Findings Of Fact Petitioner Benton and Respondent Maine own adjacent tracts on a dead- end, but navigable, oxbow of the Kissimmee River. The Bentons are weekend and vacation residents, and Maine operates a commercial RV-trailer campsite. To accommodate the needs of his guests for boat launching and landing facilities, Maine constructed a 60 foot pier into the river fronting his property in July, 1982. However, he had not obtained any permits for this construction, and later removed 18 feet of the pier at the direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He has applied to DER to obtain after the fact approval of the existing 42 foot pier. He also seeks to extend this pier to 52 feet and to add a 12 foot side dock at the end of the extension. DER has studied the site and reviewed the proposed additional construction. There was no evidence to indicate that the existing pier or the proposed extension would harm the environment or create a navigational hazard. However, the extended pier would occupy fully half of this waterway, which is about 100 feet wide in this area. Petitioner objects to the proposed pier extension on esthetic grounds. Although the pier is constructed at a 90 degree angle to Maine's shoreline, it crosses directly in front of the Benton property. This situation results from the layout of the Benton and Maine tracts which intersect the river at approximately 45 degree angles. An imaginary extension of the Benton and Maine property lines into the river would place much of the existing pier and all of the proposed addition within the Benton extension. The proposed side dock would point toward the Benton property and further aggravate this intrusion. Since the location of the pier is close to the Benton-Maine property line, the proposed side dock's placement would require boats to be launched and landed directly across the Benton waterfront. The Benton property derives its principal value from its waterfront character. Therefore, the degradation of view caused by the pier extension along with the additional boat traffic near the side dock would adversely affect Petitioner's enjoyment of his property.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a permit to John E. Maine approving his existing 42 foot pier in the Kissimmee River, subject to compliance with Section 253.77, Florida Statutes (1983). It is further RECOMMENDED that the application of John E. Maine insofar as he seeks to lengthen the existing pier be denied; but, that application for a side dock extension, if redesigned as stated herein, be approved. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 23rd day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon E. Benton 1280 North West 127 Street North Miami, Florida 33167 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire and Astrid L. Wistedt, Legal Intern Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John E. Maine Route 1, Box 508 Lorida, Florida 33857 Bert J. Harris, III, Esquire Post Office Box 548 Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 50-0147856-003-EI and State-owned Submerged Lands Lease No. 500022746 for a commercial addition to the multi-family residential dock, known as the Buccaneer Condominium Marina, should be issued as proposed in the December 27, 2017, proposed agency action issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) in its own capacity and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”). Unless individually identified, the DEP and the BTIITF will be collectively referred to as “the DEP.”
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Great American is a foreign for-profit corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Great American owns the 144 Property. The 144 Property is located immediately north of, and adjacent to, the Buccaneer Condominium, and shares a riparian line (the “riparian line”) extending waterward from the line separating the upland properties. The location of the riparian line between the Buccaneer Condominium and the 144 Property is as depicted on the proposed ERP and SSL Authorization, and is not in dispute. The 144 Property has 92 feet of shoreline on Lake Worth, and includes the small residential 144 Dock. The 144 Property is used annually by the family of Great American’s principal shareholders. When not being utilized by family members, Great American leases the 144 Property to various individuals. As a rule, all persons using the 144 Property moor vessels at the 144 Dock, which are generally in the 50- to 60-foot range, but which can be up to 80 feet in length. The Buccaneer Condominium is a Florida condominium association established pursuant to and governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and subject to the Declaration of Condominium recorded within the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Declaration”). The Buccaneer Condominium is a mixed-use condominium facility located at 142 Lake Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is a waterfront riparian owner. The Buccaneer Condominium offers, as an amenity of its 18 condominium units, the 18-slip Buccaneer Condominium Dock that is a common element of the Buccaneer Condominium. The Buccaneer Condominium unit owners each own an undivided interest in the common elements of the condominium, and, therefore, an undivided interest in the Buccaneer Dock. The Buccaneer Condominium designates and licenses a dock space to each condominium owner, and each owner has the irrevocable and exclusive right to use of a dock space. Section 718.111(3) establishes that the Buccaneer Condominium has the non-exclusive right to file suit on behalf of the members of the Association relative to claims which involve common elements, while reserving the statutory and common law right for unit owners to bring any action without participation by the Buccaneer Condominium. Mr. Sharfi is the President of the Buccaneer Condominium and is authorized to act on its behalf pursuant to the Declaration and associated corporate bylaws. Mr. Sharfi is a member of the Buccaneer Condominium by virtue of his ownership of multiple condominium units, along with the irrevocable and exclusive right to use Buccaneer Dock spaces associated with his units. Mr. Sharfi owns Commercial Unit A, which was purchased from Great American in January 2017. The rights granted to Commercial Unit A to use Buccaneer Condominium property and common elements are established in section 5.2.3 of the Declaration. Pursuant to Article VIII, section 8.3 of the Declaration: To the extent permitted by law, any and all riparian rights to add additional dock spaces is hereby reserved, granted and assigned to Unit A and the Owner thereof . . . . Without limiting the foregoing, the Owner of commercial Unit A shall have the right, power, and authority, to the extent permitted by law, to construct any additional dock spaces in the waterway contiguous to the Condominium property . . . provided, however, the use thereof shall be deemed to be and have been designated and assigned perpetually and exclusively to and as an appurtenance to Commercial Unit A. The Buccaneer Condominium and Commercial Unit A are joint applicants for the Permit at issue, with the Buccaneer Condominium being included as an applicant due to its status as an upland riparian owner and current SSLL lessee. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes. The DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the proposed Permit. The BTIITF is a collegial body established pursuant to Article IV, section 4(f) of the Florida Constitution, whose existence is reaffirmed by section 253.001, Florida Statutes. The BTIITF holds title to the sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public pursuant to Article X, section 11 of the Florida Constitution. The DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The DEP has been delegated the authority to take final agency action, without any action by the BTIITF, on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands for any activity for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2). The Buccaneer Condominium Dock The Buccaneer Condominium Dock was constructed in 1958, prior to regulatory rules being in place, and is, therefore, a grandfathered structure. From a regulatory perspective, it is a “private residential multi-family dock or pier” as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(47), exclusively serving the 18-unit Buccaneer Condominium. Petitioner has not challenged the legality of the existing lease or prior leases for the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock consists of 18 dock spaces, nine of which face north in the direction of the 144 Dock, and nine of which face south. There is no use of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock by the public. The Buccaneer Dock extends 162 feet from the seawall. The Buccaneer Dock includes a fueling facility at its seaward end. The Proposed Commercial Unit A Dock The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock would be constructed from the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. It is proposed to consist of 12 slips in a double-loaded fashion, with six slips facing north (in the direction of the 144 Dock) and six slips facing south, and two short-term or transient T-head mooring positions for fueling for a total of 14 commercial slips over 2,370 square feet. The T-head will accommodate a fueling station, replacing the current fueling platform at the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be approximately 140 feet in length, resulting in a combined structure of 302 feet from the bulkhead westerly towards the Singer Island Channel. The westernmost boundary of the proposed SSLL extends 20 feet beyond the T-head to allow for vessels to tie up at the fueling station. The SSLL will, according to the Permit drawings, extend 324.5 feet into Lake Worth and the Singer Island Channel. The total preempted area for the modified SSLL will be 49,800 square feet. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be open to the general public for use on a first-come, first-served basis to serve the restaurant in Commercial Unit A. Adverse Affects on Navigation/Navigational Hazard The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“A.H.”),z Vol. I, provides criteria to be considered in conjunction with the standards established in section 373.414, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, for issuance of an ERP.1/ Section 10.2.3.3 of the A.H. establishes that the DEP is to evaluate and consider the current navigation uses of the surface water in determining whether to issue an ERP. Singer Island Channel The Singer Island Channel runs in a north/south direction and is the navigational channel closest to the Buccaneer Condominium Dock and proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, the 144 Dock, Great American’s Sailfish Marina to the south, and the Cannonsport Marina to the north. The east side of the Singer Island Channel is generally defined by the waterward ends of the docks and marinas in the area, while the western side is defined by the Peanut Island shoal. The Singer Island Channel is widely used, but is not to be confused with the Intracoastal Waterway (“ICW”), which is the main navigational thoroughfare for commercial and recreational vessels in the area, and which runs to the west of nearby Peanut Island. The eastern edge of the proposed SSLL extension will become a part of what is an essentially straight line from the Sailfish Marina docks to the Cannonsport Marina docks. There will be approximately 97 feet of open water between the northwestern corner of the proposed SSLL to the closest point on an imaginary straight line drawn from the nearest Singer Island Channel markers located to the north and south of the proposed SSLL. The visible edge of the Singer Island Channel is, at a minimum, an additional 15 feet west of that imaginary line. