof described these discharges as "moderate in magnitude" in his November, 1983 appraisal and concluded that they "will probably not lower water quality below class III standards." At hearing, with Florida Bay now designated OFW, Mr. Bishof again characterized the discharges as "moderate in magnitude" and opined that OFW standards would not be violated. While Florida Bay is a vast body of water, which offers the opportunity for pollutant dilution, the waters in the area of the proposed facility are relatively shallow and lacking in strong currents; conditions- conducive to pollutant buildup. There has been no appraisal of the proposed project since November, 1983, 8/ and no substantive evidence that the hydrography of the waters in the area is adequate to control pollutant buildup. Consequently, Mr. Bishof's opinion cannot be credited. Under the circumstances, Applicants have failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed facility will not violate state water quality standards. Public interest In considering whether a project is clearly in the public interest, Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes establishes seven criteria which must be considered and balanced. That subsection provides: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The proposed project was not shown to promote any of the seven criteria. It would not, however, adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others; adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; or adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. The relative condition of the vegetation and marine life in the area was shown to be good. Overall, the project was shown to be permanent and to have an adverse impact on the conservation of fish, habitat, marine productivity and recreational values. On balance, the proposed project is not clearly in the public interest, and no evidence was presented to mitigate its adverse impacts. Cumulative impact Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, mandates that the Department consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit. Currently, there are no other projects existing, under construction, or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought, nor are there any projects under review, approved or vested, within one mile of the project site. Accordingly, cumulative impact is a neutral factor in the evaluation of the proposed project.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lovering submitted an application to DER to construct a 165- foot long by 6-foot wide extension to his present wooden dock. The extension will be part of a commercial marina. The area in question is part of the National Key Deer Refuge and is in Pine Channel, an Outstanding Florida Water. The dock will run parallel to an existing canal which serves as the main entrance channel to Jolly Roger Estates, a subdivision which is currently being developed, and which possesses a network of dead end canals. The dock will be built on a shallow flat, some of which is exposed during low tide. Water quality within the Jolly Roger canal system is better than that found in most canal systems in the Keys. However, the water is too deep to support good bottom growth or adequate oxygen levels throughout the water column. Benthic communities in the area of the proposed dock extension are made up of a variety of green, red, and brown, algaes, with a small amount of turtlegrass (Thallasia Testudinum), where sediments permit and where the communities are not completely exposed during low tide. No adverse impact on the water quality of the canal system or on Pine Channel will result from the construction of dock extension. The project is located at the mouth of the system where tidal flushing is best. Additionally, permit conditions prohibiting liveaboards and further prohibiting fueling or electrical facilities on the dock extension will prevent the location of additional potential pollution sources on the dock. Differing opinions exist as to the width of the canal where the proposed extension will be placed, ranging from 56 feet to 70 feet. A certified survey admitted in evidence reveals the width to be 65 feet. The proposed dock extension and the associated mooring of boats will not cause an unreasonable interference with navigation and will not be a navigational hazard. The experts agree that the proposed dock extension will improve piloting in the canal because it will clearly delineate the side of the channel. It is not unusual for boats to run aground while seeking the entrance into the canal. Because the dock itself will be outside of the canal on the shoal, any narrowing of the canal will chiefly be due to boats being tied to the dock or moored in the canal. Conflicting testimony was heard regarding the presence of outcroppings on the walls of the canal opposite the proposed dock extension. Such outcroppings were not shown to measurably restrict the area available for navigation in the canal. Any blocking of view caused by the proposed dock extension will be minor. The presence of the proposed dock extension and associated boats will not directly block the view of any across-canal property owners looking toward Pine Channel nor will they unreasonably interfere with persons wishing access to the flats. Fecal coliform sampling done by DER in February 1982, revealed one violation