The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has jurisdiction over the activities encompassed by Permit Application BA-475 (Amended) and, if so, whether issuance of the permit complies with the applicable provisions of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Undisputed Facts: The following relevant facts are established by stipulation or admission and are not disputed. The proposed project is landward of the seasonal high waterline within thirty (30) years of December 1996; The project will not interfere with public access; The project will not result in the net excavation of in situ sandy soils seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL); Any sandy soil or material excavated for the proposed project seaward of the control line will remain seaward of the control line or setback and be placed in the immediate area of construction; The proposed project complies with the structural provisions of Rule 62B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code; The proposed project complies with Rules 62B-33.007(3)(a) through (d) and (f) through (h), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally at hearing, the Petitioners and Intervenor announced that they would not present any evidence on the issue of adverse impacts on marine turtles. Accordingly, impacts on marine turtles are not at issue in this proceeding. Project Description: RHE has proposed constructing a restaurant, pool, deck and stormwater basin within the Boardwalk Beach Resort on Panama City Beach, in Bay County, Florida. The Boardwalk Beach Resort consists of four (4) multi-story hotels with six hundred (600) rooms all together, several pools, boardwalks extending the length of the property and approximately seventeen hundred (1,700) to eighteen hundred (1,800) feet of beach front property. The project site is between Thomas Drive to the north and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. On July 23, 1996, RHE applied to the Department for a CCCL permit to construct, seaward of the interim line established by the emergency Order of October 16, 1995, the restaurant, swimming pool and deck. Part of the proposed deck was located seaward of the coastal construction setback line. On December 9, 1996, the Department issued a permit to RHE to construct the restaurant building with an attached deck fifteen (15) feet landward of the location originally proposed by RHE, as well as for construction of the swimming pool. On December 16, 1996, the Department issued to RHE an Amended CCCL permit authorizing construction of a restaurant building located five (5) feet landward of the location originally proposed by RHE, as well as a deck re-designed so that it would be structurally independent of the restaurant, a swimming pool and a dune enhancement plan which would restore the sandy dune seaward of the pool and restaurant location to its pre-hurricane Opal condition and elevation. The Amended permit would require re-vegetation of the dunes at the site with native plants to secure the dunes from erosion. Both the original and the Amended permits authorized the removal of the stormwater drainage pipe that carried stormwater onto the beach that had caused erosion of the beach near the project area. On January 9, 1997, the Petitioners timely filed a Petition challenging the Department’s decision to issue the Amended permit. On February 7, 1997, the Department established a new CCCL line for Bay County that was farther landward than either the old coastal construction setback line or the interim line established in the October 1995 emergency order. The project authorized by the Amended permit would thus be located entirely seaward of the newly established CCCL for Bay County. As of February 7, 1997, the date the new line was established, RHE had not begun working on the foundation or continued construction above the foundation for any of the structures authorized by the Amended permit. The Department determined that the project did not meet the requirements of Section 161.053(9), and Rule 62B-33.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, so as to qualify for an exemption from complying with the newly established CCCL for Bay County, as the project was not “under construction” at the time the new CCCL was established. The beach and dunes system is wide and the dune system is a significant one, with elevations of fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) feet NGVD, with a wide dune crest. The dry sandy beach in front of the site, even after hurricane Opal struck, remained approximately one hundred twenty-five (125) feet wide. From 1855 to 1934 the shoreline of the site was mildly accretional. Thereafter, until 1955 accretion was less significant, but from 1955 to 1976 became significant. From February 1992 through April 1995, the project site experienced a period of mild erosion. Accordingly the long-term data shows, in essence, that the shoreline is relatively stable at the site. Hurricane Opal caused the dune to erode or retreat landward by approximately a distance of fifteen (15) feet. Hurricane Opal was a major magnitude storm with one hundred twenty-five (125) mile per hour sustained winds and one hundred forty-four (144) mile per hour measured gusts when it came ashore in the vicinity of the proposed site. The dune portion of the proposed site now essentially mimics the pre-Opal conditions. Following hurricane Opal the applicants spent approximately Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) in dune restoration along the entire shoreline of the resort property, some seventeen hundred (1,700) to eighteen hundred (1,800) feet of shoreline. That dune restoration work was permitted by the Department. There is now little native salt-tolerant vegetation on the site in its natural pre-construction condition. An existing stormwater drainage pipe and catch basin extend onto the beach seaward of the location of the proposed restaurant. The existing pipe and basin have caused erosion of the beach and the sand dune system on the project site. Under the amended permit proposal the stormwater pipe and basin would be removed. All of the proposed structures authorized by the Amended permit would be landward of the pre-Opal coastal construction control line. The proposed pool will be located landward of the dune crest and fifty-five (55) feet landward of the toe of the dune. The proposed restaurant would also be located landward of the dune crest and two hundred five (205) feet landward of the mean high waterline. The original design of the project was for a much larger, three story restaurant. The original pool design called for a one hundred twenty foot pool extending from in front of the Comfort Inn to beneath the proposed restaurant, in effect being located on the first floor of the restaurant. At DEP’s request the size of the pool was reduced by fifty percent (50%) and it was relocated into the shadow of the Comfort Inn next door so that it will no longer serve as an integral part of the restaurant. Pool depths were also reduced to three (3) feet at DEP’s request. The pool, at DEP’s request, will now be constructed of Gunnite concrete material and will be frangible, that is, it will be designed to break up in storm-surge or storm-waves. This will serve to decrease the erosion which could be caused by storm-waves flowing over and around the pool structure. The same is true of the restaurant deck, which at DEP’s request has been re-designed to be separate from the restaurant and also designed to fail in storm conditions. The frangibility of the deck, as now proposed, will retard erosion during storm conditions, as the stormwater or waves will demolish the deck and remove it rather than scouring the sand dune around it. The Department also requested that the existing stormwater drain pipe and catch basin be removed and such a removal has been made a condition of the subject permit. This will require that the applicant design and build a new stormwater system. The applicant has agreed to this condition and the others referenced above. Vegetation: Construction of the proposed project will not result in the removal or destruction of native vegetation. There is no such vegetation on the site where the construction will take place. Thus, construction of the project will not result in removal or destruction of native vegetation which will either cause de-stabilization of a "frontal, primary or significant dune" or cause a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. A special condition of the proposed amended permit requires that the applicant submit a dune enhancement plan for restoration of the dunes seaward of the pool and restaurant to its pre-hurricane Opal condition, including re-vegetation. Such a plan was submitted by the applicant and it includes the planting of sea oats on one (1) foot centers. The planting of sea oats as part of the dune enhancement plan will constitute a significant improvement to the native vegetation situation at the site. Disturbance of Sandy Soils: The project will not result in the removal or disturbance of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dunes system to such a degree as to have an adverse impact on the system. That is, the existing ability of the system to resist erosion during a storm will not be reduced. The proposed project will not result in the removal or disturbance of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dune system to such a degree as to cause adverse impact to those systems by lowering existing levels of storm protection to upland properties and structures. All the sandy material excavated for the pool and the stormwater basin will be placed seaward of these structures on the dune in the immediate area of the construction and seaward of the CCCL. The additional sand to be placed on the dune as part of the dune enhancement plan will, in fact, enhance the ability of the system to resist erosion during the storm. The ability of the dune to resist storm erosion is primarily a function of the quantity of sand within the dune system. The additional sand to be placed on the dune as part of the dune enhancement plan will enhance the protection of upland properties and structures including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor. Excavation of the stormwater basin will not destabilize the dune on the project site. The applicant is moving the stormwater basin landward by twenty (20) feet which will minimize the potential impacts of the basin on the dune system. The preponderant evidence establishes that the structure of the pool and pool deck will not cause an increase in structure-induced scour of such a magnitude as to measurably affect shoreline change rates. Scour caused by the pool will not significantly interfere with the beach-dune system's ability to recover from a coastal storm. The frangible design of the pool decreases the likelihood that it will cause any scour. It will break up in a storm so that any scour caused by the pool would be minimal. Any scour caused by the pool would not disturb the topography or vegetation such that the coastal system would become unstable or suffer catastrophic failure. Scour would have no measurable effect. The proposed restaurant and deck will not cause an increase in structure-induced scouring during a storm of such a magnitude as to have a significant adverse impact. The restaurant and deck will be constructed on piles. Scouring around piles, in a storm situation, is very localized and insignificant. By constructing the restaurant and deck on piles at the design elevation, storm-surge and storm-waves will pass under the deck and restaurant. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune to permit natural shoreline fluctuations. The structures will be built on pilings and will be elevated above the storm-surge; thus they will not interfere with shoreline fluctuations. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune so as to preserve and protect beach and dune system stability, in terms of the lack of interference with such. Other structures in the area are seaward of the proposed restaurant and deck, including Pineapple Willies Restaurant, located eleven hundred feet to the west. Those structures have not caused instability of the beach during hurricane Opal. Typically, existing structures do not cause instability of the dune systems. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune so as to allow for natural recovery to occur following storm-induced erosion. Natural recovery commonly occurs under pile-supported elevated structures which is not the case with “slab-on-grade” structures which are not elevated. The pool and pool deck will permit natural shoreline fluctuations, will preserve and protect beach and dune stability, and will allow recovery after a storm because they are designed as frangible structures that will fail and disintegrate in a storm situation. Thus they will not appreciably affect the beach-dune system. Line of Construction: Most coastal construction in Bay County extends out to the pre-Opal CCCL while some construction extends beyond it. Throughout Bay County the line of construction is the pre-Opal CCCL. The line of construction is determined by the most seaward extent of similar existing structures in the immediate area of the proposed structure under consideration in a CCCL permit application. The proposed pool is landward of the line of construction determined by existing pools within the boardwalk beach resort. There are a number of existing multi-story structures to the east of the proposed restaurant that are located out to the pre-Opal CCCL. That pattern of construction continues to the east of the proposed restaurant. Approximately one thousand (1,000) feet to the east of the proposed restaurant is an existing multi-story major structure that is built out to the pre-Opal CCCL. The beach in the area of the project is highly developed with commercial and condominium buildings. Within eleven hundred to twelve hundred feet to the west of the proposed restaurant there is another major structure built out to the pre-Opal CCCL. Just beyond that structure are a number of additional major structures, including Pineapple Willie's Restaurant, that are constructed out to the pre-Opal CCCL. The multi-story major structures to the east and west of the proposed structure are within the immediate area of the restaurant. The proposed restaurant is located landward of the line of construction established by these major structures within its immediate area. That line of construction is the pre-Opal CCCL. DEP did not consider major structures more than one thousand (1,000) feet from the proposed restaurant when it determined the line of construction for the restaurant. It is DEP’s policy when reviewing CCCL applications not to consider structures more than one thousand (1,000) feet from a proposed structure when determining the line of construction. The one thousand (1,000) foot limit DEP uses to determine the line of construction is not embodied in a rule. There was no preponderant coastal engineering or other scientific evidence which justifies the one thousand (1,000) foot limit DEP imposes when it determines the line of construction. It was appropriate to consider the existing structures referenced above in assessing the line of construction for this amended permit application and considering those lying just beyond the one thousand (1,000) foot distance, because those existing structures dominate the coastal processees in the region and only lie just beyond one thousand (1,000) feet to the east and twelve hundred (1,200) feet to the west. If the Department had considered the above-referenced existing major structures just beyond one thousand (1,000) feet of the proposed restaurant, it would have been shown that the proposed project was landward of the thus established line of construction. No preponderant evidence was offered to explicate why the one thousand (1,000) foot limit was automatically adhered to in this situation. Moreover, the line of construction is not a prohibition in and of itself but rather is only one of several criteria that must be balanced in determining whether or not to approve a CCCL permit application. Projects have been approved seaward of the line of construction in the past. Minimization The location of the swimming pool at the most practicable landward location, the reduced size of the pool, as well as its frangible design and limited depth, has minimized its impact. The placing of the excavated material in the pool’s immediate area and the restoration of the dune in front of the pool and deck have minimized the impacts of the pool and deck. The construction of the restaurant on pilings with its design elevation above storm-surge and storm-wave elevations, together with locating it behind the dune crest and away from the active beach, has minimized the impact of the restaurant. The deck is on pilings as well, elevated above storm-surge and storm-wave levels. It will be physically separate from the restaurant and its design frangibility (so that it will fail in a storm) results in its impact being minimized. The stormwater basin is located as far landward as practicable. Its location and the placing of the materials excavated for the basin on the dune immediately adjacent to the basin has minimized the impact of the proposed stormwater basin on the beach-dune system. The restaurant, pool, deck, and stormwater system will not have a significant adverse impact to the beach-dune system. The restaurant will not adversely affect exiting shoreline change rates, will not significantly interfere with recovery following a storm, and will not disturb topography or vegetation such that the system will become unstable or suffer catastrophic failure. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project will not have an unacceptable cumulative impact. There are no other proposed similar projects to take into account and a cumulative impact assessment has shown there to be no adverse cumulative impact. No evidence was offered to show that an unacceptable adverse cumulative impact in terms of existing or other proposed projects will result. Positive Benefit The proposed project will have a net positive benefit on the beach-dune system. The removal of the slab-on-grade constructed building will have a beneficial impact because it will reduce the chance of storm erosion to the beach-dune system posed by such structures. The existing stormwater pipe and catch basin which cause erosion would be removed, resolving that erosion problem. Stormwater will now be retained in a new stormwater basin designed to serve 1.7 acres and it will not flow onto the beach for any rainfall event up to a one hundred year design storm. The new stormwater system is designed to recover quickly after a storm event and to treat stormwater. The removal of the stormwater pipe and catch basin, and the installation of the new stormwater basin will have a positive benefit to the beach-dune system. The new stormwater system complies with Special Permit Condition 7. Moreover the applicant will restore the dune seaward of the project to its pre-hurricane Opal condition and will plant sea oats, on one foot centers, throughout the restoration area in accordance with Special Permit Condition 1.8. Such restoration of the dune and vegetation will benefit the beach-dune system. The natural recovery process will take several decades without the placement of sand in the dune restoration project. The dune enhancement plan submitted by the applicant, in order to comply with Special Permit Condition 1.8, exceeds the requirements of that condition since it places more sand on the dunes than necessary to achieve pre-Opal conditions. Testimony of expert witness Michael Walhter, which is accepted, establishes that restored beaches and dunes function much like natural ones in storm events even though they can be somewhat inferior in resistance to storm-surge and waves since the sand is not as compacted at first. This dune enhancement plan, however, exceeds the permit requirements by placing more sand than necessary on the dunes to achieve pre-Opal conditions. The Interim CCCL On October 16, 1995, the DEP issued its emergency Order establishing an interim CCCL for Bay County one hundred feet landward of the pre-Opal CCCL. The Department established that interim line in order to regulate coastal development in the wake of Hurricane Opal. In 1978 the Legislature established criteria to be used by DEP in establishing or re-establishing all CCCL’s. They are thus to be established to define that portion of a beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations from a one hundred year storm event. At the time of Hurricane Opal, DEP had not re-established the Bay County CCCL using a one hundred year storm event criterion. The interim CCCL for Bay County established by the above-referenced emergency Order did not utilize nor was it based on the statutory one hundred year storm event criterion. All twenty-three (23) other CCCL’s that have been established based on the statutory one hundred year storm event criterion were established by rule. As of January 15, 1997, the applicant had received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction of the proposed project except for that which is the subject of this proceeding. On January 22, 1997, DEP by letter advised the applicant to cease and desist construction of the project. On February 7, 1997, the Department by rule then taking effect established a new CCCL.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, DETERMINED: That the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over the proposed project and that it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered granting the Respondent, Resort Hospitality’s CCCL application consistent with the terms and conditions espoused by the Final Order of December 17, 1997, Respondent’s Exhibit 2 and the project plans depicted in Respondent’s Exhibits 3 and 4. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bram D. Canter, Esquire 103 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire 1315 East Lafayette Street, Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler and Long, P.A. Post Office Box 839 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0839 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By application dated March 9, 1981, and received by the DNR's Bureau of Beaches and Shores on March 13, 1981, respondent sought a permit to construct five single-family dwellings on five 64-foot-wide parcels of land located seaward of the established coastal construction control line (CCCL) on Grayton Beach. Attached to the application were site plans, an affidavit of ownership and a warranty deed showing respondent Roberts to be the owner of the subject property. (DNR Exhibit 1) Question number 5 on the permit application required the "specific reasons the applicant feels that the permit should be approved and why construction seaward of the control line . . . is considered necessary for reasonable use of the property." The answer provided by the applicant to this question was "the landward property line is located 150 feet seaward of the control line. Therefore, no upland property is available on the site for development." (DNR Exhibit 1) By form letter dated March 16, 1981, DNR notified respondent Roberts that his application for a permit was incomplete and that two further items of information were necessary before his application could be considered. One item was written evidence that the proposed project would not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. The other item was detailed site, grading, drainage and structural plans and specifications for the proposed structure. These plans were to be certified by a registered Florida engineer or architect. (DNR Exhibit 2) On or about March 31, 1981, the DNR received the certified architectural plans from the project architect, who is registered in the State of Florida. These plans, as well as the site plans submitted by the engineer, contained the signature and seal of the architect and the engineer. They each intended their signature and seal to constitute a certification that, in their opinion, the drawings or plans were in compliance with all statutes, rules, local ordinances and/or other regulations which govern the project. A certification of documents by the placement of signature and seal of an engineer or architect is the commonly accepted practice and usage in those professions. It is not the policy of DNR to require an itemized certification reciting every requirement of the DNR rules. By form letter dated April 6, 1981, the DNR notified the applicant that written evidence of compliance with local government regulations was still lacking. (DNR Exhibit 4) On April 13, 1981, DNR received a letter dated April 9, 1981 from the Walton County Attorney advising that "The Board of County Commissioners of Walton County has no local setback requirements or zoning or building requirements which would prohibit the proposed activity as submitted to the Bureau." (DNR Exhibit 5) This letter satisfied the requirement of Rule 16B-33.08(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, that the proposed project would not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Full scale copies of topographic and site plans were received by the Bureau of Beaches and Shores on April 15, 1981. The application for a permit was deemed complete as of April 15, 1981, (DNR Exhibit 7), and respondent Roberts' agent was notified by letter dated June 23, 1981 that the DNR Executive Director had recommended to the Governor and Cabinet (the agency head of the DNR) approval of the application. (DNR Exhibit 10) The completed application reflects that the five single-family dwellings are to be supported by treated timber pilings with an underside minimum elevation of +14 feet (NGVD). The Federal Base Flooding Elevation for Grayton Beach is +9 feet (NGVD). The architect has certified that the proposed dwelling units are designed to withstand 140 mile per hour winds. The seaward- most dwelling of the five is a maximum of 263 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line, and the applicant's entire parcel of land is located over 150 feet seaward of the control line. The project is located approximately 230 feet from the mean high water line. The project also includes the construction of a private road, septic tanks and drainfields. The dune system in front of the proposed structure will offer substantial protection to the structure against storm and wave action. The excavation proposed includes that necessary for the placement of the pilings, the septic tanks and the drainfields, and the construction of the proposed driveway. The proposed drainfields will extend partially above existing grade and fill material i11 be placed over them. The driveway consists of a 16-foot asphalt paved road located landward of the proposed dwellings. The dunes will be reduced in height where the driveway is to be constructed. It is not clear from the testimony or the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing where the parking of vehicles belonging to residents or guests of the five units is to occur. While there was testimony from Mr. Truitt to the effect that no net loss of sand will occur and that the project will involve more of a balancing of grade as opposed to excavation, the engineering plans submitted with the application illustrate at least nine rather large areas of cut and fill associated with the driveway, septic tanks and drainfields. The project engineer had considered no studies on the topography or littoral trends of this specific site, had no knowledge of engineering data regarding adjacent properties and had not reviewed any data regarding major storms on the subject project site. The engineering plans submitted as a part of the application contain a diagram illustrating five separate 750 gallon septic tank systems, one for each dwelling unit, with the "drainfield [for each unit] to be constructed in accordance with Chapter 10D-6, F.A.C." (DNR Exhibit 1) The larger scale engineer's drawing submitted to DNR on April 15, 1981, gives more specific information regarding the location and depth of the below grade drainfields on the seaward side of the structures. A DNR interoffice memorandum dated June 1, 1981, reflects that the applicant's agent agreed in a telephone conversation that, "if possible, he would move the septic tank (750 gal) and related drainfields to the landward side of the buildings." (Joint Exhibit 1) The Cabinet agenda item dated later in time, however, notes that the "septic tanks (750 gallon) and drainfields will extend an additional 50 feet seaward of each dwelling." (DNR Exhibit 8) The exact proposed location of the septic tanks and drainfields was not clarified at the final hearing, nor was sufficient evidence adduced concerning the justification for the proposed discharge system. Evidence concerning the availability of any existing alternatives to the system proposed by the applicant was not adduced, nor was evidence presented concerning storm water discharge. As of the time of the hearing in this matter, the applicant had no plans for heating or cooling the five dwelling units. When asked at the hearing what "justification" the Bureau of Beaches and Shores received for the proposed waste water discharge system, Mr. Clifford Truitt, the Bureau's chief engineer and the person responsible for review of this application, replied in two ways. First, he stated that the fact that the property was located entirely seaward of the CCCL was justification for the discharge system. However, he admitted that a "dry sanitary system" would be a better alternative. Later, Mr. Truitt stated that "justification" for the domestic waste system is only required when there is a beach level discharge. Mr. Truitt was accepted as an expert witness in the area of coastal engineering. His opinions regarding the proposed project were based upon his review of aerial photography of the Grayton Beach area and comparison of topographic profiles of the area, his review of the engineering and topographic information submitted with the application itself and his familiarity with the project location. No evidence was adduced that engineering data concerning storm tides related to shoreline topography was considered by Mr. Truitt or anyone else. No specific studies exist regarding the stability, littoral trends or the erosional history of the proposed site and surrounding area. The project site has been the subject of other permit applications considered by the DNR, and Mr. Truitt was of the opinion that a mitigating feature of the present application was that "the present proposal has the lowest density and least extension seaward of the control line of any proposal to date." (DNR Exhibit 8) It was Mr. Truitt's opinion that the dwelling unit structures were adequately elevated and designed to adequately resist the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event and would not increase the threat of damage or danger to nearby structures. Factual evidence concerning the 100-year storm event was not presented at the hearing. Mr. Truitt further opined, without the aid of engineering data or the studies mentioned above, that the proposed construction would not affect the natural shoreline fluctuations or the stability of the dunes in the area. Such an opinion contains no factual basis in the record of this proceeding, and thus is not sufficient evidence upon which to make a similar finding of fact. On various sporadic occasions, a waterway or pass connecting Western Lake to the Gulf of Mexico runs in a westerly direction in the vicinity of the applicant's property. At times, this watercourse has been wide and deep enough to allow swimming, diving and the passage of small boats. The witnesses who testified about this watercourse were not qualified as surveyors or experts in estimating or calculating the exact location of that watercourse relative to the proposed site, and there was no testimony that such an event had occurred within the past twenty years. At least two witnesses testified that the last time they could recall the watercourse or pass traversing or abutting the applicant's property was in the late 1950s. The proposed project site has been covered with storm waters on at least two occasions in the past seven years. No evidence was adduced at the hearing concerning the substantial interests in this permit application of named petitioners Colonel G. A. P. Haynes, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Cawthon, Mrs. Kate Florence, Mrs. Burton Murray, Colonel and Mrs. Lee Fry, Mrs. Laney Ellis and Mrs. Randall Jones. Mrs. G. A. P. Haynes, one of the petitioners in this proceeding, owns and resides on property immediately adjacent to the project site, and presently entertains an unbroken view of the beachfront. She is concerned with potential sewage problems and damage to her residence from flying debris caused by wind or storm should the proposed construction be approved. Mrs. Haynes was also concerned about the potential adverse effect of the proposed construction on the value of her adjacent property. Petitioner Burton Murray lives to the north of the project site, at least several hundred feet away. His prime concern was that no structure could survive at that location and that the project would therefore be a waste of money. Petitioner Elizabeth Hayes Jones (named as Ms. Lisbeth Haas in the petition) lives across the street and to the east of the project site. Her residence was completely destroyed by hurricane and has since been rebuilt at the same site. She feels that the applicant's project site is not safe for construction, and fears storm damage to her home from the buildings if constructed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein it is RECOMMENDED that the application for a coastal construction control line permit to construct five single-family dwellings on Grayton Beach be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of May, 1982. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 25th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry W. Gerde, Esquire Davenport, Johnston, Harris, Gerde & Harrison, P. A. 406 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 W. Paul Thompson, Esquire Thompson and Adkinson P. O. Drawer 608 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building, Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue a permit to the Browns authorizing construction on their property, which is seaward of the coastal construction control line.