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the “pinch point” between the SSLL and the navigable edge of the Singer Island Channel is, at its narrowest, 112 feet in width. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that 97 feet of open water is sufficient to allow vessels of the size that frequent the area to easily maneuver if they were to pass at the Singer Island Channel’s narrowest point. Given that there is a minimum of 15 feet of additional open-water space to the visible edge of the Singer Island Channel, there will be no adverse impact to the navigation of the vessels transiting the Singer Island Channel. The finding that the space between the Commercial Unit A Dock SSLL and the edge of the Singer Island Channel is sufficient to allow unimpeded navigation is substantiated by the clearance deemed sufficient to allow for safe navigation beneath the nearby Blue Heron Bridge. The Blue Heron Bridge is north of the proposed Buccaneer Commercial Dock on the ICW. The ICW is the primary channel for commercial, recreational (sport fishermen, yachts, and pleasure craft) and Coast Guard vessels. The passage beneath the bridge is flanked by fixed dolphins or guardrails. The clearance under the bridge is 90 feet, which is sufficient for two vessels to pass in the federally-maintained channel. Petitioner argued that the Blue Heron Bridge is not an appropriate comparator for an evaluation of impediments or hazards to navigation, since the passage beneath the bridge is not in an environment comparable to what would be expected in the vicinity of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, i.e. with vessels tying up at the periphery of the channel for fueling, and with vessels maneuvering into and out of nearby slips. The evidence to that effect was disputed, and in any event was not persuasive. The fact that vessels are able to maneuver and pass one another without incident in a space of 90 feet is persuasive evidence that they will be able to do so in a space of 97 feet in width, and even more persuasive that they will be able to do so in a space of 112 feet in width. Recreational vessels often pull up onto the Peanut Island shoal that extends to the north and east from Peanut Island. The shoal has areas that are above water at low tide, and is apparently a popular spot for small-craft boaters to pull up and anchor. The evidence suggests that boaters more commonly pull onto the shoal closer to the northwest corner of the channel, near the Cannonsport Marina, or off to the west of Peanut Island well away from the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, though there is nothing to prevent boats from pulling onto the shoal in the vicinity of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. However, it is illegal to anchor in or block a marked navigational channel, as is the Singer Island Channel, and any vessels doing so would be required to move by the Marine Patrol or the Coast Guard. Finally, an argument was made that vessels standing off while waiting to fuel at the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock would create an impediment to navigation. It was established by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that there is sufficient space to stand off without interfering with traffic in the Singer Island Channel, particularly in the open water area to the north of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, but also to the significantly wider and more open areas to the south of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. Furthermore, the area around the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock is in a less congested area than the fueling facility at the center dock of the adjacent Sailfish Marina which, as depicted on Respondent’s Exhibit 20, is flanked by sizable docks. There was no evidence that the Sailfish Marina has been a cause of navigational impediments as a result of vessels standing off for fuel. Based on the record as a whole, including evidence of the existing commercial docks in the area, current channel width, and boating traffic and use patterns in the area, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that neither the 112-foot width of open water from the northwest corner of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock to the edge of the Singer Island Channel at its closest point, nor the 97-foot width as measured to the imaginary channel marker line, creates a condition that is reasonably expected to significantly impede navigability or create a navigational hazard. 144 Property The existing Buccaneer Condominium Dock is 162 feet in length, with a fueling facility at its waterward end. As with the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock fueling platform, an additional 20 feet should be calculated from the end of the dock to account for vessels tying up to fuel. There was no evidence that the existing Buccaneer Condominium Dock impeded access to the 144 Dock by persons affiliated with Petitioner or by the more frequent renters of the 144 Property. The evidence was convincing that the Buccaneer Condominium Dock does not create a condition that is reasonably expected to significantly impede navigability or create a navigational hazard. The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock is designed to extend 140 feet from the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock complies with the 25-foot setback requirement from the 144 Property riparian line as required by rule 18-21.004(3)(d). The area to the north of the 144 Dock is wide open, with more than enough space to maneuver any vessel that currently uses the 144 Dock. Furthermore, the space available for maneuvering in the waters south of the 144 dock will not be appreciably more restricted than the restriction posed by the Buccaneer Condominium Dock, and will be no more restricted than the space for maneuvering between docks at the Sailfish Marina or the Cannonade Marina. Mr. Fleming agreed that there is no adverse navigational condition, vis-à-vis the 144 Dock, resulting from the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. His concern with navigation was based on his assumption that the Commercial Unit A Dock would increase vessel traffic in the area, blocking the fairway to the south of the 144 Dock and increasing the possibility of a collision. That concern can only have merit if it is assumed that the operators of vessels in the area are completely unfamiliar with common maritime rules of right-of-way and maneuvering. The area around the Commercial Unit A Dock will remain less congested than nearby facilities. It is simply implausible, and unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will adversely affect navigation to or from the 144 Dock. Petitioner holds a self-certification from the DEP which acknowledges Petitioner’s qualification for an exemption for a residential dock of up to 1,000 square feet at the 144 Property. Such docks are exempt by statute and rule. § 403.813(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code Rule 62- 330.051(5)(b). Despite the fact that Petitioner is allowed to construct an exempt dock extending from the 144 Property into the waterway, there was no persuasive evidence as to when, or if, the dock would be built, or that the dock, if constructed, would result in the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock being found to adversely affect navigation or create a navigational hazard. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will not adversely affect or impede navigability, or create a navigational hazard for vessels ingressing and egressing the 144 Dock. In addition to the lack of credible evidence that the Commercial Unit A Dock will adversely affect or impede navigation, the evidence is equally unpersuasive that riparian rights incident to the 144 Property will be impaired. There was no evidence, other than speculation and conjecture, regarding the currently non-existent future 144 Dock, that suggest that Petitioner’s riparian interests would be impaired to any appreciably greater degree than they would be as a result of the current 162-foot Buccaneer Condominium Dock and the additional 20+/- feet for vessels tying up to fuel. In addition, the Commercial Unit A Dock is subject to the 25-foot setback required by rule. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will not unreasonably infringe upon Petitioner’s riparian rights. Commercial Unit A Dock as an Extension of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock The DEP established the propriety of having the Buccaneer Condominium Association as a co-applicant with Commercial Unit A since it is the holder of the existing lease and an upland riparian interest. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(1)(c) and (d). Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2., which establishes a ratio “of no more than forty square feet of sovereignty submerged land for each linear foot of the applicant’s common riparian shoreline . . . to square feet of multi-family residential dock [the “40:1 rule”]” applies only to private multi-family residential docking facilities. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock is a grandfathered dock based on its existence and configuration prior to the promulgation of the 40:1 rule. There is no proposed extension or material alteration of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock.2/ The 40:1 rule does not apply to the Commercial Unit A Dock because the rule applies only to private residential multi- family docks, and does not apply to commercial slips. Thus, the DEP did not apply the 40:1 rule to the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. The combined preempted area encompassed by the modified SSLL will not exceed 50,000 square feet, or result in a facility of more than 50 slips. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock, as a grandfathered structure, does not require an exception to the 40:1 rule. There was no persuasive evidence that the Buccaneer Condominium Dock and the Commercial Unit A Dock are part of a common plan of development designed to operate as a single dock for the Buccaneer Condominium. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock will be materially unchanged in use and configuration, and will remain dedicated to the owners of Buccaneer Condominium units. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be a first-come, first-served commercial dock for the primary purpose of allowing transient dockage for patrons of the restaurant on Commercial Unit A.