of Water quality standards. That sample came from a dead end canal in Jolly Roger Estates, not from the location of the existing dock nor of the proposed dock which would be located at the opening of the main canal. There are currently approximately 50 homes on the canal using septic tanks. It is as reasonable to assume that the violation was caused by residential development on the canal system than by any liveaboards using Lovering's marina. The width of the canal where the-existing dock is located is the same as the width of the canal where the proposed dock would be. The width of the dock in both locations would be the same. Witnesses who testified to the existence of outcroppings on the side of the canal opposite the location of the proposed dock also testified as to the existence of outcroppings on the side of the canal opposite the existing dock. Accordingly, that factor remains constant. Since the width of the existing dock and canal is the same as the width of the proposed dock and canal, no more restrictions to navigation will occur than already exist. The evidence indicates that there may be more boat traffic congestion occurring more frequently in the subject canal. One witness counted 52 homes on the canal with 32 boats. Jolly Roger Estates is still being developed, and one realtor believes that the total development of Jolly Roger Estates will result in an additional 200 boats belonging to property owners in that subdivision. It is, therefore, likely that boat traffic will increase. However, the estimated 4 to 8 boats expected to be added to the marina as a result of the proposed dock extension is insignificant when compared to the traffic created by the present and current members of Petitioner. The proposed dock extension will not be contrary to the public interest. Pine Channel is a Class III surface water of the State.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the application of Charles Lovering for a dock extension construction permit, subject to the condition that no liveaboard boats be permitted at the proposed facility, and further subject to the condition that no fueling or electrical or water facilities be located on the new dock. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 1st day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 1st day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Charles Lovering Route 4, Box 1038 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Clare T. Carroll Jolly Roger Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. P. O. Box 145 Summerland Key, Florida 33042
The Issue Whether Sam Patterson’s proposed dock project is exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mr. Scully resides at 941 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 16, adjacent to and south-southeast of Mr. Patterson's residential property. The northern or rear portion of Mr. Scully's lot borders on an artificial canal that is designated a Class III water by Department rule. He does not have a dock per se; he moors his boat against and parallel to a narrow concrete area (and his lot line), separated by buffering material. Mr. Patterson, the applicant, owns the property at 930 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 15. Lot 15 is north-northwest and adjacent to Mr. Scully’s property. This residential property is currently leased to others. The residential property (Lot 14) adjacent to and north-northeast of Mr. Patterson's lot is apparently owned by an individual named Meloche. The Department has the jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed project is exempt from ERP requirements. The Proposed Project On or about September 13, 2004, Mr. Patterson filed an application requesting an exemption to replace an existing five- foot by 21-foot (105-square feet) marginal dock in the same location, configuration, and dimensions as the existing dock. He also requested an exemption to install a five-foot by 16-foot (80-square feet) wooden finger pier extending perpendicular to and from the middle of the existing marginal dock. As of the final hearing, the project has been revised such that the wooden finger pier will extend 11.8 feet (rather than 16 feet) and perpendicular from the middle of the marginal dock. Mr. Patterson changed the length of the finger pier to comply with City regulations, which are not at issue in this case. The “Site Plan” is attached to the Department’s Notice of Determination of Exemption. (JE 1). The “Site Plan” shows a one-story residence on Mr. Patterson's Lot 15. The front of the lot measures 100 feet, whereas the rear of the lot (that abuts the canal on the easternmost portion of the lot) is 50 feet in length from south to north. The seawall is one-and-one-half feet in width. The existing marginal dock abuts the seawall running south to north and is 21 feet long and five feet wide. Small concrete platforms abut the marginal dock on the south and north. The Department reviewed the original application and on October 13, 2004, advised Mr. Patterson, in part, that his project was exempt from the need to obtain an ERP under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d). The Department had not reviewed the change to the project prior to the final hearing. See Finding of Fact 5. Lots 16, 15, and 14 are situated as a cul-de-sac (semi- circle) with the canal north of Lot 16, east of