Findings Of Fact Property Descriptions (1) The Browns’ Property The Browns own Lots 5, 6, 7, 15, and 16 of a platted subdivision known as the First Addition of Anna Maria Beach Subdivision, Block 35 (the Subdivision). The Subdivision is on Anna Maria Island in the City of Anna Maria, which is in Manatee County. All of the Browns’ lots are seaward of the CCCL established by the Department for Manatee County. The parties stipulated that the construction authorized by the permit at issue in this proceeding is landward of the 30- year erosion line. Indeed, according to the analysis of the permit application prepared by the Department’s staff, the 30- year erosion line is approximately 111 feet seaward of the proposed construction. See Browns’ Exhibit 6, at 3. Lot 5 is the most landward lot owned by the Browns. Lot 6 is adjacent to and seaward of Lot 5, and Lot 7 is adjacent to and seaward of Lot 6. Lots 15 and 16 are seaward of Lot 7, and they are separated from Lot 7 by a 10-foot wide “vacated alley.” The Subdivision was platted in 1912. The plat of the Subdivision, Exhibit P6, shows the seaward edge of Lots 15 and 16 bordering on a road named Gulf Boulevard, which appears to be some distance inland from the Gulf of Mexico.2 Gulf Boulevard no longer exists, and all of Lots 7, 15, and 16 are now located on the sandy beach between Lot 6 and the Gulf of Mexico. The seaward edge of Lot 6 is approximately 176 feet landward of the mean high water line (MHWL) of the Gulf of Mexico. See Exhibit P5B. There are no structures or improvements located on Lots 7, 15, or 16. There are also no structures or improvements located on Lots 8, 9, and 10, which are to the north of Lots 7, 6, and 5, respectively. See Exhibit P4. Lot 10 was the subject of a CCCL permit application denied by the Department in 2000 based upon the Recommended Order issued in DOAH Case No. 99-3613, which is referred to by the parties as “the Negele case.” See Exhibit P30. There is an 850-square-foot single-family residence on Lots 5 and 6 that was constructed in the 1920’s and is used by the Browns as a vacation home. The property’s address is 104 Pine Avenue. All of the enclosed living area of the residence is on Lot 5. A wooden deck attached to the residence extends approximately 17 feet onto Lot 6, and at its most seaward point, the deck is 262.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. See Browns’ Exhibit 9. There are no structures on Lot 6 other than the wooden deck. More than half of Lot 5 has been previously disturbed. In addition to the Browns’ residence, there is a small wood “tool shed” located on that lot. The disturbed areas on Lot 5 between the residence and the shed and between the shed and Pine Avenue (see Exhibit P5C, areas marked with a yellow “1” and “2”) are used by the Browns for, among other things, parking and storage of boats. Those areas have very little vegetative cover. The northwest portion of Lot 5 is undisturbed and, as more fully discussed below, that area is densely vegetated with sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants. (2) Schrutt’s Property Schrutt owns Lot 4 of the Subdivision, which is adjacent to and immediately landward of the Browns’ Lot 5. The property’s address is 108 Pine Avenue. There is a two-story single-family residence on Lot 4 that Schrutt uses as a vacation home. Schrutt’s vacation home extends farther to the northwest than does the residence on the Browns’ lot. As a result, Schrutt currently has an unimpeded view of the Gulf of Mexico over the Browns' shed and across the undisturbed portion of the Browns’ lot from her second-floor deck. See Exhibits P2F and P5A. (3) The Youngs’ Property The Youngs own Lot 3 of the Subdivision, which is adjacent to and immediately landward of Schrutt’s lot and approximately 50 feet landward of the Browns’ Lot 5. The property’s address is 110 Pine Avenue. There is a three-story single-family residence on Lot 3 that the Youngs use as a vacation home. The Young’s vacation home is set farther back from Pine Avenue than are the residences on the Browns’ lot and Scrutt’s lot. As a result, the Youngs currently have an unimpeded view of the Gulf of Mexico across Schrutt’s lot and the undisturbed portion of the Browns’ lot (as well as across Lot 10) from their second- and third-floor decks. See Exhibits P2F and P5A. The Proposed Project and its Permitting History On March 30, 2004, the Browns submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit to allow them to construct an addition to their existing residence on Lots 5 and 6 (“the Project” or “the proposed construction”). The Project will include the renovation of the existing residence, additional residential space in an elevated structure on a pile foundation that will be connected to the existing residence, an elevated swimming pool and deck on a pile foundation, and a driveway made of pavers. There will be a concrete slab under a portion of the new elevated structure in the vicinity of the existing shed that will be enclosed and used as a two-car garage. See Browns’ Exhibit 14, sheet 9; Transcript, Volume 2, at 163-64. The finished floor elevation of the garage slab will be 7.0 feet above sea level/NGVD,3 which is slightly lower than the 8.4-foot finished floor elevation of the Browns’ existing residence. The elevated portions of the proposed construction will be 19.2 feet above sea level/NGVD, with a finished floor elevation between 20.2 and 20.7 feet. The “footprint” of the proposed construction is predominately on Lot 5, but it does extend 10 to 15 feet onto Lot 6. See Exhibit P5B, blue cross-hatched area. The seaward extent of the Project is in alignment with the existing residence and deck on the Browns’ property. After completion of the Project, the Browns’ vacation home will include approximately 2,500 square feet of enclosed space. The Browns’ permit application did not mention Schrutt, whose lot is adjacent to the lots on which the Project will be located, even though the application form requires the applicant to list “[t]he name and mailing address of the owners of the immediately adjacent properties . . . .” The reason for this omission is not entirely clear. The permit application included a letter from Kevin Donohue, Building Official, on the letterhead of the City of Anna Maria, which states that “[a] review of the proposed activity described in the seventeen-page plan package for an addition and alternation to an existing single family dwelling does not contravene the City of Anna Maria Code of Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan, and the Florida State Building Code.” The “seventeen-page plan package” referenced in Mr. Donohue’s letter is the same set of plans that the Browns submitted to the Department with their application. Those plans were received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 14. The parties stipulated that the City of Anna Maria building and zoning codes require structures to be set back at least 10 feet from the property line. The site plan for the Project shows the new elevated portion of the Browns’ residence exactly 10 feet from Schrutt’s Lot 4, and exactly 10 feet from the “alley” that runs between Lot 5 and Lot 10 to the north.4 Mr. Brown testified that the City prohibits on-street parking on Pine Avenue, which explains (at least in part) why the Project includes driveway pavers and a concrete slab/enclosed garage under a portion of the new elevated structure for parking. There have been no material modifications to the Project since the date of Mr. Donohue’s letter and, as discussed below, no material modifications will be necessary for the Project to satisfy the special permit conditions imposed by the Department. Thus, it is appropriate for the Department to continue to rely on the letter as proof that the Project does not contravene the applicable local codes. The survey submitted with the Browns’ permit application was dated September 4, 2002, which is approximately 18 months before the date of the application. The survey identified a “vegetation line” along the seaward edge of Lot 6 behind an area designated as “rocks,” and its also included the notation “sea oat existing” in the area between the vegetation line/rocks and the Browns' existing home as well as in the area of the Project. Neither the survey, nor any other information provided to the Department with the permit application showed the extent of the vegetation and dune features in the area of the Project with the same level of detail as is shown on Exhibits P5A, P5B and P5C and the Browns’ Exhibits 30A and 30B. By letter dated April 21, 2004, the Department requested additional information about the project, including a “topographic survey drawing of the subject property . . . from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of the application.” By letters dated May 3, 12, and 13, 2004, the Browns provided additional information about the Project pursuant to the Department’s request. They did not provide a more current survey than the September 2002 survey included with the application, although they did provide a signed and sealed copy of the 2002 survey. Notwithstanding the Browns failure to provide a more current survey, the Department apparently considered the Browns’ application to be complete because on July 29, 2004, the Department advised the Browns that their CCCL permit application for the Project was approved. The Browns’ failure to comply with the technical submittal requirements relating to the survey is not material as a result of the more current and more detailed survey information presented at the final hearing. The Department’s approval of the Browns’ permit application was subject to the general permit conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.0155, as well as a number of special permit conditions, including: No work shall be conducted under this permit until the permittee has received a written notice to proceed from the Department. Prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the permittee shall submit two copies of revised site plan depicting the swimming pool and deck extending a maximum distance of 265 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. (Italics in original). * * * All vegetation located seaward of the coastal construction control line shall be preserved except for that disturbance which is necessary for dwelling construction. Prior to completion of construction activities authorized by this permit, the permittee shall plant a mix of a minimum of three native salt-tolerant species within any disturbed areas seaward of the authorized structures. Plantings shall consist of salt-tolerant species indigenous to the native plant communities existing on or near the site or with out native species approved by the Department . . . . As permitted, the various components of the Project are to be located as follows: the new elevated portion of the residence, a maximum of 259.4 feet seaward of the CCCL; the addition to the existing residence, a maximum of 249.4 feet seaward of the CCCL; and the elevated swimming pool and deck, a maximum of 265 feet seaward of the CCCL. On August 16, 2004, the Browns provided a revised site plan to the Department in purported compliance with special permit condition No. 2. The revised site plan was received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 9. The revised site plan does not comply with special permit condition No. 2. It continues to show the pool and deck extending 268.41 feet seaward of the CCCL and it also shows a “pool security fence” extending 272.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. By letter dated August 25, 2004, the Department advised the Browns that the distances shown on the revised site plan were not consistent with the special permit conditions, and directed the Browns to “fulfill the conditions as per the approved [permit].” The location of the Project shown on the revised site plan (Browns’ Exhibit 9) is identical to the location of the Project on the original site plan (Browns’ Exhibit 14, sheet 3). The only difference between the two site plans is that the revised site plan includes two measurements not included on the original site plan showing the seaward corners of the new elevated deck 258.41 feet and 268.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. In order to comply with special permit condition No. 2, the plans will have to be revised to eliminate those portions of the Project that extend more than 265 feet seaward of the CCCL. The Project cannot be shifted farther landward because it already abuts the 10-foot setback line. The necessary revisions to the plans can be done without shifting the Project landward by eliminating a relatively small area of the deck and portions of the pool security fence. The Browns’ ability to satisfy the Department's special permit conditions by making minor modifications to the Project and not encroaching into the 10-foot setback distinguishes this case from the Negele case.5 Dunes, Generally A dune is a mound of sand lying upland of the beach that has been deposited by natural or artificial means and that is subject to fluctuations in configuration and location. It is not necessary for a mound of sand to be covered with vegetation to be considered a dune. However, vegetation promotes the growth of dunes and helps to stabilize dunes by trapping wind-blown sand. The expert testimony in this case (e.g., Transcript, Volume 1, at 147-48, and Volume 3, at 26-28) identified three different types of dunes -- significant, primary, and frontal -- and described each type consistent with the statutory and rule definitions quoted below. A “significant dune” is a dune that has “sufficient height and configuration or vegetation to offer protective value.