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 approving the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant State-owned Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 50- 0147856-003-EI to the Applicants, the Buccaneer Commercial Unit A, care of Benjamin Sharfi, Trustee of the Benjamin Sharfi Trust 2002, and the Buccaneer Condominium Association of Palm Beach Shores, Inc., subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue to determine in this matter is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) properly issued its proposed verification of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) exemption, dated March 23, 2018, for the installation of nine pilings off of Respondent Larry Lynn’s residential property, in the direction of Petitioner MarineMax, Inc.’s commercial property (MarineMax), pursuant to section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, commonly known as the “de minimus” exemption.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lynn has owned the real property located at 111 Placid Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, since 1994. Mr. Lynn’s residential property is a corner lot that fronts a canal on two of the four sides of his property, and also contains his home. MarineMax is a national boat dealer with approximately 65 locations throughout the United States and the British Virgin Islands. MarineMax has approximately 16 locations in Florida. MarineMax, through subsidiary companies, acquired the property at 14030 McGregor Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida, in December 2014 (MarineMax Property). Prior to MarineMax’s acquisition, this property had been an active marina for more than 30 years. MarineMax continues to operate this property as a marina. The MarineMax Property is a 26-acre contiguous parcel that runs north-south and that is surrounded by canals and a larger waterway that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. The “northern” parcel of the MarineMax Property is surrounded by two canals and the larger waterway that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. The “southern” parcel is a separate peninsula that, while contiguous to the northern parcel, is surrounded by a canal that it shares with the northern parcel, along with another canal that separates it from residential properties. Mr. Lynn’s property is located directly south of the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property, and the canal that runs east-west. As his property is a corner lot, it also fronts an eastern canal that is directly across from the southern parcel of the MarineMax Property. The eastern canal described above also serves as a border between MarineMax and a residential community that includes Mr. Lynn’s residential property. Mr. Lynn has moored a boat to an existing dock on the eastern canal described in paragraphs 5 and 6 for many years. MarineMax holds ERPs for the business it conducts at its MarineMax Property, including the canal between the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property. For example, these ERPs permit: (a) the docking of boats up to 85 feet in length with a 23-foot beam; (b) boat slips up to 70 feet in length; (c) up to 480 boats on the MarineMax Property; and (d) a boatlift and boat storage barn (located on the southern parcel). The MarineMax Property also contains a fueling facility that is available for internal and public use. It is located on the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property, directly across the east-west canal from Mr. Lynn’s property. The prior owner of the marina constructed this fueling facility prior to 2003. Request for Verification of Exemption from an ERP Mr. Lynn testified that after MarineMax took over the property from the prior owner, he noticed larger boats moving through the canal that separates his property from the MarineMax Property. Concerned about the potential impact to his property, including his personal boat, Mr. Lynn contracted with Hickox Brothers Marine, Inc. (Hickox), to erect pilings off of his property in this canal.2/ On March 8, 2018, Hickox, on behalf of Mr. Lynn, submitted electronically a Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit to DEP. The “Project Description” stated, “INSTALL NINE 10 INCH DIAMETER PILINGS AS PER ATTACHED DRAWING FOR SAFETY OF HOMEOWNER’S BOAT.” The attached drawing for this project depicted the installation of these nine pilings 16 and 1/2 feet from Mr. Lynn’s seawall, spaced 15 feet apart. On March 23, 2018, DEP approved Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit, stating that the activity, as proposed, was exempt under section 373.406(6) from the need to obtain a regulatory permit under part IV of chapter 373. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit further stated: This determination is made because the activity, in consideration of its type, size, nature, location, use and operation, is expected to have only minimal or insignificant or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit further stated that DEP did not require further authorization under chapter 253, Florida Statutes, to engage in proprietary review of the activity because it was not to take place on sovereign submerged lands. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit also stated that DEP approved an authorization pursuant to the State Programmatic General Permit V, which precluded the need for Mr. Lynn to seek a separate permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Megan Mills, the environmental specialist and program administrator with DEP’s South District Office, testified that DEP’s granting of Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit was routine, and that his Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit met the statutory criteria. After DEP granted the Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit, Hickox, on behalf of Mr. Lynn, installed the nine pilings in the canal at various distances approximately 19 feet from Mr. Lynn’s seawall and in the canal that divides Mr. Lynn’s property from the MarineMax Property (and the fueling facility).3/ MarineMax timely challenged DEP’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit. Impact on Water Resources MarineMax presented the testimony of Sam Lowrey, its corporate vice president of real estate, who had detailed knowledge of the layout of the MarineMax Property. Mr. Lowrey testified that the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s residential property is active with boating activity, noting that MarineMax’s ERP allows up to 480 vessels on-site. With the installation of the pilings, he testified that he was concerned that MarineMax customers “will be uncomfortable navigating their boats through this portion of the canal[,]” which would be detrimental to MarineMax’s business. Mr. Lowery testified that he had no personal knowledge of whether MarineMax has lost any business since the installation of the pilings. MarineMax also presented the testimony of Captain Ralph S. Robinson III, who the undersigned accepted as an expert in marine navigation, without objection.4/ Captain Robinson has been a boat captain, licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard, since 1991. He has extensive experience captaining a variety of vessels throughout the United States and the Bahamas. He is an independent contractor and works for MarineMax and other marine businesses. Captain Robinson is also a retired law enforcement officer. Captain Robinson testified that he was familiar with the waterways surrounding the MarineMax Property, as he has captained boats in those waterways several times a month for the past 15 years. Captain Robinson testified that he has observed a number of boats with varying lengths and beams navigate these waterways, and particularly, the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property. Captain Robinson estimated that the beam of these boats range from eight to 22 feet. He also testified that the most common boats have a beam between eight and 10 feet. Captain Robinson’s first experience with the pilings in the canal occurred in April 2018, when he was captaining a 42- foot boat through the canal. He testified that an 85-foot boat was fueling on the fuel dock, and when he cleared the fueling boat and pilings, he had approximately one and a half feet on each side of his boat. He testified that “[i]t was very concerning.” Captain Robinson testified that since this experience in April 2018, he calls ahead to MarineMax to determine the number and size of boats in the portion of this canal that contains the pilings. On behalf of MarineMax, in December 2018, Captain Robinson directed the recording of himself captaining a 59-foot Sea Ray boat with an approximately 15- to 16-foot beam through the canal separating the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s residential property, with another boat of the same size parked at MarineMax’s fueling dock.5/ Captain Robinson testified that these two boats were typical of the boats that he would operate at the MarineMax Property and surrounding waterway. The video demonstration, and Captain Robinson’s commentary, showed that when he passed through the canal between the fuel dock (with the boat docked) and Mr. Lynn’s residential property (with the pilings), there was approximately four to five feet on either side of his boat. Captain Robinson stated: This is not an ideal situation for a boat operator. Yes, it can be done. Should it be done? Um, I wasn’t happy or comfortable in this depiction. Captain Robinson testified that his “personal comfort zone” of distance between a boat he captains and obstacles in the water is five or six feet. Ultimately, Captain Robinson testified that he believed the pilings in the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property were a “navigational hazard.” Specifically, Captain Robinson stated: Q: In your expert opinion, has Mr. Lynn’s pilings had more than a minimal, or insignificant impact on navigation in the canal, in which they are placed? A: I believe they’re a navigational hazard. The impact, to me personally, and I’m sure there’s other yacht captains that move their boat through there, or a yacht owner, not a licensed captain, um, that has to take a different approach in their operation and diligence, um, taking due care that they can safely go through. It’s been an impact. Q: Is a navigational hazard a higher standard for you as a boat captain, being more than minimal or insignificant? A: Yes. A navigational hazard is, in my opinion, something that its position could be a low bridge or something hanging off a bridge, a bridge being painted, it could be a marker, it could be a sandbar, anything that is going to cause harm to a boat by its position of normal operation that would cause injury to your boat, or harm an occupant or driver of that boat. Ms. Mills, the environmental specialist and program administrator with DEP’s South District Office, testified that after MarineMax filed the instant Petition, she and another DEP employee visited Mr. Lynn’s residential property. Although not qualified as an expert in marine navigation, Ms. Mills testified that, even after observing the placement of the pilings and the boating activity the day she visited, the pilings qualified for an exemption from the ERP.6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that DEP enter a final order dismissing MarineMax’s challenge to the determination that Mr. Lynn’s pilings qualify for an exemption from an environmental resources permit pursuant to its March 23, 2018, approval of Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resources Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FWC," "Respondent," or "Commission") properly determined that two (2) vessels owned by Jeffrey Sundwall ("Petitioner" or "Sundwall") were derelict or abandoned