Lot 15, and south of Lot 14. Lot 14 is across the canal from Mr. Scully's Lot 16. There are five properties on each side of the canal, running west to east. The artificial canal runs directly east from Mr. Patterson’s property for an uncertain distance to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Mr. Patterson’s property (Lot 15) is the western end-point for this canal. Mr. Patterson’s eastern property line (fronting the canal) is 50 feet in width. However, the precise width of the canal between Lots 14 and 16 is unclear. Ms. Smith reports (in her site inspection report of March 3, 2005 (JE 3)) that the canal is approximately 50 feet wide. Mr. Patterson testified that Karen Main with the City of Boynton Beach advised him that the consensus opinion of City employees reviewing the issue was that the canal measured 66 feet in width. There appears to be some widening of the canal east of Mr. Patterson’s property line and then the canal appears to straighten-out as it proceeds to the east to the ICW and past the easterly property lines for Lots 14 and 16. See (JEs 1-site plan; 5-aerial). The weight of the evidence indicates that the canal, between Lots 14 and 16, is approximately 60 to 66 feet wide. See, e.g., id. In the past, the prior owner of Lot 15 (Mr. Patterson's property) moored a boat at and parallel to the marginal dock, which means that the bow, for example, faced Lot 14 and the stern faced Lot 16. Mr. Patterson currently owns a 16-foot boat that he wants to moor at the marginal dock. However, he feels that it is unsafe to do so, particularly if Mr. Scully’s boat drifts. Meloche (Lot 14 to the north) has a fixed boatlift, which allows for the elevation of a boat out of the water, with the bow facing west toward and in front of the northern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. (JE 4). Mr. Scully moors his boat parallel to the shoreline of Lot 16 and perpendicular to Mr. Patterson’s 50-foot eastern seawall and property line. (JEs 4 and 6). Mr. Scully’s seawall intersects Mr. Patterson’s seawall such that when Mr. Scully’s 22-foot boat is moored at his seawall, it is also in front of the southern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. Id. When Mr. Scully’s boat is tightly moored at his seawall, it does not interfere with or block Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 6). However, when Mr. Scully’s boat is loosely moored, it drifts toward the center of the canal in front of Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 4). With no boat moored at the marginal dock, Mr. Scully is able to freely maneuver his boat to his seawall with limited “backing” of his boat required (stern first). With a boat consistently moored at Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock, Mr. Scully would have to back into his area beside his seawall in order to avoid colliding with that boat. Mr. Patterson’s finger pier would enable him to safely moor a boat perpendicular to the marginal dock. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock is likely to make it easier for Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully to navigate to their respective mooring areas, depending on the size of the boats moored by Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully. (The Department, in reviewing similar exemption requests, does not consider the type and size of the boat(s) to be moored at the proposed dock or adjacent mooring site.) It is preferable for the boats to be moored, in this location, stern first, with the bow facing down the canal from the wake of the boats traveling in the ICW. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock and mooring Mr. Patterson’s boat on the north side of the finger pier is likely to enable Meloche, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Scully to moor their boats parallel to each other and avoid collisions.1 Placement of the finger pier at the northern end of the finger pier, while favored over the proposed location by Mr. Scully, is likely to interfere with Meloche’s use of his property and boatlift. With the finger pier centered on the marginal dock and a boat moored to the north, Mr. Scully can maneuver his boat to his seawall by “backing in” stern first. An experienced boater can accomplish this task in two to three maneuvers. Mr. Scully is an experienced boater and has lived on the canal for approximately eight years. Shortening the finger pier from 16 feet to 11.8 feet will not affect Mr. Patterson’s ability to safely moor a boat on the northern side of the finger pier. The Challenge Mr. Scully contends that the placement of the wooden finger pier and the mooring of a sizable boat on the proposed finger pier will interfere with his ability to navigate in and out of the canal in or around his property, and necessarily interfere with his ability to moor his boat adjacent to his property. He also contends that the marginal dock and the finger pier are two docks, not one. Resolution of the Controversy Replacement of the existing marginal dock will consist of replacing the decking and using the existing pilings. The existing marginal dock is currently functional. Reconstruction of the marginal dock and construction of the finger pier will be done by a licensed marine contractor. The licensed marine contractor will use best management practices to avoid water quality problems in the canal during construction. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect flood control or violate water quality standards. The proposed project will not impede navigation. But see Endnote 1.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order concluding that Mr. Patterson’s proposed dock project, as revised, is exempt from the need to obtain an ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Thidadeau is entitled to a Noticed General Permit, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427, and a Letter of Consent, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule, to construct a single family dock in the central embayment of the Loxahatchee River in Palm Beach County.
Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit filed August 14, 2002, Respondent Paul Thibadeau (Applicant) requested a Noticed General Permit (NGP) and Letter of Consent for a single-family dock to be constructed at his home located at 129 River Road, Palm Beach, Florida (Application). The dock would extend from the southern shore of the Central Embayment of the Loxahatchee River, which is Class III waterbody that is also an Outstanding Florida Water and Aquatic Preserve. At the time of the filing of the Application, Applicant's contractors and Respondent Department of Environmental Protection tried various alignments to avoid impacts. Petitioner Board of Commissioners of Jupiter Inlet District (District) is an entity created by the Legislature to operate and maintain the Jupiter Inlet and maintain and preserve the Loxahatchee River. The District's jurisdiction covers the Central Embayment and Applicant's property. The District employs an engineer to inspect the Central Embayment for navigational hazards. Intervenors Andrea Cameron and Jeffrey Cameron and Douglas Bogue reside in shoreline property to the west of Applicant's property. The Camerons and Mr. Bogue live on the same cove that the west side of Applicant's property abuts. Mr. Bogue's parcel is the second parcel to the west of Applicant's parcel, and the Camerons' parcel is the third parcel to the west of Applicant's parcel. Intervenors swim, fish, birdwatch, boat, and otherwise use the area in which Applicant would construct the dock and platform. Applicant has owned his property for a little over seven years. Applicant's property consists of nearly 1.5 acres of land that forms a peninsula jutting into the Central Embayment from the southern shoreline near the Alternate A1A bridge, which marks the east end of the Central Embayment. Applicant owns 1000 linear feet of shoreline. The proposed dock and platform would be constructed on the northwest side of Applicant's property. Applicant currently owns a dock, measuring five feet into the water by 67 feet along the shoreline, in the canal on the east side of his property. The water depth at this dock is only four inches at the lowest tides and less than one foot at mean low water. Seagrasses--mostly shoalgrass and threatened Johnson's seagrass--grow in the vicinity of this dock, and it is a reasonable inference, given the nearby seagrass beds, prevailing shallow depths, shading effect of the present dock, and the relocation of prop and boating disturbances, that seagrass would recolonize the area of the existing dock, after it is removed. Applicant has agreed to amend either the NGP or Letter of Consent to condition the approval of the construction and use of the proposed dock upon the removal of the existing dock. The Application describes a dock that is 270 feet long and four feet wide. At the end of the dock is a 160 square-foot terminal platform. The diagram shows the dock running 110 feet due north from an upland point that is ascertainable only approximately by reference to a concrete sidewalk and mangrove fringe depicted on the drawing. The dock then turns to the northwest and runs 160 feet to the terminal platform, which measures 5.3 feet by 30 feet. Boat-lift pilings are waterward of the waterward edge of the platform. The diagram depicts approximations of water levels, at mean tide, along the dock. The shorter run of the dock ends in water two feet deep, at mean tide. The longer run crosses a long sandbar and terminates between the 3.5- and 4-foot contours. A cross-section in the Application shows mean high water at about 1.0 feet (presumably National Geodetic Vertical Datum, or NGVD) and mean low water at about -0.5 feet NGVD. The cross-section reveals that the waterward edge of the terminal platform is at almost -3.33 feet NGVD and the landward edge of the terminal platform is at about -3.2 feet NGVD. This means that, at mean low water, the water level would be a little more than 2.75 feet deep at the waterward edge of the terminal platform and about 2.75 feet deep at the landward edge of the terminal platform. The pilings, which are waterward of the waterward edge of the terminal platform, are at -3.5 feet NGVD. This means that, at mean low water, the water level would be about 3 feet deep at the most waterward pilings. However, the second slip, which mostly runs along the end of the dock, not the terminal platform, is in shallower water. According to a drawing that is part of the Application, the waterward end of this slip is at the same depth as the landward end of the terminal platform, so it would be in about 2.75 feet of water at mean low water, and the landward end