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(a) (emphasis supplied). A “primary dune” is a significant dune that has “sufficient alongnshore continuity to offer protective value to upland property.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(b). A “frontal dune” is the “first [dune] which is located landward of the beach and which has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value.” § 161.053(6)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis supplied).6 Thus, a primary dune need not have vegetation so long as it has sufficient height, configuration, and continuity to offer protective value, but a frontal dune must have vegetation in addition to height, configuration, and continuity that offers protective value. The Browns’ contention to the contrary (e.g., Browns’ PRO, at 18) is rejected based upon the unambiguous statutory and rule language. Dunes in Southwest Florida are generally lower in height than are dunes in other parts of the state. However, the dunes on Anna Maria Island, including the dunes on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property, are substantial for Southwest Florida. The Beach-Dune System on and in the Vicinity of the Browns’ Property The beach on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property has been relatively stable over at least the past several decades. In recent years, the stability of the beach is due in part to several beach nourishment projects undertaken by Manatee County pursuant to a shore protection plan authorized by the federal government in 1975 for Anna Maria Island. The most recent project, completed in 2002, included the beach on the Browns’ property and advanced the MHWL approximately 200 feet seaward. The shore protection plan is scheduled to continue through 2025, which will help to ensure the continued stability of the beach on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property. It is undisputed that a primary dune runs across the Browns’ property. The parties disagree, however, as to whether that dune is also the frontal dune. The location of the primary dune on the Browns’ property is best shown on Exhibit P5B by the highlighted yellow lines. The seaward toe of the dune is in the vicinity of the six-foot contour line on Lot 6, and the landward toe of the dune is in the vicinity of the six-foot contour line on Lot 5. The dune is several hundred feet in length. It continues to the north of the Browns’ property onto Lot 10, and it continues to the south of the Browns’ property seaward of Pine Avenue. See Exhibit P5C and the Browns’ Exhibit 30B. The dune runs in a more northwesterly direction than does the shoreline. As a result, the portion of the dune that is seaward of Pine Avenue (to the south of the Browns’ property) is further seaward than the portion of the dune on the Browns property, which in turn, is further seaward of that portion of the dune on Lot 10. Id. The width of the dune varies. In the area of the proposed construction on the Browns’ property, the dune is 20 to 45 feet wide. The dune’s highest point on the Browns’ property is 7.8 feet. Its highest point on Lot 10 is 8.3 feet, and its highest point in the area seaward of Pine Avenue is 9.4 feet. The dune is vegetated with sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants, all of which are native salt-tolerant species. The vegetation on that portion of the dune on the Lots 5 and 6 is dense and mature. It is undisputed that the dune, in its current state, offers some protective value to upland properties, including the Petitioners’ properties. The evidence does not quantify the extent of the protection currently provided by the dune or the degree to which that protection will be diminished after the Project is constructed on the dune. Neither Petitioners’ expert coastal geologist nor the Browns’ expert coastal engineer did any modeling regarding the level of storm (e.g., 5-year, 10-year, etc.) that the dune provides protection against. The experts agreed, however, that the dune would likely not provide any significant protection against a 25-year or 50-year storm, which would have storm surges that exceed the height of the dune. There are dune features on the Browns’ property seaward of the primary dune described above. Those features, which were characterized as "incipient dunes" by Petitioners' expert coastal geologist, are delineated with red shading on the Browns’ Exhibit 30B and can be seen in several of the photographs received into evidence (e.g., Exhibits P2C and P2L, and Browns’ Exhibit 17L). Those dune features do not qualify as frontal dunes because they are sparsely vegetated (if at all), small in height (generally six inches or less), lack continuity, and offer no real protective value. Because the primary dune described above is the most seaward dune on the Browns’ property that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to provide protective value, it is the frontal dune.7 Assessment of the Project’s Impacts An applicant for a CCCL must demonstrate that the impacts of the project have been minimized and that the project will not destabilize a primary or frontal dune or cause a “significant adverse impact,” as that phrase is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.002(31)(b). The proposed construction at issue in this proceeding will be located on the frontal dune and will result in the removal of all of the existing vegetation on that dune within the “footprint” of the new structure. The evidence was not persuasive that the removal of that vegetation, although extensive, will destabilize the dune or result in a “significant adverse impact” to the beach-dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. Indeed, there will still be dense vegetation seaward of and to the north and south of the new structure, and any vegetation outside of the “footprint” of the Project that is impacted by construction must be mitigated in accordance with the special permit conditions quoted above. The Project, as permitted, will not interfere with the beach-dune system’s recovery from coastal storms or cause the dune to become unstable or suffer a catastrophic failure such that its protective value to upland properties is significantly lowered. Indeed, there was no credible evidence that the Browns’ existing on-grade residence, which has existed since the 1920's on the same dune that the proposed structure will be located, has adversely impacted the recovery of the beach-dune system or the dune’s protective value. It is not necessary to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Project because there was no evidence of any similar projects in the vicinity of the Browns’ property that have been permitted or for which a permit application is pending. Indeed, the only credible evidence related to this issue involved the Department’s denial of a permit for construction on the adjacent Lot 10, which generates no cumulative impact concerns and does not establish “precedent” in this case because the Department evaluates each CCCL permit application on its own merits. The Project, as permitted, will not result in a net removal of in situ sandy soils from the beach-dune system. The 33 cubic yards of soil that will be excavated for the Project will be spread on the Browns’ seaward lots and, therefore, will remain in the impacted beach-dune system. The Project will be elevated above the projected 100- year storm surge height and will meet applicable building code requirements. As a result, structure-induced scour will be minimized and will not cause any significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system or the upland properties. The Project will be constructed in accordance with the Florida Building Code, which will minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles. The depth of the swimming pool is limited to 4.5 feet and its bottom elevation will be 3.8 feet above sea level/NGVD, which will minimize the amount of excavation necessary for the pool. The permit requires the excavated material to be placed “[i]n and around the proposed swimming pool area,” so there will be no net loss of material from the immediate area of the pool. Even though the proposed construction will be located on the frontal dune (rather than a sufficient distance landward of it), the Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the stability of the beach-dune system or preclude natural shoreline fluctuations. Indeed, the fact that the Browns’ existing residence has apparently not adversely impacted the stability of the beach-dune system or natural shoreline fluctuations over the past 80 years undermines Petitioners’ contentions regarding the potential adverse impacts of the proposed structures. The line of continuous construction identified by the Department during its review of the Browns’ permit application was 244 feet seaward of the CCCL, which is consistent with the findings in the Negele case. See Exhibit P30, at 14. The line of continuous construction is not a line of prohibition, but rather it is only a factor that must be considered in conjunction with all of the other permitting criteria in the statutes and the Department’s rules. There is evidence indicating that the line of continuous construction is more than 244 feet seaward of the CCCL. For example, the aerial photograph received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 18A shows that the existing structures on the adjacent properties (particularly those to the south of Pine Avenue and those to the north of Elm Avenue8) are farther seaward than the Browns’ residence, which itself is more than 244 seaward of the CCCL. Consistent with the aerial photograph, the Browns’ Exhibit 30A depicts what is referred to as the “existing line of construction established by major structures in the area” seaward of the Browns’ deck, which as note above, is approximately 262 feet seaward of the CCCL. The Project, as permitted, extends to a maximum of 265 feet seaward of the CCCL and, as reflected on Exhibit P5B, a majority of the proposed construction is seaward of the 244-foot line. However, the Project (as proposed and as permitted) is landward of the line depicted on the Browns’ Exhibit 30A. The location of the proposed construction is not contrary to the Department’s rules even if the 244-foot line identified by the Department is correct because the Project is in alignment with the Browns’ existing residence and because there was no credible evidence that the existing residence has been unduly affected by erosion. The native salt-tolerant vegetation (e.g., sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants) impacted by the Project are dense and mature, and the degree of disturbance is significant. However, as noted above, there will still be dense vegetation seaward of and to the north and south of the proposed construction that will not be impacted and that will continue to provide protective value for the dune system and upland properties. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(11) requires disturbances to the existing native salt-tolerant plant communities to be “limited.” That rule also requires construction to be located “where possible” in previously disturbed areas. Locating the Project in the previously disturbed areas of Lot 5 rather than on the frontal dune would not increase adverse impact to the beach-dune system and, indeed, may reduce the impact by limiting disturbances to the existing native salt- tolerant plant communities. However, the Project could not be relocated into the disturbed areas because those areas are considerably smaller than the “footprint” of the proposed construction, particularly when the set-backs required by the local code and the on-street parking restrictions are taken into account. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that despite the its location on a portion of the densely vegetated frontal dune, the Project satisfies the permitting criteria in the Department’s rules and will not result in “significant adverse impacts” to the beach-dune system or upland properties. In making the foregoing findings, the undersigned did not overlook the contrary opinions of Petitioners’ expert coastal geologist. However, the undersigned found his testimony regarding the impact of the Project on the beach-dune system to be less persuasive the testimony of the Browns’ expert coastal engineer on that issue. Other Considerations The Project will not interfere with the public's lateral beach access, nor will it interfere with public access to the beach from Pine Avenue. The parties stipulated that the Project does not raise any concerns relating to sea turtles. The Project will effectively block Schrutt’s view of the Gulf of Mexico from her vacation home, and it will impair the Youngs’ view of the Gulf of Mexico from their vacation home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order approving the Browns’ permit application subject to the general and special permit conditions referenced in the Department’s July 29, 2004, letter and permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact In 1981, Petitioners Edward S. Coley and his wife, Juanita P. Coley, purchased lot 8, block A, Camp Creek Lake Subdivision, in Walton County, Florida. The lot is located on the beach at the Gulf of Mexico in a platted subdivision. Petitioners purchased the property for the purpose of building a beach house that would eventually be a retirement home. (Testimony of E. Coley Petitioners' Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1) At the time Petitioners purchased the lot, there were a number of existing dwellings to the east of the lot and several to the west. The habitable portions of these dwellings for the most part were located at or near the existing coastal construction setback line that had been established by Respondent in 1975 to provide protection to the dune area of the beach. Although Petitioners planned to locate their two-story dwelling approximately on the then-existing setback line, they had not done so at the time a new coastal construction control line was established in December, 1982, which resulted in moving the setback line further landward for a distance of some sixty two feet. The county coastal construction control lines are established under the authority of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and are intended to define the portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge. Construction seaward of the line is prohibited unless a permit is obtained from Respondent. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, 5, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 20) On September 19, 1983, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to construct a 2000 square foot two-story house on their lot. The dwelling was designed to have upper and lower decks facing the Gulf, with a dune walkover structure seaward, and a three-car garage attached to the main house by a breezeway. As planned, the seaward extent of the habitable portion of the house would be located some eight feet landward of the old setback line and approximately 62 feet seaward of the existing construction control line. After processing the application, Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation advised Petitioners by letter dated January 5, 1984 that a staff recommendation to deny the application would be presented to the head of the Department, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet, on January 17, 1984, and advising Petitioners of their rights to a Chapter 120 hearing. By letter of January 11, 1984, Petitioners did request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., and, on January 17, Mr. Coley appeared before the Governor and Cabinet to support approval of his application. On March 20, 1984, the Governor and Cabinet approved the minutes of its January 17th meeting wherein the apparent basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application was stated as follows: The staff is concerned that the applicant is not effectively utilizing the property landward of the control line and that the proposed encroachment is unnecessary and not justified. Prior to the preparation of the structural plans, the staff recommended a 25 foot landward relocation of the structure in order to more effectively utilize the property landward of the control line and provide an effective, protective setback from the active dune area. Presently, there exists approximately 85 feet between the landwardmost portion of the proposed garage structure and the landward property line. The recommended 25 foot landward location represents a compromise that acknowledges the line of existing construction in the immediate area . . . . * * * Dr. Gissendanner stated that this was the first building permitted in this area. All the other buildings there had been built before a permit was required. Now it was necessary to take into consideration the new coastal construction line and the accumulative effect which the new law imposed. The problem was that the Department did not want to start a precedent to allow the house to be built out there and have other people come in and want to build along the same line. By letter of September 29, 1983, Respondent had advised petitioners that any structure of the size proposed by Petitioners located within the dune region would adversely impact and limit the extent of dune recovery following severe erosion associated with a major storm event. The letter proposed a compromise in location of Petitioners' dwelling to a point approximately 25 feet landward of the desired location, thus placing the seawardmost portion of the habitable structure approximately 35 feet seaward of the construction control line. This was stated to be a viable compromise since there existed sufficient room to locate the entire structure, including garage, landward of the control line. Petitioners however declined to accept such a compromise in the belief that to do so would eliminate any view of the Gulf over the dune line except from the upstairs deck of the proposed structure. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 1-2, 9, Respondent's Exhibits 1-8, 13-16) The height of the dune line on petitioners' lot is approximately 27 feet high, which is the same elevation as the first floor of the proposed dwelling at the desired site. The proposed second floor would be 9 feet above the crest of the dune. However, if placement of the structure was moved landward 25 feet, it would be impossible to see over the dune area from the ground floor of the house. Additionally, the view of the beach area would be obstructed by the homes to the east and west of Petitioners' lot. The proposed dwelling is designed for the maximum allowable height of 30 feet. Under deed covenants and restrictions, a variance would have to be obtained to build a taller structure. The value of Petitioners' property would undoubtedly be diminished to some extent if the house was built substantially behind the adjacent dwellings because of the restricted view of the beach and water area. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 8) Although there would be no adverse impact on adjacent properties if Petitioners were permitted to build in the desired location, such proposed siting could have an adverse impact on the dune system as a result of a major storm event since the dwelling would be located on the seaward edge of existing vegetation at the landward toe of the dune. If the location were to be moved 25 feet further landward, there would be additional vegetation to facilitate recovery of the system after such a storm. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation also believes that the existing structures in that area would be demolished as a result of a major storm, but Petitioners' house, which is designed to withstand a 100-year storm event, would remain, thus impeding full recovery of the dune system. (Testimony of Moore, Flack, Clark, Respondent's Exhibits 9-12, 19, 21) Respondent has permitted several structures in the past which were located seaward of the coastal construction control line, but these were approved because the impact on the dune system was minimized in those locations, and also because the applicants had utilized all of the upland property possible on their lots. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 3-4, 6-7, 9-10) Although conflicting evidence was received as to whether or not the existing structures east of Petitioners lot constitute a "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," it is found that although minor variations exist in the location of individual dwellings, they do meet the quoted statutory standard set forth in Section 161.053(4)(b), Florida Statutes. The existing structures have not been affected by erosion. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Moore, Flack, Clark, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioners' structural design meets Respondent's technical requirements subject to standard conditions of the Department. (Testimony of Moore, Evans, Flack, Petitioners' Exhibit 2) The Departmental rules cited by Respondent as the authority for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application are Rules 16B-33.05(1), (2), (6), 33.06(2), and 33.07(2), Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioners' Exhibit 4.)
Findings Of Fact Nannette K. Scoggins is the owner of the real property located at 5622 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida in Manatee County. Nannette K. Scoggins' property, the petitioner's property, 5624 Gulf Drive, and the other adjacent property, 5620 Gulf Drive, are zoned as "A-1 Hotel-Motel" under the City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance. On November 13, 1983, Mrs. Scoggins submitted to DNR an application for a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (control line). The proposed project, known as Jansea Place, would consist of two multifamily dwellings, four units to a building, divided by a swimming pool. A portion of the most seaward building would extend a maximum of 57 feet seaward of the control line. By letter dated July 11, 1984, DNR notified petitioner that the department was considering the permit application. The petitioner responded by letter dated July 18, 1984, objecting to any construction seaward of the control line. On October 1, 1984, petitioner received notification that DNR intended to recommend approval of the permit. The permit was scheduled for a vote by the Governor and Cabinet on October 16, 1984. The staff of DNR recommended approval of the permit. By telegram dated October 15, 1984, the petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and on October 22, 1984, petitioner filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The application for permit No. ME-89 is a complete application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line. On October 5, 1983, the Superintendent of Public Works of the City of Holmes Beach certified that this project does not violate any ordinance of the City of Holmes Beach. The plans for the proposed project are signed and sealed by an architect registered in the State of Florida, and the submitted plans comply with the design standards established in Rule 16B-33.07, Florida Administrative Code to resist adequately the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event. The plans, specifications, drawings and other information submitted to DNR with the application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line are complete and accurate, and meet the requirements of DNR for that purpose. Under the provisions of Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, the application was determined to be complete on August 6, 1984. The proposed construction is located landward of an existing vertical concrete bulkhead. The seawall was built jointly by the Scoggins and Mr. McLean, who owns the property immediately to the south of the Scoggins' property. The seawall was built after the hurricane of 1972 because the existing dune system had been destroyed. Since that time, the mean high water line has continued to encroach landward to the point where it is now east of the wall. However, the seawall is not necessary for the protection of the proposed building. Although the seawall would fail under the direct impact of a major hurricane, the proposed building is adequately designed to withstand the impact erosion, the wave loads, the winds, and the water forces associated with a major hurricane. The necessity and justification for the project's location in relation to the control line is stated in the application, and petitioner has not challenged the necessity or justification. The City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance requires that the buildings be separated by a minimum of 30 feet. Since the proposed buildings are separated by 30 feet, the proposed seaward building is located as far landward as possible without violating the zoning ordinance. Erosion and structural damage occurred as a result of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and the "No Name" storm in 1982 in the area between 1,000 feet south of the Scoggins' property and 500 feet north of the Scoggins' property. Although the beach was fairly stable from 1974 to 1979, the beach began to erode in 1980. When the seawall was built in 1974, the dune line was even with the seawall. However, as can be seen from a comparison of the photographs taken in June of 1979 with those taken in early 1985, the beach has eroded since June of 1979 and the dune line is now several feet landward of the seawall. The DNR recommendation for approval of the Scoggin's permit application was based upon historical erosion data for the period between 1940 and 1974, which was the most recent data available that could be used to review the project. Mr. Clark stated that the application was recommended for approval based on the design of the proposed building and its alignment with existing structures built seaward of the control line. The proposed project is located landward of a line of existing structures. Although the adjacent properties have been affected by erosion, there was no evidence presented to show that the existing structures located seaward of the control line have been unduly affected by erosion. In 1974, when the seawall was being constructed, the worker building the seawall dug up part of the petitioner's property and destroyed the sea oats he had planted. However, the proposed project has a driveway encircling the building which would provide vehicular access to the seawall if necessary. The proposed project will partially obstruct petitioner's view to the southwest. However, there was no evidence presented that petitioner's property or the other adjacent property, would be adversely affected in any other way by the proposed project. There was no evidence presented that the proposed project would be affected by, or have an effect on, beach or coastal erosion. The proposed project would have no effect on the beach dune system.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that DNR issue Permit Number ME-89 to Nannette K. Scoggins. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1985.
The Issue The issues for determination at final hearing were (1) whether Petitioner's coastal construction Permit No. 86-155PB, authorizing Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be extended under Special Permit Condition 10 of the Permit and (2) whether the experimental reef structure should be removed pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12 of the Permit.