upon the waters of the state of Florida ("State") in violation of section 823.11, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ and, therefore, subject to the provisions of sections 823.11, 705.101(3), and 705.103, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Following the aftermath of Hurricane Irma in September 2017, law enforcement officers from FWC investigated what were categorized as "displaced vessels" found around the State that had been impacted and dislocated by the hurricane. Many had been ripped from their moorings, slips, or docks and floated away, driven by the winds and tides. Vessels displaced by Hurricane Irma included those that were either wrecked or sunken in waters of the State. Vessels that were left on the waters of the State in a wrecked or sunken state by Hurricane Irma were considered "derelict vessels" by FWC under section 823.11(1)(b). Following Hurricane Irma, derelict and displaced vessels were dealt with differently by FWC than derelict vessels would ordinarily be handled. For instance, ordinarily, derelict vessels would be left on the waters of the State while the owner was determined, located, and notified and the investigation process was completed. In the wake of Hurricane Irma, however, since there were so many derelict vessels that littered the waters of the State, particularly in South Florida and the Florida Keys, the State authorities chose to be more proactive and remove the derelict vessels from the State waters and store them for 30 days. After the hurricane in September 2017, FWC attempted to locate and notify owners that their derelict vessel had been located, removed from the waters of the State, and stored. The owner could either (1) retrieve the vessel during a 30-day window following notification, (2) waive their interests in the vessel and allow the State to destroy the vessel sooner than 30 days, or (3) do nothing. If the owner had not recovered the vessel or challenged the derelict determination after 30 days, Respondent would proceed with destruction of the derelict vessel. Ordinarily, the private owner of a derelict vessel is responsible for all costs associated with its removal and destruction. Despite this, after Hurricane Irma, the State assumed those costs. The law enforcement officers who testified at the hearing received training at the law enforcement academy to identify derelict vessels as defined by State law. Facts Relating to the Vessel, Cuki Following Hurricane Irma, FWC personnel determined that a vessel named Cuki was displaced following Hurricane Irma. It was found grounded and partially imbedded on the beach just south of Spessard Holland Beach Park in the unincorporated area of Melbourne Beach in Brevard County. The Cuki, is a 1974 Columbia 45-foot, two-masted sailboat. Depending on the level of the ocean tide, this area of the beach was rather wide and flat, and frequented by members of the public and other beachgoers.3/ An Incident Summary Report was prepared by Kelsey Grenz on November 21, 2017. The Cuki was first reported to FWC as grounded on the beach in Brevard County on September 19, 2017. Resp. Ex. 1. The facts, and reasonable inferences from the facts, indicate that when it was first reported to FWC on September 19, 2017, the Cuki was in reasonably decent condition.4/ See Pet. Exs. N and X. Respondent investigated ownership of the Cuki and identified Petitioner as the last documented owner of the Cuki.5/ Resp. Ex. 2, pp. 1-2. On November 15, 2017, Grenz and her supervisor provided written notice to Petitioner that his vessel, the Cuki (documented vessel DO564929), was wrecked and grounded off the coast of Brevard County, Florida, following Hurricane Irma. Resp. Exs. 1 and 2. The notice was hand-delivered to Petitioner by Grenz while he was in custody and incarcerated at the Monroe County Detention Center on several unrelated criminal charges.6/ Resp. Ex. 1, pp. 1-2. In addition to the written notice informing Petitioner that the Cuki had been displaced following Hurricane Irma, Grenz also provided Petitioner with a waiver document that would have allowed Petitioner to waive his interests in the Cuki, and allowed the State to remove and destroy the vessel at no cost to him. Resp. Ex. 1, p. 2. Petitioner was unwilling to sign the waiver.7/ By November 15, 2017, the vessel, although derelict and grounded on the beach in Brevard County, was still considered physically in the waters of the State. Resp. Exs. 5a and 5b. More specifically, it was below the high-tide watermark on the beach, and, at times, the normal tidal flows of the Atlantic Ocean washed up against and around it. Resp. Ex. 5. On January 16, 2018, Respondent, Law Enforcement Officer Bob Wehner, went to the location of the Cuki and recorded the vessel’s condition as he personally observed it then. In a short report, Wehner described the Cuki as follows: Vessel "CUKI" is a 1974 45’ Columbia Fiberglass sailboat that is beached on the Atlantic coast in the unincorporated area of Brevard County (N28.0454 W80.5462). The portside of the vessel is partially imbedded in the sand below the high-water tidemark on the beach. The vessel is equipped with an inboard motor, however, there is no shaft or propeller present. The vessel has no rudder, or steering wheel at the helm and no other means of steerage. The vessel is equipped with two masts. The mast at the stern of the vessel is broken at the base and suspended only by a single cable. There are no sails and the sail rigging is either missing or in disarray. The hatches at the topside of the cabin and windows on the portside have no covers leaving the interior open to the rain and wave activity. Resp. Ex. 3, p. 2. A detailed series of daylight pictures of the Cuki were taken by Wehner on January 16, 2018. The pictures generally reveal and show that the vessel: Was grounded on the beach in waters of the State. Resp. Ex. 4(a). The Cuki had cables attached to the sail that were tangled up, or in disarray. Resp. Exs. 4(a) and 4(h). Some of these cables and other riggings were supposed to be attached to the masts and were broken off. Resp. Ex. 4(d). The Cuki had seven (7) or eight (8) open hatches or doors on the top side of the vessel that were subject to wind, rain, ocean spray, and other natural elements. Resp. Exs. 4(c), 4(d), and 4(g). The Cuki was lying on its port side, pointing generally north with the bottom/keel area facing out towards the Atlantic Ocean. It was partially imbedded in the beach sand all the way up to the gunwale on the port side of the vessel. Resp. Exs. 4(d) and 4(e). Its rear mast was broken at the base, making the mast unusable. Resp. Exs. 4(f) and 4(g). It had no rudder or steering wheel to navigate the vessel when it was under power. The drive shaft and propeller were missing and were not connected to the inboard motor used to power the vessel when it was not under sail. Resp. Exs. 4(i), 4(j), and 4(k). The Cuki’s keel, necessary for stabilizing the vessel, was imbedded in the sand and was cracking and rusting where it was affixed to the hull. Resp. Exs. 4(l), 4(m), and 4(n). The vessel had no skeg to protect the rudder. Resp. Exs. 4(i) and 4(j). FWC hand-delivered a supplementary written notice to Petitioner on January 17, 2018. The notice provided Petitioner with additional details of the specific condition of the Cuki, as detailed above on January 17, 2018. Resp. Ex. 6. At present, the Cuki is still located on the beach in Brevard County, Florida. At some point in time when Respondent was prepared to remove the Cuki from the Brevard County beach as a derelict vessel, it determined that an order had been entered by the Monroe County Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. It ordered FWC, and other state entities, not to destroy, remove, alter, move, or otherwise dispose of the Cuki until certain that misdemeanor criminal charges filed against Petitioner were resolved.8/ Resp. Ex. 10. Apparently, this July 24, 2017, order was lifted when an Amended Order Granting State’s Motion to Reconsider was entered on January 8, 2018. Resp. Ex. 12. This second order specifically stated that FWC "may remove the [vessel] or the vessel may be removed by the post-Irma federal grant program." Resp. Ex. 12. It further stated that Petitioner, as the defendant in that criminal case, could "make arrangements, prior to the local, State, and/or Federal government removing the vessel, to have the vessel removed and stored on private property with the consent of the property owner." Resp. Ex. 12. Neither party did so.9/ Petitioner does not contest that the Cuki is "destroyed" or "abandoned." Sundwall also characterized the Cuki as a "carcass at this point." Rather he argues, in part, that FWC had a duty to maintain or protect the Cuki after it grounded in Brevard County. Facts Relating to the Vessel, Sea Myst Following Hurricane Irma, FWC personnel determined that another vessel, named the Sea Myst (documented vessel FL6220JX), registered to Petitioner, was displaced following Hurricane Irma. The Sea Myst is a 15-foot, fiber-glassed open motorboat. The Sea Myst was wrecked and substantially dismantled in the waters of the State in Monroe County. Resp. Ex. 8. When it was found, a visible water line stain and barnacle growth on the outside of the hull indicated that the vessel had been partially submerged or sunken in the sea water. The barnacles attached to the hull indicated to the officers that it had been submerged in sea water for an extended period of time.10/ Resp. Exs. 9(a), 9(b), 9(c), and 9(d). When it was first discovered, it appeared that approximately 75 percent of the Sea Myst vessel was underwater at the bow. Resp. Ex. 9(a). There was no outboard motor or other means of propulsion on the vessel. There was also no steering linkage with which to steer the vessel. Resp. Ex. 9(d). When it was first found, the Sea Myst was lodged alongside other derelict vessels, which were lying "stacked up" against the shore. Pet. Ex. W. To determine if a vessel is substantially dismantled, FWC commonly looks to three categories: propulsion, steerage, and hull integrity. Since the Sea Myst was missing both propulsion and steerage, it was substantially dismantled, given the conditions under which it was recovered following Hurricane Irma.11/ Post-Hurricane Irma Investigation and Collection of Derelict Vessels Following Hurricane Irma, the U.S. Coast Guard removed displaced and derelict vessels from the waters of the State that were not able to be retrieved by their owners, including the Sea Myst. Neither FWC nor the U.S. Coast Guard removed any vessels from the waters of the State following Hurricane Irma, unless they were left on the waters of the State in a wrecked or derelict condition. This included vessels that were submerged, partially submerged, beached, or grounded in a position where they could not be moved under their own power without mechanical assistance. All the vessels removed by the U.S. Coast Guard or the Commission were on waters of the State. Removal of these vessels was also necessary to prevent hazards to navigation. Following removal from the waters of the State, the Sea Myst, like other vessels, was put in a storage location that was monitored by FWC. This was to allow Sundwall, identified as the registered owner, an opportunity to receive notice of the vessel’s condition and to retrieve the vessel from the storage location, without incurring the costs of removal from the waters of the State. Resp. Ex. 8, pp. 