of this slip is at -2.0 feet NGVD, so it would be in about 1.5 feet of water at mean low water. Disagreeing with this drawing, Applicant Exhibit 61 indicates that the shallowest water depth at the second boat slip is at least two feet at mean low water. Although the scale of District Exhibit 62 prevents a precise determination, District Exhibit 62 seems to agree with this value, as well as other landward values, contained in Applicant Exhibit 61. The superior detail of both of these exhibits, as compared to that of the drawing accompanying the application, compels a finding consistent with the deeper water levels reported on Applicant Exhibit 61 and District Exhibit 62. Thus, the water depth, at mean low water, is at least two feet at the second boat slip. DEP environmental scientists visited Applicant's site twice before issuing the permit and snorkeled the area proposed for the dock to find the location that would result in the minimum impacts. On the first visit, the DEP scientists did not record the tide, but, in the second visit, they snorkeled the area at mean low water. After DEP approved the permit, its scientists snorkeled the site a third time, also at mean low water. Applicant has worked closely with DEP at all stages of the permitting process. In fact, early discussions resulted in several different alignments and locations for the proposed dock. After DEP's environmental scientists determined for themselves the location of the seagrass beds in the affected area, Applicant settled on a location and alignment acceptable to the DEP scientists and revised the application (Revised Application). The Revised Application locates portions of the dock deck over some seagrass beds, but adds restrictions, beyond those normally imposed on docks built in Aquatic Preserves, to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the dock on these seagrass beds. The Revised Application narrows the dock deck by one foot to three feet, replaces solid decking with grated decking for the first 200 feet from the shoreline, adds handrails for the first 200 feet from the shoreline, and raises the elevation of the dock deck from five feet to seven feet above mean high water for the first 200 feet from the shoreline. The Revised Application also changes the width of the terminal platform from 5.3 feet to 6 feet and its length from 30 feet to 25 feet. The Revised Application clearly identifies two boat slips: one on the waterward side of the long side of the terminal platform and one perpendicular to the first slip, along the north side of the end of the dock deck. Lastly, the Revised Application reduces the dock deck from 270 feet to 250 feet to the shoreline. The proposed alignment of the dock passes between two relatively small seagrass beds immediately offshore of the northwest side of Applicant's property. The cove contains a large seagrass bed, mostly confined to water depths of less than 1.5 feet at mean low water. A little more than 50 feet of the dock passes over the eastern edge of this large seagrass bed, and the most waterward 40-50 feet of the dock passes over bottom that is uncolonized by seagrass. The seagrass that is traversed by the dock is mostly confined to the long sandbar that the dock would cross. Petitioner presented several alternatives to the present alignment. These are depicted in District Exhibit 79. Petitioner and its witness ultimately selected Alternative F, which would be a shorter dock running to the northeast off the northern tip of Applicant's property. Passing over little, if any, seagrass, this dock would terminate in a hole that is three feet deep at mean low water. However, Alternative F provides Applicant with little better access than he has at present. The northern route to the channel requires several turns and passes over much seagrass. The longer eastern route runs over 600 feet in a narrow, turning channel that contains only 1.5-2.0 feet of water at mean low water. This side of Applicant's property is more exposed to currents and winds than the west side abutting the cove, so accurate navigation of a vessel with the engine trimmed partly up would be more difficult. Channels, especially shallow ones, shift over time and shoal up, especially given this tendency within the Central Embayment. The Central Embayment is a shallow waterbody prone to shoaling due to sedimentation. The main channel through the Central Embayment generally runs along the north shoreline of the Central Embayment, although it runs in a more central location as it approaches the Alternate A1A bridge at the east end of the Central Embayment. Applicant's property, which is close to the A1A bridge, is relatively close to the main channel. A shallow area with interspersed seagrass beds separates Applicant's property from the main channel. Applicant operates a 24-foot boat with a 200- horsepower outboard motor. The boat requires 12 inches of water to float with the engine up and 24 inches of water for the skeg and prop to clear the bottom with the engine down and the boat operating at idle or low speed. To ingress or egress the existing dock, Applicant can operate his boat only within two hours of high tide. To reach the main channel, Applicant must navigate poorly marked, local channels. The longer local channel runs east from Applicant's property and requires several turns. The shorter local channel runs