Findings Of Fact On April 6, 1987, American Coastal Engineering, on behalf of Willis H. DuPont (Petitioner) and Florida Atlantic University's Department of Ocean Engineering, was granted coastal construction Permit NO. 86-155PB 3/ (Permit) by the Department of Natural Resources (Respondent). 4/ The Permit authorized Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The experimental reef structure, referred to as a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef), is a 550 foot submerged breakwater which was constructed using prefabricated concrete segments, placed end-to-end underwater in the nearshore area. The purpose of the PEP reef is to reduce erosion of the beach landward of the structure. The PEP reef was installed on May 5, 1988. Special conditions were placed on the Permit, to which Petitioner agreed. The special conditions in pertinent part provide: The permittee shall adjust, alter or remove any structure or other physical evidence of the work or activity permitted, as directed by the Executive Director, if in the opinion of the Executive Director, the structure, work or activity in question results in damage to surrounding property or otherwise proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary. Adjustment, alteration, or removal required under this provision, shall be accomplished by the permittee at no cost to the State of Florida. * * * 10. The proposed submerged breakwater shall be removed within two years following installation of the experimental structure unless determined by the staff to remain in place for an extended period of time. This determination shall be based on a staff evaluation of the monitoring data, existing statutory regulations, and the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan at that time. The experimental structure shall only remain in place after two years upon written approval from the Executive Director indicating an extension has been granted. * * * 12. The Executive Director may order removal of the experimental structure as soon as the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished under Special Permit Condition 6 erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location within the area to be monitored. Petitioner requested an extension of the Permit. On July 10, 1991, Respondent issued a final order denying an extension of the Permit, pursuant to Special Permit Condition 10, and directing the Petitioner to remove the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. An extension of the Permit beyond the two years following installation of the PEP reef, according to Special Permit Condition 10, is based upon three factors: (1) an evaluation by Respondent's staff of monitoring data gathered by Petitioner, (2) statutory regulations existing at the time of the extension request, and (3) the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan existing at the time of the extension request. Although Petitioner's monitoring data addressed the question whether the PEP reef was performing its function, it did not address existing statutory regulations or the project's feasibility in concurrence with the current beach management plan. 5/ Petitioner's monitoring data was collected over a two-year period with surveys being performed through March 1990: March 1988 (preconstruction), May 1988 (post-construction), August 1988, December 1988, February 1989, April 1989, July 1989, November 1989, and March 1990. The data was collected along 17 profile stations: seven stations were located within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the PEP reef, and five to the north and five to the south of the PEP reef. The data indicated that the PEP reef was an experiment and approved by Respondent as an experiment. As a conclusion, Petitioner indicates that the PEP reef is functioning for the purpose it was designed in that it is providing a benefit to the beach. Respondent disagreed with Petitioner's conclusion. For one, Respondent disagreed with the method of analysis used by Petitioner to analyze the data because Petitioner's analysis failed to filter out seasonal effects. This procedure brought into play the first of the three factors in Special Permit Condition 10 which was used for denial of the Permit extension. Petitioner's monitoring data was utilized and analyzed by Respondent. Using the data gathered, Respondent created profile plots which are cross sectional depictions of the shoreline profiles and which displayed changes to the shoreline occurring during the survey period. Respondent used a shoreline change analysis in determining the PEP reef's effect on the shoreline in its vicinity. The analysis focused on the net change in the shoreline, i.e., the net change in the location of the mean high water line, factoring out the seasonal variations which occur along the coast by comparing profile plots from the same time of year taken during the two-year monitoring period. The shoreline change analysis indicated that in the vicinity of the PEP reef the shoreline showed irregular periods of both accretion and erosion. However, the shoreline did not reflect the typical pattern that was expected with a functioning breakwater. To the contrary, the irregular periods of accretion and erosion and the irregular configuration of the shoreline indicated that factors other than the PEP reef were affecting the shoreline. One such intervening factor was attributed to the large number of existing shoreline structures called groins which are scattered throughout the area. Groins are structures intended to stabilize the shoreline by blocking the down drift movement of sand, thereby altering the natural coastal processes. The monitoring data shows that, in terms of accretion or erosion, the PEP reef produced no recognizable influence on the shoreline in its vicinity. As to the second factor in Special Permit Condition 10, at the time the Permit was granted in 1988, no regulations specifically applicable to experimental structures existed. However, in 1989 a provision specifically addressing the permitting of experimental structures became law. /6 The provision provides that the "intent" of the Florida Legislature is to "encourage the development of new and innovative methods for dealing with the coastal shoreline erosion problem," and that, in authorizing the "construction of pilot projects using alternative coastal shoreline erosion control methods," the Respondent must determine, among other things, that "the proposed project site is properly suited for analysis of the results of the proposed activity." Groins in the PEP reef area alter the natural coastal processes and, therefore, play a significant role in the analysis of the shoreline processes. The effect of the groins affected the Respondent's ability to determine the effectiveness of the experimental structure. As a result, the Respondent was unable to make a determination in accordance with the legislative mandate. As to the third factor in Special Permit Condition 10, Petitioner presented no evidence addressing this factor. Petitioner has failed to show that the experimental structure, the PEP reef, has satisfied Special Permit Condition 10. It has failed to show that the intended purpose of the PEP reef has been accomplished, i.e., that the PEP reef is effective or beneficial. In denying Petitioner's request for an extension of the Permit, Respondent directed removal of the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Special Permit Condition 3 provides for removal, alteration or adjustment of the PEP reef if it "proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary." The construction of the PEP reef consisted of, among other things, the placing of individual reef units end-to-end. To alert boaters to the location of the PEP reef, a buoy was placed at each end of the structure. The stability of the PEP reef is questionable. In 1989 a storm dislodged the individual units. In an effort to prevent sliding, Petitioner attempted to realign the units to their original position and added more weight to the units. Despite Petitioner's efforts to stabilize the structure, the PEP reef has experienced continued movement. Furthermore, because of the continued movement, boaters' safety would be compromised in that the buoys would be ineffective in warning them of the location of any units which may be dislodged. Also, the additional weight to the units could cause the individual units to settle, potentially affecting the performance of the PEP reef, and could induce erosional scour around the structure itself. Special Permit Condition 12 provides for removal when "the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished . . . erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location." The shoreline analysis showed that the shoreline in many portions of the nourished area eroded landward of the pre-nourished beach profile. The mean high water line had positioned landward of its pre-project location. Petitioner has failed to show that the PEP reef does not fall within the conditions of Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Federally protected and endangered marine species have attached themselves to and/or now reside in the PEP reef, complicating the removal of the PEP reef. In order not to disturb or disrupt this marine life, Respondent has expressed a desire in relocating the structure to a position further offshore.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources 7/ enter a final order DENYING an extension of Permit No. 86-155PB. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of April 1994. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April 1994.
Findings Of Fact The subject property Petitioners, Michael and Janice Rush, are the owners of a single family residence located at 3032 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Such residence lies seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and is therefore subject to the permitting jurisdiction of respondent, Department of Natural Resources (Department). Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. The first application In April 1991, Petitioners filed a permit application (Permit File No. BO-267) with the Department for permission to renovate their home and construct a swimming pool. That application was found to be incomplete, and by letter of April 17, 1991, the Department notified petitioners of the information required to complete their application. Following receipt and review of the requested information, the Department, by letter of July 26, 1991, advised petitioners that, as proposed, their application to construct a pool and renovate the home would have to be denied. Pertinent to the proposed pool, such letter observed that a portion of the pool would be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection which is prohibited 1/, the general construction line of major structures would be advanced further seaward, adverse impacts to the beach/dune system during a major storm event could be expected, and cumulative adverse impacts could be expected. Thereafter, by letter of August 14, 1991, the Department was advised that petitioners were submitting new house plans for the subject property, and that the request for leave to construct the pool had been removed from their application. 2/ On December 23, 1991, the Department issued a final order in Permit File No. BO-267 which authorized the petitioners to remodel their home. Such final order observed: . . . The direct and cumulative impacts to the beach and dune system that will be caused by both the seaward location and shore- parallel width of the proposed construction represent the maximum such impacts that are acceptable to the Department. Therefore, future construction on the site seaward of the coastal construction control line shall not extend further seaward of, or increase the shore- parallel coverage occupied by, the proposed structures approved pursuant to this permit. The pool, which petitioners had initially proposed to construct seaward of the home, but subsequently deleted from their plans, constituted a major structure, albeit nonhabitable. Rule 16B-33.002(54)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners were expressly advised by the Department of their right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the provisions of the final order. No such contest was filed. 3/ The pending application On February 20, 1992, petitioners filed a new application (Permit File NO. BO-289) with the Department for permission to construct the swimming pool on their property. As proposed, the pool would be located in the beach-dune system seaward of petitioners' home, as well as seaward of an existing retaining wall on the petitioners' property. The pool would measure 16.0' x 35.7' externally, be constructed of reinforced gunite, and be supported by ten piles. The alignment of the pool would be in the shore parallel direction, rather than the shore normal direction as proposed in the prior application, thereby placing the pool landward of the 30-year erosion projection. By letter of March 8, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their application was incomplete, and requested additional information. Petitioners submitted the final information necessary to complete their application on July 21, 1992. By letter dated October 7, 1992, received by petitioners' representative on October 13, 1992, the Department issued a public notice as follows: The referenced application for a permit pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, has been placed on the agenda of the head of the Department of Natural Resources (Governor and Cabinet). The application will be reviewed by the Cabinet Aides in the Cabinet Meeting Room on the lower level of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 14, 1992. The application will then be heard by the Governor and Cabinet in Room LL03 of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 20, 1992. You may attend these meetings if you desire. The recommendation [for denial] shown on the enclosed agenda item has been made to the head of the Department by the Executive Director. This represents an agency determination. . . . The notice, consistent with the provisions of Rule 16B-33.012(8), Florida Administrative Code, further advised that any substantially affected person had the right to request a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within 21 days of receipt of the notice, and that "If the decision of the Governor and Cabinet is different from the staff recommendation as noticed . . ., then the applicant or any substantially affected person shall have 21 days from the date of the Governor and Cabinet's announcement of their decision in which to petition the agency for a hearing." The basis for the Department's denial of petitioners' application to construct the swimming pool was stated as follows: The proposed swimming pool is not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available. For example a similar structure could be sited in a less impactive location landward of the single-family dwelling on the southwest corner of the property. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Paragraph 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Rule 16B-33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shore line fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion. The proposed swimming pool is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system. * * * 8. The proposed project is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. The Department, therefore, may not authorize the construction of the pool. On October 13, 1992, petitioners requested that their application be removed from the agenda, and be rescheduled for "a later date to be determined." The rationale for petitioners' request was to afford "an opportunity for the permittee and staff to meet in Tallahassee in early to mid November and reach a design for a pool which can be recommended favorably by staff." By letter of October 14, 1992, the Department granted petitioners' request and the item was removed from the agenda for the Governor and Cabinet meeting of October 20, 1992. Such letter further provided that although the Department was willing to meet with petitioners to discuss the staff concerns about their application, that it "must caution you . . . that at this time I do not anticipate that a swimming pool, as you requested, can be satisfactory [sic] located seaward of your home." Petitioners and the Department were unable to resolve their dispute. Accordingly, petitioners filed a petition on November 2, 1992, to contest the proposed denial of their application. By letter of November 13, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their request for formal administrative hearing was inadequate, but accorded them 14 days from receipt of such letter to submit an appropriate request. Petitioners timely submitted an appropriate request for hearing on November 30, 1992, and the matter was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 4/ The merits of the pending application As heretofore noted in the findings of fact, the Department enunciated seven reasons to support its denial of petitioner's application. The first basis for denial was the Department's assertion that the proposed swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available." In this regard, it is observed that Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: . . . Establishment of a coastal construction control line . . . does not preclude all development of or alteration of coastal property seaward of such lines. However, activities seaward of a coastal construction control line . . . shall be limited and the necessity of such development, construction or alteration shall be stated and clearly justified by the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid rule does not further explain what is contemplated by the requirement that the applicant clearly justify the "necessity" of the proposed development; however, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary. 5/ In this regard, "necessity" is defined to mean "something that cannot be done without." Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary. It is also defined as "something needed for the existence, effectiveness, or success of something (a requirement)," and "the state or fact of being required or unavoidable." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Here, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct the swimming pool since it fails to credibly support the conclusion that such construction is required for the effective or reasonable use of petitioners' property or that such construction is essential for the well-being of its occupants.6/ To the contrary, the petitioners' decision to construct the pool is merely a matter of personal preference or convenience. Moreover, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct a pool of the size and configuration proposed (16' x 35.7' with a maximum depth of 8') or of the materials selected (reinforced gunite supported by piles). Indeed, a pool of a different configuration or size could be located elsewhere on the property and the pool could be constructed on a base slab foundation or of vinyl to alleviate the adverse effects of its current design, discussed infra. 7/ As further reasons for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade"; Rule 16B-33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties"; Rule 16B- 33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion"; and Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, "to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system." Pertinent to the aforesaid reasons for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, the "Department Policy Statement on Permits," provides: Seaward of the coastal construction control line . . ., special siting, structural and other design considerations are required: (a) for the protection of the beach-dune system; * * * (c) for the protection of adjacent properties. And, Rule 16B-33.007, Florida Administrative Code, the "Structural and Other Requirements Necessary for Permit Approval," provides: The proposed structure or other activity shall be located a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve the dune stability and natural recovery following storm induced erosion . . . . All structures shall be designed so as to minimize any expected adverse impact on the beach-dune system or adjacent properties and structures and shall be designed consistent with Section 16B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code. Relevant to such rules, the proof demonstrates that the frontal dune on the subject property appears to have been leveled at an elevation of approximately +12.0 feet NGVD, and petitioners' home is located on top of the crest of the frontal dune. The seaward slope of the frontal dune begins at the seaward face of the house and slopes down to the beach. Approximately 12 feet seaward of the house is an existing retaining wall. The proposed pool will be sited immediately seaward of such wall and therefore on the seaward slope of the frontal dune. The proposed pool is a pile supported concrete swimming pool with exterior dimensions of 16.0' shore-normal by 35.7' shore-parallel, and a maximum depth of 8.0'. The foundation is specified to be auger-cast piles, which will penetrate to an elevation of -23.0' NGVD or 3' embedment where a rock layer is encountered. The elevation of the pool is proposed at +13.0' NGVD, with a bottom elevation of +4.0' NGVD. As designed and sited, construction of the pool would destabilize the dune, hinder its function of protecting upland development during a storm event, and adversely affect natural shoreline fluctuation and recovery following storm induced erosion. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the location of the pool seaward of the existing retaining wall would interrupt the natural continuity of dune formation because sand would accumulate seaward of the pool in a less stable location and would impede the accumulation of sand on adjacent properties. Construction of the pool, as designed and sited, would also induce scour during the course of a storm event impacting the structure. Such storm- induced scour, in addition to erosion, would cause the loss of additional sand at the vicinity of the structure, robbing the beach-dune system of additional sand necessary to protect upland structures, and would also contribute to the potential failure of the structure itself and other upland structures. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that approximately 1,000 cubic yards of sand would be lost on petitioners' section of the beach in the event of a 10-year storm. Additionally, structure-induced scour of 77.5 cubic yards from the ten piles, 120.4 cubic yards from the pool shell, and 15.8 cubic yards from the "end effects" of the pool (the amount of structure-induced scour from the ends of the structure) might reasonably be anticipated in the event of a 10-year storm. If the pool were to be impacted by a higher frequency storm, such as a 20-year or a 100-year storm, scour and erosion would increase. 8/ As an additional basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, "because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area." Here, the proof supports the Department's conclusion. As its final basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, "because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event." Pertinent to the aforesaid basis for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site; however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event . . . . Here, petitioners' project is expected to have significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system as a consequence of its design and siting. Accordingly, the provisions of Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant. Moreover, there was no proof concerning any similar structures along the coast, existing or proposed, that would contribute to or intensify the degradation of the beach-dune system occasioned by the proposed project. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that cumulative impact is a relevant issue in these proceedings. While cumulative impact is not relevant to the pending application, the other reasons advanced by the Department for denial of the application have, as heretofore found, a rational basis in fact. Under such circumstances, petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioners' application to construct seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November 1993.