1-2. On January 19, 2018, David Bellville hand-delivered written notice to Petitioner that his vessel, the Sea Myst, was damaged and displaced by Hurricane Irma. Resp. Ex. 7. In addition to this notice, Bellville also provided Petitioner with a waiver document that would have allowed Petitioner to waive his interests in the Sea Myst, and allowed the State to remove and destroy the vessel at no cost to him. Petitioner did not agree to sign the vessel over to the State. Petitioner testified that he is not the owner of the Sea Myst and that the Sea Myst had been bought and paid for by an un-named person and never collected. Petitioner further stated that he filed a Petition for an Administrative Hearing regarding the Sea Myst in error and that he felt the vessel should be destroyed with federal disaster/FEMA funds. Nonetheless, the more credible evidence indicates that Petitioner is still the titled owner of the Sea Myst, which is a derelict vessel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission enter a final order finding Petitioner’s vessels, the Cuki and the Sea Myst, derelict vessels under section 823.11, Florida Statutes, and abandoned property pursuant to chapter 705, Florida Statutes; that Petitioner was obligated to remove his derelict vessels from the waters of the State and has not done so; that Respondent did not violate any responsibility or duty to protect, maintain, or preserve the vessels; that appropriate costs be recovered upon proper application and proof; and that Respondent may dispose of both vessels as authorized by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The ultimate issue in this proceeding is whether the Department should issue a permit to the Applicant. In its request for hearing, Petitioner asserted that the proposed dock extension would constitute a navigational hazard and would cause certain adverse environmental consequences. At the hearing, Petitioner withdrew its contentions as to adverse environmental consequences. The only issues raised during the course of the hearing relate to whether the proposed dock extension will result in navigational hazards to adjoining property owners.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant owns a lot which includes 52 feet of frontage along a cove which is located to the south of the Fort Pierce Inlet. Applicant presently has a dock which extends 85 feet out from his shoreline. The dock is 4 feet wide and has an 8-foot by 14-foot platform at the end, forming an "L" shape. The Applicant presently uses the dock for two of his own boats. Additionally, he rents four or five additional docking spaces. The Applicant is proposing to extend his dock an additional 72 feet out from his property. He proposes to remove the existing platform and place a 12-foot by 24-foot platform at the end of the extended dock, maintaining the "L" configuration. The Applicant has had problems mooring his own commercial fishing boat at his present dock due to shallow depths at low-water periods. He proposes to utilize the dock extension to moor one of his own boats in a deeper area and to moor a commercial fishing boat which is owned by his son. The platform at the end of the extended dock would be used for fishing by the Applicant and his family and guests. When completed, the Applicant's present dock and proposed addition would extend 157 feet northward from the Applicant's property. There is space for two boats to be moored on the east of the present dock. Applicant does not propose to allow the mooring of additional boats on the east side of the extension. Docking would be expressly prohibited on that portion of the proposed dock. The Petitioner, 1010 Seaway Drive, Inc., owns land immediately to the east of the Applicant's property. The Petitioner's property includes approximately 118 feet of water frontage. The Petitioner operates a commercial marina on its property. Petitioner has a dock which extends considerably farther to the north than the Applicant's present dock and also considerably farther than the Applicant's dock with the proposed extension. Petitioner contends that permitting the proposed extension would result in a navigational hazard for boats that are moored at Petitioner's dock. This contention is not supported by the evidence. There is more than 25 feet between the proposed extension of the Applicant's dock and any structure connected with Petitioner's dock. The closest structures are mooring poles, not the dock itself. The Applicant's dock as proposed for extension will continue to allow boats ample ingress and egress to Petitioner's dock. If the mooring and docking of boats were permitted on the east side of the Applicant's proposed extension, however, a significant navigational hazard would result. The property immediately adjacent to the Applicant's property to the west is owned by the Books. The Books' property includes 40 feet of water frontage. The Books presently moor their boat at a small dock which runs along their shoreline. The proposed extension of the Applicant's dock would require the Books to exercise more caution in docking their boat, but it would not significantly interfere with their ingress and egress. The 24-foot platform at the end of the proposed extension could cause some problems. The Applicant, however, has indicated his willingness to shorten the platform to 14 feet. Thus shortened, the proposed extension and platform will cause no significant interference with the Books' ingress and egress. Furthermore, the Books are left with adequate room to build a dock in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a permit for the Applicant, Robert R. Phifer, to construct an addition to his existing dock in accordance with his application. The permit should contain all of the specific conditions included in the Department's letter of intent issued October 15, 1982. In addition, the platform at the end of the proposed extension should be reduced from 24 feet to 14 feet in length. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 29th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross A. McVoy, Esquire Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark & Skelding Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert R. Phifer 1006 Seaway Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 33449 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., Suite 1300 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and developer of the Plaza Venetia Marina, located in Biscayne Bay in Dade County, Florida, just north of the Venetian Causeway. Respondent has constructed the marina on submerged lands leased from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, acting through the Department of Natural Resources. The submerged lands which are the subject of the lease in question in this proceeding are sovereignty lands lying within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve as defined in Section 258.165(2)(a) , Florida Statutes, and in Chapter l6Q-18, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter l6Q-18 became effective March 20, 1980. In 1976 and 1977 Respondent received permits from the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, and the Army Cords of Engineers for two "J" shaped main docks, one 700 feet long and the other 500 feet long, roughly forming a half circle extending about 450 feet from the shore. The permits also authorized the construction of two 280-foot long "T" shaped docks within the semicircle, one on each side of the central dock and fueling facility which is the subject matter of this proceeding. on October 27, 1977, DER issued Permit No. l3-30-0740-6E to Respondent, authorizing the construction of the central dock and fueling facility. On August 18, 1977, Respondent applied to the Board of Trustees and DNR for the lease in controversy. The letter and enclosures indicated the area to be leased would encompass 38,268 square feet of bay bottom. The applicant's letter makes reference to a "docking and fueling facility," while the legal description submitted with the application is captioned "Omni Marina Phase II and Fueling Dock." The plan-view drawings and cross-sectional views of the pier which Respondent filed with DER and which were in turn furnished to DNR show a platform at the end of the central pier labeled with the words "FUEL," but do not show any building associated with the pier. A cross-sectional view of the platform alone was neither provided by Respondent nor requested by either DER or DNR. Notwithstanding this fact, however, during the course of DNR review of the lease application, Respondent advised DNR officials of its intention to place some structure on the platform at the terminus of the central pier to serve as a "fueling station." DNR personnel in charge of the application evaluation in fact conducted in-house discussions concerning the agency's interpretation of what would constitute a "fueling facility." These DNR officials in fact knew that Respondent intended to erect a structure on the platform of the central pier to serve as a fueling facility. Despite this knowledge, DNR officials did not request additional information relating specifically to the character of any structure which Respondent intended to erect on the platform at the end of the central pier for reasons hereinafter set forth. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund met on March 23, 1978, and approved Respondent's lease application The minutes of that meeting state that: This facility is consistent with existing usage and does not unreasonably interfere with lawful and traditional public use of-the Preserve and is in compliance with Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. As a result of the Board approval, a lease was issued and duly executed allowing Respondent ". . . to operate exclusively a fueling facility upon sovereignty lands. . . ." Respondent was granted a lease term of five years commencing March 21, 1978. At the time the lease in question was approved, neither the lease itself nor any rule, statute, or agency practice defined the term "fueling facility." There were, in fact, no rules adopted by the Board of Trustees or DNR in existence on March 23, 1978, governing the leasing of sovereignty submerged lands. Instead, DNR and the Board of Trustees employed former Rule 18-2.22, Florida Administrative Code, as a policy guide in processing submerged land lease applications. Under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, the provisions of Chapter 18-2, Florida Administrative Code, had become null and void as of October 1, 1975, by virtue of the failure of the Board of Trustees and DNR to readopt those rules in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Even Chapter 18-2, Florida Administrative Code, however, failed to define "fueling facility," "marina," or "commercial docking facilities," all of which terms appear in the disputed lease issued to Respondent. Former Rule 18-2.164, Florida Administrative Code, contains licensing requirements for marinas, including furnishing construction drawings of proposed structures and complying with the requirements of that rule in the event any structural modifications occur. The record in this cause establishes, however, that DNR, at the time the lease in controversy was issued, did not uniformly apply the "policy guide" contained in former Rule 18-2.164, Florida Administrative Code. In fact, it appears that prior to the promulgation of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve rule, Chapter 16Q-18, Florida Administrative Code, on March 20, 1980, DNR's policy in the leasing of sovereignty submerged lands was to concern itself only with the amount of state land that a proposed use would require. In this connection DNR and the Board of Trustees were not concerned with the design of structures to be placed on leased sovereignty submerged lands, but were concerned only with maintaining the (integrity of lease boundaries. After December 20, 1978, DNR expressed this policy as a rule, exempting the modification of existing structures from lease modification requirements so long as the structural modification did not require ". . . the use of any additional sovereignty submerged lands." Rule 16Q-17.14(1)(j) , Florida Administrative Code. At the time of the issuance of the lease here in question, Respondent did not know the exact nature, size, or height of any structure that it might wish ultimately to build on the central platform. The words "fueling station" appear on the platform at the end of the center pier in one of the drawings submitted to DER, and in turn forwarded to DNR by DER. On January 11, 1979, approximately fourteen months after issuance of the DER permit and less than one year after issuance of the lease here in question, Respondent furnished a copy of the floor plan of the proposed building on the central pier to DER. This floor plan indicated 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 was a storage area for electric carts to be used in servicing vessels utilizing the marina facilities. On April 20, 1979, the City of Miami issued a valid building permit for construction of the marina fueling station. Respondent notified DER and DNR in July of 1979 that it intended to begin construction of the marina shortly thereafter. Construction of the central pier began on July 16, 1979, and ended on June 11, 1980. Construction of the fueling platform began on February 25, 1981, with erection of the fueling station walls beginning sometime after April 1, 1981. Prior to construction of the fueling platform and building, but after completion of the central lease pier, DNR made an annual inspection of the marina on February 16, 1981. During this inspection, the central lease dock was checked and found to be in compliance with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. In December of 1981, DNR learned that Respondent had constructed a building on the platform at the end of the central pier through receipt of a copy of a DER warning notice issued to Respondent. DNR then sent a letter to Respondent on January 29, 1982, advising Respondent to revise its plans and locate the building on the uplands since the building as constructed might be in violation of Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. Correspondence then ensued between DNR and Respondent culminating in a March 8, 1982, letter from DNR advising Respondent of DNR's intent to seek cancellation of the lease for the central pier at an April 20, 1982, meeting of the Board of Trustees. The following day, on March 9, 1982, an inspection was made of the central lease facility. The building constructed on the platform at the end of the central pier has a floor area of approximately 3,800 square feet, and a roof area of approximately 5,292 square feet. The building was constructed at a cost of approximately $500,000. The net area of the platform at the end of the central pier contains about 9,640 square feet. The height of the structure is approximately 18 to 20 feet, and it is situated over the water approximately 400 feet east of the bulkhead. The interior of the building has been divided into six rooms, and no fuel pumps were found on the leased area on March 9, 1982. Construction of the building was halted before it could be completed or put into use. 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' room with cash register and equipment for fuel pumps. In addition, the structure contains bathroom facilities for boat owners and passengers and employees, and shower facilities for marina employees. All of these uses are customarily associated with the operation of marina facilities. Construction of the fueling station at the end of the central pier did not require the use of any sovereignty submerged lands in addition to those encompassed within the existing lease. Further, construction of the building did not require additional dredging or filling nor did it result in any significant adverse environmental impact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund dismissing this cause, and denying the relief requested against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 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 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 50-0126380-005-EI and State- owned Submerged Lands Lease No. 500729109 for the Sailfish Marina, North Dock, should be issued as proposed in the June 30, 2017, proposed agency action issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in its own capacity, and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Buccaneer Condominium is a Florida condominium association established pursuant to and governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and subject to the Declaration of Condominium recorded within the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida. The Buccaneer Condominium is a mixed-use condominium facility located at 142 Lake Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida 33404. The Buccaneer Condominium offers, as an amenity of its 18 condominium units, the 18-slip Buccaneer Dock that is part of the condominium property as a common element of the Buccaneer Condominium. The unit owners, as members of the Buccaneer Condominium, each own an undivided interest in the common elements of the condominium, and, therefore, own an undivided interest in the Buccaneer Dock. The Buccaneer Condominium designates and licenses a dock space to each condominium owner, and each owner has the irrevocable and exclusive right to use of a dock space. Pursuant to section 718.111(3), the Buccaneer Condominium has the non-exclusive right to file suit on behalf of the members of the Association relative to claims which involve common elements and reserving the statutory and common law right for unit owners to bring any action without participation by the Buccaneer Condominium. Mr. Sharfi is the President of the Buccaneer Condominium and is authorized to act on its behalf pursuant to the Declaration of Condominium and associated corporate bylaws. In addition to being President of the Buccaneer Condominium, Mr. Sharfi is a member of the Buccaneer Condominium by virtue of his ownership of multiple condominium units, along with the irrevocable and exclusive right to use Buccaneer Dock slips nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, all of which face the proposed North Dock. BUCC18 owns title to Unit 18 at the Buccaneer Condominium, along with the irrevocable and exclusive right to use Buccaneer Dock slips no. 9, which faces the proposed North Dock. Great American is the owner of real property located at 98 Lake Drive, Palm Beach Shores in Palm Beach County, Florida, known as the Sailfish Marina and Resort (“Sailfish Marina”). Great American purchased the Sailfish Marina in 2004 and has continued to operate the property as a commercial and recreational marina, resort, and restaurant. Great American is the Applicant and proposed recipient of the ERP and SSL Authorization at issue in this proceeding. The DEP is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes. The DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the Permit at issue in this proceeding to Great American. The BTIITF is a collegial body whose existence is reaffirmed by section 253.001, Florida Statutes. The BTIITF holds title to the sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public pursuant to Article X, Section 11 of the Florida Constitution. The DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The DEP has been delegated the authority to take final agency action, without any action by the BTIITF, on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands for any activity for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2). Standing Mr. Sharfi testified that the proposed North Dock will adversely impact Petitioners’ interests in two ways. First is “the value of the house itself the unit itself since it’s associated with the dock size that it can support and the boats that you can put in it, so smaller boat smaller revenue that it generates and the lower value of the house itself.” In other words “[t]he rental income from the slip.” Second is safety, in that “[t]he boats that are docked at the south facing going in and out can be damaging A, the other boats as well as the dock and marina itself.” However, as to the issue of safety, neither the Buccaneer Condominium nor Mr. Sharfi owns any vessel moored in slip nos. 2 through 8. Rather, the slips are rented to third parties. BUCC18’s manager, Craig Doyle, testified that its interests will be adversely impacted because the proposed North Dock narrows the fairway and increases the potential for collisions and injury to property or people. In addition, Mr. Doyle indicated that each condominium unit “is proportional to the size of the slip and the size of the vessel that it can accommodate,” and that restricting the size of vessels that could use slip no. 9 “would reduce significantly the value of my unit.” Mr. Doyle also testified that he has a “big concern” relative to possible fuel spills, which might occur if there was a collision at the Buccaneer’s T-Dock. However, as previously indicated, environmental concerns are not at issue. Issues for Disposition The only facts and law related to the ERP and SSL Authorization at issue in this proceeding are those related to whether the proposed North Dock adversely impacts navigation, otherwise creates a navigational hazard, or unreasonably infringes upon Petitioners’ riparian rights, such that the Permit ought to be denied. The location of the riparian line between Great American’s property and the Buccaneer Condominium (the “riparian line”) is as depicted on the proposed ERP and SSL Authorization and is not in dispute. Local Conditions The Sailfish Marina and Buccaneer Dock are located just to the north of the Lake Worth Inlet. The average tidal current in the vicinity of the proposed North Dock is one knot, with the potential to run at three to four knots during peak high and low tides, and with seasonal variability. In addition, prevailing winds, generally from the north during the winter and from the south during the summer, can affect vessel maneuverability. Sailfish Marina Existing North Dock Great American currently leases 235,616 feet of sovereignty submerged land from the BTIITF pursuant to Sovereignty submerged Land Lease BOT File No. 500729109, PA No. 50-0126380-004 (the “SSLL”). The SSLL authorized the construction of a “93-slip commercial docking facility to be used exclusively for commercial and recreational vessels in conjunction with an upland commercial marina facility, with fueling facilities,” and includes a requirement that a minimum of 90 percent of slips be available and open to the public on a first-come, first-serve basis. The existing north dock was built in 1986 as a 3,909-square-foot fixed concrete dock with finger piers and associated wood and metal mooring pilings. Of the 32 existing north