north of Applicant's property and enters the southern access channel at a point near to its junction with the main channel. The southern access channel is an important channel in the Central Embayment, whose shoreline has been densely developed. A long sandbar runs through the center of the Central Embayment. Rather than navigate to the west of the sandbar, most boat operators coming from the south shoreline take the southern access channel, which shortens the time it takes for them to leave the Central Embayment. A mangrove island at the east end of the long sandbar is located immediately north and west of the southern access channel, just west of its junction with the main channel. Directly across from the mangrove island, in a southeasterly direction, is the northwest side of Applicant's property, from which the dock would extend, running toward the southern access channel. Boating traffic in the southern access channel may reach over 100 trips during a 10-hour period on weekends. In the vicinity of the proposed terminal platform, two large, privately installed pilings exist nearly in the center of the southern access channel. The closer of these pilings would be about 95 feet from the proposed terminal platform. One of the pilings marks the junction of the southern access channel with the main channel. The closer piling is between the proposed platform and the mangrove island to the northwest. Boats operate to the south and east of these pilings, typically at planing speeds of at least 20 miles per hour. In the vicinity of the proposed terminal platform, the southern access channel is 120-150 feet wide, and the waterward edge of the platform is about 70 feet from the center of the channel. The bathymetry in the vicinity of the proposed platform reduces the navigational hazard posed by the proposed project. The -3 and -4 feet NGVD contours run parallel along the southern edge of the southern access channel in the vicinity of the proposed terminal. Both contours, on either side of the proposed terminal, take sharp turns landward 25-50 feet on either side of the proposed platform. The effect of this bathymetry is to create a sort of submerged cove for the proposed terminal platform, which is protected from passing boat traffic from the fact that these contours are generally 25-75 feet further waterward on either side of the platform. For instance, at mean tide, boaters approaching the area of the platform would presumably wish to stay in water deeper than three feet, so they would unlikely find the platform to be a navigational hazard. Additionally, an imaginary line extending from the takeoff point of the dock on Applicant's shoreline, along the dock, to a point on the opposite shoreline would run about 13,800 feet. This line would run just east and north of the mangrove island described above. The drawing of riparian lines at this location is much more difficult due to the irregular shoreline and the orientation of the southern access channel. Originally, Applicant proposed a riparian line that ran from the westernmost extent of his property, which is located at the end of the waterway running along the west side of the property. Dutifully running this line perpendicular to the orientation of the southern edge of the southern access channel, Applicant deprived a corner of his neighbor's property of any riparian rights at all. During the hearing, Applicant redrew proposed riparian lines. The appealingly named, "Equitable Allocation" line does more justice to the neighbor by not crossing his property. Instead, this line runs roughly along the middle of the canal- like waterway on the west side of Applicant's property and, at the mouth of this waterway, turning to the northwest to run perpendicular to the southern edge of the southern access channel. The problem with the "Equitable Allocation" line offered by Applicant emerges when it is considered in broader scale, sufficient to encompass not only Applicant and his neighbor to the immediate west, but also that neighbor's neighbor to the immediate west. The "Equitable Allocation" line does no equity to the riparian access of one of the two landowners to the west of Applicant. However, the task in this case is not to draw riparian lines, but to determine whether the proposed dock or platform is within 25 feet of another landowner's riparian line. Applicant Exhibit 62 draws the 25-foot offset line. If the riparian- rights line runs perpendicular to the orientation of the southern access channel (the so-called "Equitable Allocation"), the terminal platform and dock are offset by more than 25 feet from the line. If the riparian-rights line extends property lines without regard to the orientation of the channel, then the platform, but not the dock, would be within the 25-foot offset. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, case law teaches that the location of the channel and property boundaries receive consideration in establishing riparian rights. When based on the larger-scale map of Applicant Exhibit 63, any equitable application of these factors would not result in the establishment of a riparian rights line within 25 feet of the proposed terminal platform or dock. The proposed dock and platform would impact the aesthetic enjoyment of nearby landowners and others using the waters of the Central Embayment. Swimmers and sunbathers set up on the sandbar and throw balls and flying disks. The proposed dock would divide the sandbar into two sections of about 170 feet and 100 feet. The impact of the dock, with its pilings spaced at ten-foot intervals, is unclear on these recreational users, as it is on users of canoes and kayaks, which also occupy these waters. The record does not portray a high-energy, strong-current environment in this area, which is essentially at the mouth of a small cove, so it is difficult to infer that typical currents will create unsafe conditions for swimmers, kayakers, or canoeists around the pilings. Likewise, the record does not establish the net impact of the dock and platform on fish, birds, and other wildlife using the area. The platform covers submerged bottom that is uncolonized by seagrass, and, given its coarse sand and shell hash, as well as the water depths and water clarity, this bottom is unlikely ever to be colonized by seagrass. The portion of the dock that traverses seagrass will shade this vegetation, but the effect of shading is mitigated by the seven-foot elevation of the deck, translucency of the decking material, and near north-south orientation of the deck. The construction of the takeoff of the deck will not require significant alterations to the existing mangrove fringe. The issue of cumulative impacts is not that the average dock in the Central Embayment is 80 feet, and the proposed dock is over three times longer. Nor is it that only two docks on the southern shoreline of the Central Embayment would equal or exceed in length the length of the proposed dock, and one of these two docks serves a planned unit development. The length of the dock is subordinate to the depth of the water to be reached by the dock. The more relevant issue, as to cumulative impacts, is that the proposed dock would extend to water whose depth is -3.5 feet NGVD, and the majority of docks in the Central Embayment terminate in water at least one foot shallower. An estuary whose urbanized shoreline appears almost condominiumized in aerial photographs, the Central Embayment will undergo shoreline development to match whatever DEP permits in its most generous permitting decisions. However, a close examination of District Exhibit 62 reveals numerous examples of docks or platforms terminating in -3.5 or even -4.0 feet NGVD, so the potential of the Letter of Consent generating cumulative impacts, strictly in the termination depths of docks, is small. The most relevant concern, as to cumulative impacts, is the potential for the construction of docks where no docks presently exist and the number of such docks that would need to extend 250+ feet to reach water depths comparable to those reached by the proposed dock and platform. Perhaps landowners abutting such extensive stretches of flats have been discouraged from trying to obtain permits for such lengthy structures. Perhaps Applicant himself was emboldened to seek the present NGP and Letter of Consent due to the permitting of the other single- family dock of comparable length on the southern shoreline. The problem as to this aspect of cumulative impacts is that the record does not support findings as to the number of littoral parcels without docks and the number of such parcels that would require docks of 250+ feet to reach the depths involved in this case. These cumulative impacts, if any, are too speculative to assess. Thus, the analysis of cumulative impacts in this case is necessarily restricted to consideration of the impacts of some additional pressure to construct docks to one-foot deeper water than has historically limited docks and the accumulation of additional impacts to resources, such as seagrass, or recreational uses, such as boating and swimming, from an authorization to build the proposed dock and platform. The record does not support findings of significant adverse cumulative impacts from this proposed activity. Moreover, the elimination of 335 square feet of shallow-water dock and the possible recolonization of seagrass, including threatened Johnson's seagrass, mitigate any cumulative impacts and limit or even eliminate the precedential value of the permitting decisions in this case.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection: Grant the Noticed General Permit. Grant the Letter of Consent upon two conditions: a) the prohibition against any boat mooring to the slip for any period of time, if the boat requires more than two feet of water with its engine in normal operation position and the boat operating at idle or slow speed; and b) the removal of the existing dock prior to the construction of the new dock and platform. DONE AND ENTERED this 25t day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Greg Munson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kevin S. Hennessy Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. SunTrust Building 1001 3rd Avenue West, Suite 670 Bradenton, Florida 34205 Thomas F. Mullin Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 1000 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Marcy I. Lahart Marcy I. Lahart, P.A. 711 Talladega Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 John S. Yudin Guy & Yudin, LLP 55 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 34994 Toni Sturtevant Assistant General Counsel Christine A. Guard Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