dock slips, 16 face the Buccaneer Dock. In addition, there is room for at least one vessel to moor parallel to the end of the existing north dock T-head. The existing north dock extends 300 feet from Great American’s upland property into Lake Worth, terminating at the eastern edge of the Lake Worth navigation channel. The western boundary of the current SSLL is located 20 feet west of the existing north dock’s T-Head, to accommodate mooring of vessels on the T-Head. The western boundary of the SSLL is not changed by the Permit. The northern boundary of Great American’s current SSLL runs in a straight line commencing at a point roughly 35 feet south of the riparian line at the seawall and angling northward toward the Lake Worth navigational channel to a point 25 feet south of the riparian line at the seaward end of the existing north dock.1/ The slips on the north side of the existing north dock are double-loaded slips, each accommodating two boats and bounded by finger piers on each side. Each double-loaded slip is 33 feet wide. The slips are approximately 30 feet in length, measured from the center pier to the outermost mooring pilings. The mooring pilings associated with the 10 most landward-existing north dock slips, which slips directly face the nine slips of the Buccaneer Dock, are in a line roughly 52 to 53 feet south of the riparian line. The mooring pilings associated with the six slips at the waterward end of the existing north dock start at approximately 32 feet south of the riparian line, and extend in a line to the west towards the Lake Worth navigation channel at a slight northerly angle to an end point approximately 25 feet south of the riparian line. Thus, the westernmost six slips are well in excess of 30 feet in length. At present, the space between the Buccaneer Dock’s outermost pilings and the pilings associated with the 10 most landward-existing north dock slips is approximately 93 feet. Boats mooring in the north-facing slips of the existing north dock are typically in the range of 38 to 42 feet in length. Boats mooring in these slips extend 12 feet or more beyond the line of mooring pilings. The open-water distance between the Buccaneer Dock’s outermost pilings and the existing “bow line” of boats docked at the existing north dock and facing the Buccaneer Dock on the date that Joint Exhibit 1 was taken was from roughly 81 to 82 feet. Since the current Great American SSLL extends well beyond the “bow line,” there is nothing to prevent longer boats from mooring at the Sailfish Marina slips. Boats mooring in the north-facing slips of the existing north dock use the open water between the Sailfish Marina and the Buccaneer Dock to access the Lake Worth navigation channel. The Buccaneer Dock The Buccaneer Dock was constructed in 1958, prior to any regulatory rules being in place, and is, therefore, determined to be a grandfathered structure. From a regulatory perspective, it is a “private residential multi-family dock or pier” as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(47), exclusively serving the 18-unit Buccaneer Condominium. It consists of 18 dock spaces, nine of which face south towards the Sailfish Marina and nine facing north. Dock spaces are reserved to their assigned unit and limited in use to the unit owner or persons renting the unit from the owner. There is no use of the Buccaneer Dock by the public. Only those slips on the south side of the Buccaneer Dock facing the Sailfish Marina, numbered sequentially starting at the seawall with slip 1 and ending at slip 9, were alleged to be affected by the ERP and SSL Authorization. The Buccaneer Dock extends 162 feet from the seawall. It terminates 15 feet east of the point at which the proposed North Dock will “jog” 10 feet to the north. The Buccaneer Dock includes a fueling facility at its seaward end. The proposed Great American SSLL facing the Buccaneer Dock will be set back feet from the riparian line. The Buccaneer Condominium’s Sovereignty Submerged Land Lease (“The Buccaneer SSLL”) boundary is set back approximately feet from the riparian line at a point closest to the seawall and approximately 39 feet from the riparian line at its westernmost point. Thus, there is approximately 71 to 74 feet between the Great American SSLL (in either its current or proposed configuration) and the Buccaneer SSLL. The Buccaneer Dock south slips, particularly those towards the seaward side, are between 67 to 70 feet in length, measured from the center pier to the outermost mooring pilings. The slip length is largely governed by the placement of the pilings, with the finger piers extending from the center pier being much shorter in comparison, generally 25 feet or less in length (as roughly scaled from Joint Exhibit 19). The outermost mooring pilings are set at the southernmost edge of the Buccaneer SSLL. Thus, the Buccaneer Condominium has used all of its preempted SSLL area structures, including pilings, associated with the Buccaneer Dock. Boats using slips 1 through 9 of the Buccaneer Dock vary in size and routinely include sport-fishing boats from 60 to 65 feet in length. Vessels using slips 1 through 9 (as is the case with vessels using the Sailfish Marina existing north dock) back into their berths, and exit moving forward. In order to maneuver a vessel exiting the Buccaneer Dock, the stern of an outgoing vessel must clear the outermost mooring pilings. Thus, 65-foot vessels maneuvering in the space between the Buccaneer Dock and the Sailfish Marina regularly use the Sailfish Marina’s SSLL area, and even enter empty Sailfish Marina slips in order to maneuver in and out of south-facing slips of the Buccaneer Dock. The Proposed North Dock Construction of the proposed North Dock includes removal of the entire existing north dock and its mooring pilings. The ERP authorizes Great American to replace the existing north dock with a 6,004-square-foot floating dock containing 12 south-facing slips, which includes one slip at the T-head. The proposed North Dock will have no north-facing slips. The proposed North Dock extends 300 feet westward into the waterway from the seawall, which is the length of the existing north dock. The western boundary of Great American’s current SSLL remains unchanged by the SSL Authorization. The proposed North Dock will not encroach into a marked or customarily used navigation channel. Commencing at the seawall and extending seaward for 175 feet, which exceeds the Buccaneer Dock’s 162-foot length, the proposed North Dock will be set back 35 feet from the riparian line. The northern edge of the proposed North Dock will be approximately 72 to 74 feet from the Buccaneer Dock’s outermost pilings. At a point 175 feet seaward (west) of the seawall, the proposed North Dock “jogs” 10 feet to the north, and is, thus, set back 25 feet from the riparian line for the remaining 125-foot length of the dock. There is no “facing” dock for that remaining 125 feet. The proposed North Dock complies with the 25-foot setback requirement from the riparian line as required by rule 18-21.004(3)(d). Despite the modification, the current and proposed SSLL boundaries are not substantially or substantively different. There being no northward-facing slips at the proposed North Dock, boats using the Sailfish Marina will no longer use the open space between the Buccaneer Dock and the Sailfish Marina. No mooring will be permitted on the north side of the North Dock. “No-mooring” signs are to be posted along the northern edge of the North Dock, along with handrails to prevent mooring. Great American has round-the-clock staff to monitor the marina and prevent boaters from mooring on the north side of the proposed North Dock. Great American also agreed to not place cleats on the north side of the proposed North Dock to further discourage mooring. Affects on Navigation Petitioners challenge to the ERP was limited to whether it adversely affects the public health, safety, or welfare, or property of others and whether it adversely affects navigation, as set forth on Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.302(1)(a)(1) and (3). Petitioners challenge to the SSL Authorization was limited to its alleged unreasonable interference with riparian rights and whether it creates a hazard to navigation, as set forth in rule 18-21.004(3)(c), (7)(f) and (g). Since 1985 to present, vessels from 60 to 65 feet in length have used the Buccaneer Dock south slips and the navigational fairway between the Buccaneer’s south slips and the Sailfish Marina’s existing north dock. There is some evidence to suggest that the average overall length of vessels has increased since 1986 (see Great American Exhibit 12).2/ The evidence demonstrates that vessels from the Buccaneer Dock routinely use waters not only within Great American’s riparian zone, but within Great American’s SSLL. Mr. Adams testified that when leaving the Buccaneer Dock in one of the larger boats, the vessel “crosses over where the proposed Sailfish north dock is,” and that he could shake the hand of a person standing on the bow of one of the sailboats moored at the Sailfish Marina. Mr. Fleming testified that in his experience maneuvering a 61-foot vessel out of the Buccaneer Dock, he would be “very close to the existing submerged land lease of the Sailfish Marina” before he could even begin to maneuver the vessel, partly due to the tightness of the Buccaneer Dock slip, and could not safely maneuver without utilizing the Sailfish Marina’s sovereignty submerged land lease area. The evidence further established that, in some instances, vessels from the Buccaneer Dock have had to pull partially into vacant Sailfish Marina slips in order to perform a three-point turn to exit the navigation fairway. Length of Vessel Maneuvering Ratio The parties spent a great deal of time and effort explaining the navigational ratios that come into play when maneuvering a vessel in tight quarters. Some experts relied upon the 1.5 rule, meaning that space equal to 1.5 times the length of a vessel is necessary to safely maneuver the vessel in confined areas. Another opined that space equal to two times the length of the vessel would be warranted in the space between the Buccaneer Dock and the Sailfish Marina due to local currents and winds. However, Mr. Cox testified as to his opinion that modern vessels with twin screws, bow thrusters, pod drives, and other modern equipment were capable of maneuvering in space equivalent to the length of the vessel, plus 20 feet. The 1.5 rule is the most commonly applied and appears in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Manual and various other guides and handbooks. The vessel length, plus 20-feet rule, may well be a refinement of the 1.5 rule based on modern, up-to-date means of propulsion. However, it is unnecessary to make findings or conclusions regarding the preference for one rule over the other. The distance between the Buccaneer Dock pilings and the location of the proposed North Dock is 74 feet+/-. A preponderance of the evidence substantiates that vessels of 60 feet and greater will be unable to safely maneuver from the Buccaneer Dock without a significant risk of making contact with the proposed North Dock. Thus, under any of the guidelines, the space is inadequate to allow a 60-foot boat to maneuver. However, a preponderance of the evidence equally supports a finding that a 50-foot vessel could maneuver into and out of the Buccaneer Dock without incident if the proposed North Dock were to be constructed. Therefore, the issue for this proceeding can be boiled down to the following: does the right of a person to own and berth a vessel of a particular size that requires the use of its adjacent property owner’s SSLL to maneuver supersede the right of the adjacent property owner to make use of the sovereignty submerged lands that it has leased from the State of Florida? There is no question that in order for 60-foot vessels to safely maneuver from the Buccaneer Dock, it is necessary that they not only cross into Great American’s riparian space, but also into Great American’s SSL leased space in either its current or proposed configuration. If 60-foot vessels are allowed to berth at the Buccaneer Dock, the effect will be to essentially appropriate Great American’s sovereignty submerged lands for the benefit of the Buccaneer Condominium unit owners. Put in other terms, do the owners of units in the Buccaneer Condominium have the right to berth 60-foot vessels at the Buccaneer Dock, and by so doing, prohibit Great American from using its sovereignty submerged lands3/ on the ground that it will impede the Buccaneer Condominium’s private rights of navigation? The Boating Public The “navigational fairway” between the Buccaneer Dock and the existing north dock is not a marked or customarily used navigation channel. Although the navigational fairway is not barricaded, it is not a publicly used area, as is the Lake Worth navigation channel, or other areas that are customarily used by the public. The testimony of incidental use of the fairway by small boats and swimmers is not sufficient to transform the fairway into a navigational channel, and in any event, those uses will not be impaired by the proposed North Dock. The proposed North Dock will reduce boat traffic in the waters between the Sailfish Marina and the Buccaneer Dock by eliminating all 16 of the Sailfish Marina’s north-facing slips, leaving the waters for the exclusive use of the nine vessels using the Buccaneer Dock’s south slips. Thus, to the extent use of the fairway by small boats and swimmers is relevant, such use is made considerably safer by the construction of the proposed North Dock.
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 approving the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 50-0126380-005-EI and State- owned Submerged Lands Lease No. 500729109 for the Sailfish Marina, North Dock, subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2018.
The Issue The basic issue in Case No. 90-2403 is whether the application of the Petitioner, Ian G. Koblick, for a lease of sovereign submerged lands and an easement for an appurtenant previously filled area should be granted or denied. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund propose to deny the application. The Intervenor, Izaak Walton League, opposes the application and supports the proposed denial. The basic issue in Case No. 91-0258 is whether certain action proposed by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund regarding filled areas in John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park affects the substantial interests of the Petitioner, Marine Resources Development Foundation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ian G. Koblick is the record title holder of certain real property in Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida, located at 51 Shoreland Drive, where he owns and operates a for profit corporation known as "Koblick Marine Center" and a nonprofit corporation known as "Marine Resources Development Foundation." (MRDF) Petitioner purchased the property in the spring of 1985. Petitioner Koblick's attorney contacted the Division of State Lands on behalf of Petitioner for a sovereignty submerged land lease for two docks and an easement for an appurtenant filled area, the subject of DNR lease file #44001275, in the fall of 1984. As part of the application process, Petitioner's attorney submitted to Respondent's staff a survey of the proposed submerged lands lease area, which contained water depth information. The fill parcels known as "F-7" and "F-8," which are the subjects of the second petition, are not owned by either of the Petitioners. Petitioner has no deeds or conveyances to the lands in the proposed lease and easement area. Petitioner has been using the lands in the proposed lease and easement area continuously since 1985, without consent from the Respondents. At no time has there been any written assurance made by Respondent or its staff that a lease would be issued to Petitioner. The lands within the proposed lease and easement area lie within the boundaries of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. On September 21, 1967, the Respondent Board of Trustees dedicated certain sovereignty submerged lands to the Florida Board of Parks and Historical Memorials. The effect of this dedication was to extend the boundaries of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park to the shoreline. The Florida Park Service, part of the Division of Recreation and Parks in the Department of Natural Resources, has continuously managed the Park since then. The Respondent Board of Trustees has not conveyed, alienated, or modified its interest in the lands within the proposed lease and easement area, except for one submerged land lease, #44-39-0784-5E, to Tahiti Village (a predecessor in interest to Petitioner) for a period of five years from August 1, 1978, through July 31, 1983. That lease was for a much smaller parcel of land than Petitioner's proposed lease area and was never renewed. When Petitioner Koblick purchased his property, the two docks and the filled parcel, "F-9", in the proposed lease easement area were already in place. The then existing docks were not those previously consented to by Respondent. After he purchased the property, Petitioner constructed catwalks on the docks and upgraded the electrical system on the fill area without permission from either the Board of Trustees or the Division of Recreation and Parks. Petitioner Koblick is not in possession of any permits giving consent to fill the filled area "F-9" in the proposed lease and easement area. The fill material at filled area "F-9" was placed there between 1964 and 1969, without the consent of the Respondents. Filled area "F-9" has riprap all along its outer edge and tip. This riprap area is currently habitat for a variety of marine plants and animals. Removal of all of the fill material at "F-9" would, of course, destroy that habitat and leave a barren area that might take many years to revegetate. A benthic community eventually would be created in the area from which the fill was removed. Filled area "F-9" also provides protection to the existing shoreline, which includes a seawall, and to a basin that is landward of "F-9." Removal of all of the fill material at "F-9" would reduce the protection to the shoreline and expose the seawall and other shore structures to erosion. Removal of the fill material at "F-9" down to the mean high waterline would not have any demonstrated environmental benefits, but would be a hazard to navigation because at high tide the remaining fill would be difficult to see. The majority of boats docked in the 18 slips in the proposed lease area pay slip rent to Koblick Marine Center. Only three MRDF boats are docked at the docks. A charter boat business, which leases out boats to the public, is also operated at the docks on the proposed lease area. The Intervenor, Izaak Walton League, Mangrove Chapter, is a not for profit Florida corporation which has as its purpose the protection of the state's soil, water, woods, and wildlife. A substantial number of Intervenor's members live near Pennekamp Park and use the park for recreational and educational purposes. Any activity which detracts from, or has a potential for detracting from, the purposes to which the Pennekamp Park is dedicated also detracts from or has a potential for detracting from the recreational and educational interests of the Intervenor's members who live near and use the park. Largo Sound is a manatee habitat. Manatees have been sighted in or near the proposed lease area. Activities in the proposed lease area, which include the discharge of pollutants and boat traffic to and from the docks, have a potential adverse impact on manatees, which are an endangered species. There are benthic communities in the proposed lease area under the mooring areas and where pilings are located. There is no way Petitioner can relocate the docks out of the benthic communities in the proposed lease area. The docks in the proposed lease area shade the benthic communities beneath them. Shading from boats at the docks in the proposed lease area, especially from boats used as residences that rarely leave the docks and from large vessels, damages the benthic communities. Boats docking in the slips in the proposed lease area have caused bare, scoured, concave spots beneath their bottoms. This is due to shading, propeller activity, and grounding of the vessels. Sea grasses and corals have been killed as a result. Boats docking in the proposed lease area have caused prop dredging or grounding damage to benthic communities and corals in Largo Sound, in the slips, just outside the slips, and in the canal adjacent to the proposed lease area. Petitioner Koblick has taken various steps to prevent or minimize the possibility of water pollution from the activities at the proposed lease area. These steps include discontinuing the sale of fuel at the subject docks and adopting strict rules prohibiting the discharge of any pollutants from boats docked at his facility, and prohibiting various activities that might be a source of pollution. These efforts notwithstanding, boats docking in the proposed lease area have discharged oil, pollutants, and bilge water overboard. Further, while water quality samples taken from the proposed lease area show good levels of dissolved oxygen and good levels of nitrates, water quality samples taken from the proposed lease area also reveal the presence of ammonia and pesticides, including endrinosulfan, endrin, and lindane, together with its isomers, at levels which exceed state water quality standards. 3/ Pollutants pose a threat of harm to benthic communities, corals, manatees, and other wildlife. Water depths in the slips and turning basin of the docks in the proposed lease area are shallower than minus four feet in some areas, ranging from minus 1.5 feet to minus 5.3 feet. Boats in those slips for the past five years have had drafts of more than 1.5 feet, some of them having drafts of 3 feet to 3 feet 8 inches. Boating related activities in the proposed lease area contribute to cumulative adverse impacts on Pennekamp Park. If boats were eliminated from the docks in the proposed lease area, the benthic communities would be likely to recolonize in approximately two years.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a final order to the following effect: Dismissing the petition in Case No. 91-0258 as moot; Denying Petitioner Koblick's application for a lease and easement; Ordering Petitioner Koblick to remove all docking structures located on the Respondent's lands; Ordering Petitioner Koblick to pay lease fees in arrears in the amount of $10,202.24; and Ordering that the fill material at filled area "F-9" not be removed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of April 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April 1992.