The Issue All Three Cases Whether the Petitioners have standing to bring their respective challenges pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes? Case No. 10-5348RU Whether either or both Original Specific Condition 1 and the Department ECL Position constitute a rule? Case Nos. 10-6205 and 10-8197 Whether Specific Condition 5 constitutes a rule? Attorney's Fees Whether an order should be entered against the Department for costs and attorney's fees under Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Draft Permit The Draft Permit (and its revisions) authorizes the County "to construct the work outlined in the activity description and activity location of this permit and shown on the approved permit drawings, plans and other documents attached hereto." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9, page 3 of 26. The "activity description" and the "activity location" are detailed on the first page of the Draft Permit. See Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9 (first page of 26). The drawings, plans and other documents attached to the Draft Permit are contained under Tab 10 of Volume III of the Joint Exhibit. The Parties Petitioner Guidry is co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust (the "Guidry Living Trust"). He has independent authority to protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber or otherwise dispose of trust assets. Those assets include a condominium unit in the Oceania Condominium. The condominium unit owned by the Guidry Living Trust includes an undivided interest held with all other unit owners in the common property at the Oceania Condominium. The common property includes real property that fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 720 Gulf Shore Drive in the City of Destin, Florida. The real property has the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico as its southern boundary. Petitioner Oceania is a condominium association established pursuant to Florida's Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. It does not own any real property. Mr. Guidry testified that he is authorized in his capacity as president of the Association to initiate and pursue this administrative proceeding on its behalf. No documents were entered in evidence reflecting that Oceania's Board of Directors approved the filing of the petition. The owners of condominium units at the Oceania Condominium, including the Guidry Trust, comprise the membership of Oceania. The unit owners all own undivided shares in the Oceania Condominium common property including the real estate that extends at its southern boundary to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The owners did not vote on whether to file the petition in Case No. 10-05348RU. Petitioners David and Rebecca Sherry are leaseholders of real property where they reside. Located at 554 Coral Court, Number 511, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, the property is in an area in Okaloosa County on Santa Rosa Island that is known as Okaloosa Island. The property leased by the Sherrys is not within the Western Destin Project. Petitioner John Donovan is a leaseholder of real property located at 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Numbers 131-132, El Matador Condominium, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, in the same area as the Sherry's residence. Petitioner MACLA II, Ltd., is a Texas Limited Partnership. Louise Brooker is its president. It owns real property which fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 620 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. The southern boundary of the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The MACLA property is located adjacent to the shoreline that is the subject of the Western Destin Project. The Betty Price Hughes Qualified Vacation Residence Trust (the "Hughes Trust") owns real property at 612 Gulf Shore Drive. Its southern boundary is deeded the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Petitioner H. Joseph Hughes is a trustee of the Hughes Trust. Petitioner Kershaw Manufacturing Company, Inc., an Alabama corporation, is the owner of real property located at 634 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. Its southern boundary the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Royce Kershaw is the president of the Kershaw Manufacturing Company. He testified that as president of the company, he has the authority to act on behalf of the company and has the power to bind the corporate entity. The Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for the administration of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, Parts I and II, the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act." § 161.011, Fla. Stat. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund is responsible for stewardship of its public trust properties under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. Included among those properties is the sovereignty submerged lands along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The ECL and the MHWL In the context of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, the MHWL and the ECL were discussed by the Florida Supreme Court in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2008) (the "Walton County Supreme Court Case"): Pursuant to section 161.141, when a local government applies for funding for beach restoration, a survey of the shoreline is conducted to determine the MHWL for the area. Once established, any additions to the upland property landward of the MHWL that result from the restoration project remain the property of the upland owner subject to all governmental regulations, including a public easement for traditional uses of the beach. § 161.141. After the MHWL is established, section 161.161(3) provides that the Board must determine the area to be protected by the project and locate an ECL. In locating the ECL, the Board "is guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible." § 161.161(5). Pursuant to section 161.191(1), this ECL becomes the new fixed property boundary between public lands and upland property after the ECL is recorded. And, under section 161.191(2), once the ECL has been established, the common law no longer operates "to increase or decrease the proportions of any upland property lying landward of such line, either by accretion or erosion or by any other natural or artificial process." Walton County, at 1108. The Pre-project MHWL in This Case and the ECL The Pre-project MHWL called for by Original Specific Condition 1 was never established. No evidence was introduced as to where the Pre-project MHWL would have been located had it been set and in particular, where it would have been located in relation to an ECL. Rod Maddox is a long-time surveyor with the Department's Division of State Land in the Bureau of Survey & Mapping. See P-244. Mr. Maddox testified about his experience with pre-project MHWLs and where they are located in relation to ECLs. Familiar with the term "pre-project mean high water line," Mr. Maddox defined it as the mean high water line prior to the placement of fill used in a beach restoration project. See id. at 29. He testified that pre-project MHWLs have been required in the many beach restoration cases with which he is familiar. He testified further that when it comes to location, there is no difference between a pre-project MHWL and an ECL. The denominations may be different but Mr. Maddox testified "as to how . . . established, I see them as one and the same." Id. at 30. Original Special Condition 1: the Pre-project MHWL On December 31, 2009, the Department issued the NOI. Attached to it was the Draft Permit. The Draft Permit contained the following paragraph as Special Condition 1: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Permittee must record in the official records of Okaloosa County a Certificate, approved by the Department, which describes all upland properties (including their owners of record) along the entire shoreline of the permitted project, with an attached completed survey of the pre-project Mean High Water Line ("Mean High Water Line Survey") conducted along the entire permitted project shoreline length. The Mean High Water Line Survey must have been completed in a manner complying with Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, as determined by the Department. No construction work pursuant to this joint coastal permit shall commence until the Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line Survey have been approved and archived by the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping, and the Department has received proof of recording of such documents (see Specific Condition No. 4.c.). The approved Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line survey shall be attached to, and kept as part of this joint coastal permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. If in the future the Permittee seeks reimbursement from the State for costs expended to undertake (construct) the permitted project, then, prior to, and as a condition of receipt of any authorized and approved reimbursement, the Board of Trustees will establish an ECL consistent with the provisions of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. The Permittee shall be required to record such a line in the Okaloosa County official records. Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, No. 9. The Oceania Petitioners, as landowners within the Project area, challenged the issuance of the Draft Permit on January 14, 2010. See Case No. 10-0516. Among the bases for the challenge was that the Department lacked authority to implement Original Special Condition 1 and, in particular, its requirement that the County record a completed survey of the pre-project MHWL in lieu of the establishment of an ECL. On July 26, 2010, the Department revised the Draft Permit to eliminate from the Project the common property owned by the unit owners of the Oceania Condominium. The change was supported by a letter from Michael Trudnak, P.E., of Taylor Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the County which stated: "On behalf of Okaloosa County, Taylor Engineering submits this request to modify the project area and Draft Joint Coastal Permit for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project [file nos. excluded]. The applicant has decided to remove the Oceania Condominium property from the beach fill placement area." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, Exhibit A. The revised project, as described in permit drawings enclosed with Mr. Trudnak's letter includes two reaches: Reach 1 extends from the east jetty of East Pass to approximately 600 ft east of FDEP reference monument R-22 (R22.6) and Reach 2 extends from approximately 200 ft east of R-23 (R-23.2) to R-25.5. The Oceania Condominium property is in the gap between the two beaches. Additionally, the letter requested that the Department modify Specific Condition 1 of the Draft Permit to reflect the modified project area so that the MHWL Survey requirement of Specific Condition 1 would exclude the Oceania Condominium property. In accord with the request, Special Condition 1 was amended to add the following language: "With respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc., members' common elements property, neither a pre-project Mean High Water Line survey, nor a Certificate with a description of the pre-project Mean High Water Line shall be recorded in conjunction with this coastal permit." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 5 of 26. On August 4, 2010, as the Department neared the end of its case in the third day of the hearing, it announced that the Revised Draft Permit would "be revised [again, this time] to require the establishment of an ECL under the applicable statute." Tr. 621. The draft permit, accordingly, was revised for a second time (the "Second Revised Draft Permit"). The Department carried out the second revision in a notice filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 18, 2010 (the August 18, 2010, Notice). The August 18, 2010, Notice contains two changes to the First Revised Draft Joint Permit. The first change deletes the existing language in Original Specific Condition 1 (the language challenged in Case No. 10-5348RU) in its entirety. It substitutes the following language: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Board of Trustees will establish an Erosion Control Line along the shoreline of the beach restoration project. The Erosion Control Line shall be established consistent with the provisions of ss. 161.141-161.211, Florida Statutes. An Erosion Control Line shall not be established in conjunction with this joint coastal permit with respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc. members' common elements property. In lieu of conducting a survey, the Board of Trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by Okaloosa County if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. Department of Environmental Protection's and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund's Notice of Revisions to the Proposed Joint Coastal Construction Permit, page 3 of 4. The second change is made with respect to Specific Condition No. 4(c) of the First Revised Draft Permit, one of a list of items to be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the Department. The existing language is deleted in its entirety and the following language is substituted: Written documentation that the Erosion Control Line required by Special Condition Number 1 has been filed in the public records of Okaloosa County. Id. The Department ECL Position Chapter 161: Beach and Shore Preservation Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, governs "Beach and Shore Preservation." "Parts I and II of this chapter may be known and cited as the 'Beach and Shore Preservation Act.'" § 161.011, Fla. Stat. Part I governs "Regulation of Construction, Reconstruction, and Other Physical Activity." Sections 161.011 through 161.241 comprise Part I. The Department developed its position on ECLs claimed by Petitioners to be an Unadopted Rule by considering Part I, in particular Sections 161.088 (which declares the public policy to properly manage and protect Florida's beaches) through 161.211. At some point in 2009, the Department saw a distinction related to ECLs in Sections 161.088-161.211 between beach restoration projects where state funding was used for construction and projects where no state funds were used. The former seemed to require ECLs, the latter not. Several statutory provisions were viewed as particularly relevant. For example, Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, declares that it is the public policy of the state "to cause to be fixed and determined, pursuant to beach restoration . . . projects, the boundary line between sovereignty lands . . . and the upland properties adjacent thereto " The section that mainly governs ECLs is Section 161.161. It provides the procedure for approval of projects for the restoration and maintenance of critically eroded beaches, subject to a beach management plan which is funded, in part, by the state. With regard to ECLs, the statute provides: Once a project [for the restoration and maintenance of a critically eroded beach] is determined to be undertaken, a survey of all or part of the shoreline within the jurisdiction of the local government in which the beach is located shall be conducted in order to establish the area of beach to be protected by the project and locate an erosion control line. * * * Upon completion of the survey depicting the area of the beach erosion control project and the proposed location of the erosion control line, the board of trustees shall give notice of the survey and the date on which the board of trustees will hold a public hearing for purpose of receiving evidence on the merits of the proposed erosion control line and, if approval is granted, of locating and establishing such requested erosion control line in order that any persons who have an interest in the location of such requested erosion control line can be present at such hearing to submit their views concerning the precise location of the proposed erosion control line. * * * The board of trustees shall approve or disapprove the erosion control line for a beach restoration project. In locating said line, the board of trustees shall be guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which the erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible. § 161.161, Fla. Stat. Development of the Department's Position on ECLs Prior to 2009, the Department's established ECLs for beach restoration projects whether the project's construction was supported by state funding or not. There was an exception: when the property landward of the MHWL was owned by the state. In such a case, the Department saw no need to set an ECL since both the sovereignty lands and the adjacent uplands property are owned by the state. This position held at least through January 15, 2009, when the Department held a workshop and hearing pursuant to Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, in Okaloosa County to establish an ECL for the Western Destin Project. The hearing officer who conducted the ECL hearing was West Gregory, Department Assistant General Counsel. While consideration of where the ECL should be established for the Western Destin Project was underway, there were ongoing discussions by e-mail and in briefings of whether the statute required an ECL. The discussion was prompted when Mr. Gregory, as Department Assistant General Counsel, drafted a memorandum (the "Draft Memorandum") to Michael Barnett, Chief of the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (the Bureau) to be sent through Paden Woodruff, an Environmental Administrator. The memorandum related to another beach restoration project in Okaloosa County: a project involving Eglin Air Force Base. The Draft Memorandum shows a date of January "XX", 2009, and is stamped "DRAFT." P-119. It presents the question "Should . . . [the Department] require the United States Air Force (USAF) to establish an erosion control line (ECL) for the beach restoration project located on Eglin AFB?" Id. The Draft Memorandum provides a brief answer: "No, . . . because the beach . . . is not critically eroded." Id. The memorandum recognizes the public policy of the state to fix the boundary between public and private lands for beach restoration projects in Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, and a requirement that the Board of Trustees "must establish the line of mean high water prior to the commencement of a beach restoration project," id., leading to the suggestion that each and every beach restoration project must establish an ECL. The Draft Memorandum, however, construes Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, with Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, and draws support from an Attorney General Opinion and the Walton County Florida Supreme Court case to conclude that it is only when a project is undertaken with state funding that an ECL must be established. In the case of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects, the Draft Memorandum concludes: Id. This determination not to establish an ECL on the Eglin AFB beach restoration project would not preclude the USAF from obtaining a JCP permit. Rather, it precludes the USAF from receiving state funding assistance. The Draft Memorandum was not sent to the intended recipients. It was submitted to two other lawyers in the Department. Mr. Gregory did not receive comments from them. Although no comments were made to Mr. Gregory after the draft of the memorandum was sent to other members of the legal staff, the subject remained under discussion in the Department in early 2009. Sometime in early 2009, based on a legal analysis of Department attorneys, the Department took the position that an ECL is required to be set when state funds are used for the construction of a project. The converse of this position, that an ECL is not required to be set when no state funds are involved, is the statement alleged to be an unadopted rule. Two permits were issued that did not require an ECL: one for the Eglin AFB beach restoration project in March of 2009, and another that was an emergency permit for Holiday Isle. As with Specific Condition 1 in the Western Destin Project, the determination to not require an ECL was because of the lack of state funding. As Mr. Barnett testified about the two permits, there "is no State cost share for construction . . . [and] that's the reason [the Department] didn't require establishment of an ECL." Tr. 1279. Mr. Gregory's Draft Memorandum was never finalized. The Department issued three permits or draft permits (including for the Western Destin Project) with specific conditions that required pre-project MHWLs and that did not require ECLs. Otherwise, the Department has not committed the Department ECL Position to writing. Nonetheless, the Department ECL Position was stated in a deposition taken in this case on July 26, 2010. On July 26, 2010, the deposition of Janet Llewellyn, the Director of Water Resources Management was taken by Petitioners. Director Llewellyn is "responsible ultimately for all the projects that are processed and actions taken out of [the] division." P-223 at 10. These include permits issued by the Bureau and in particular, the Draft Permit, First Revised Draft Permit and the Second Draft Permit for the Project. When asked about the Department's statement that an ECL is not required when there is not state funding, Ms. Llewellyn preferred to rephrase the Department position as to when an ECL is required rather than when it is not required. She then testified that an ECL is required when there is "state funding involved through [the Department's] funding program." Id. at 13. Ms. Llewellyn was unable to pinpoint the moment the Department reached such a position other than: [t]he question came up sometime in the last year or two -- I couldn't tell you when -- about what the statute actually required in terms of when it was proper to set an erosion control line or required. And our attorneys did a legal analysis, again, of the statute, and that was their legal opinion of what the statute required. Tr. 14. Whatever the date that such a position was precisely firmed up, Ms. Llewellyn was able to testify on July 26, 2010, "that if state funding is going to a project, than an ECL needs to be set. That's what the statute requires." Id. This statement was based on the opinions of Department attorneys prior to their use in connection with the issuance of beach restoration permits in Okaloosa County. The Department has not initiated rule-making with respect to its ECL Position. Whether rule-making would be initiated was not known by the Bureau Chief on August 24, 2010, during his testimony in the final hearing. Change of Position The Department modified its position on ECLs that it appeared to have at the time of Ms. Llewellyn's deposition on August 4, 2010. As detailed above, it announced that an ECL would be required for the Western Destin Project, after all. The modification was formalized with the filing of the Second Revised Draft Permit on August 18, 2010. Specific Condition 5 Before the challenged language in Specific Condition 5 was added by the First Revised Draft Permit, the Department had relied on General Condition 6 to give notice to permittees that the permit did not allow trespass: This permit does not convey to the Permittee or create in the Permittee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the Permittee. The issuance of the permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Joint Ex. 9. Based on the petitions in the Permit Challenge Cases, the Department proposed in the First Revised Draft Permit to add to Specific Condition 5 the language that is underscored in the following: The Permittee is advised that no work shall be performed on private upland property until and unless the required authorizations are obtained. Sufficient authorizations shall included: (1) written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project; (2) authorization for such use from the property owner which upland of mean high-water; (3) construction and management easements from upland property owners; or (4) a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction which reflects that such authorization, in whole or in part, is not required. The Permittee is also advised to schedule the pre-construction conference at least a week prior to the intended commencement date. At least seven (7) days in advance of a pre-construction conference, the Permittee shall provide the written authorizations for the portion of the project for which construction is about to commence, as required above, written notification, advising the participants (listed above) of the agreed-upon date, time and location of the meeting, and also provide a meeting agenda and a teleconference number. Joint Exhibit, Volume III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 7 of 26. There was no evidence that the language added to Specific Condition 5 by the First Revised Draft Permit had been in any other permits or that the Department intended to use the language in any other beach restoration permits. Other than whatever might be gleaned from the Draft Permit, itself (and its revisions), there was no evidence offered that the property of any of the petitioners, in fact, would be used in the Western Destin Beach Project.
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioners are entitled to a coastal construction control line permit to build a single-family residence in Volusia County with a structural elevation of 19 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum, not 24 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum, as required by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own an undeveloped lot located at 4279 South Atlantic Avenue in the Wilbur-by-the-Sea subdivision in unincorporated Volusia County. Mr. Humphries' family has owned the lot for 50 years. The rectangular lot is 210 feet deep and 50 feet wide. The narrower end abuts the Atlantic Ocean on the east and South Atlantic Avenue on the west. The south boundary of Petitioners' lot abuts a developed lot. The house located on this lot has a finished- floor elevation of 26.15 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). This is consistent with the structural elevations of most of the residences in the immediate vicinity of Petitioners' lot. Even though the seaward extent of Petitioner's proposed structure is roughly in a line with the seaward extent of the nearby homes, the issue in this case is the structural elevation. The north boundary of Petitioners' lot abuts the 50- foot-wide right-of-way of Major Street. In 1984, a wooden walkway was constructed in the southern half of the Major Street right-of-way to allow pedestrians access to the beach. By that time, Major Street was no longer open for vehicular access. However, the construction and maintenance of Major Street may have contributed to the lower elevations on the north boundary of Petitioners' lot, as described below. Nearly all of the lots in the vicinity of Petitioners' lot have been developed; most, if not all, of them contain single-family residences. Petitioners, who are nearing retirement, wish to construct a house that would accommodate them in their later years when they expect their mobility to be reduced. Petitioners' house will sit atop a prominent secondary dune, as do all of the other oceanfront homes in the immediate vicinity. The house will also be confined roughly to the landward half of the lot. These factors mean that the relatively short driveway leading from South Atlantic Avenue to the garage will be relatively steep. Petitioners proposed a reduction in the top of the dune to reduce the steepness of the driveway and the difference in finished-floor elevations between the garage and the house. Generally, the south side of Petitioners' lot is higher than the north side. The seasonal high water line is 8.4 feet NGVD. The lot's east boundary, which is 7-8 feet landward of the seasonal high water line, is about 11.5 feet NGVD. The elevation of the south boundary rises to 28.5 feet NGVD, at a distance slightly east of the most seaward extent of the 10-foot wooden deck that is the most seaward structure proposed by Petitioners. The elevation of the north boundary does not rise much; over the same distance, it reaches only 12 feet NGVD. Proceeding westward, toward South Atlantic Avenue, the south boundary drops from its 28.5-foot elevation. Parallel to the proposed house, the boundary remains at about 25 feet NGVD, except it drops to about 20 feet at the point where the house would meet the garage. For the length of the 26-foot garage, the south boundary drops to 18.5 feet NGVD. For the length of the 30-foot section of driveway between the garage and the west boundary, the south boundary drops from 18 feet NGVD to 17 feet NGVD. The north boundary rises to its highest point, 20.6 feet NGVD, at a point just landward of the point along the boundary closest to the junction between the proposed wood deck and the house. Running parallel to the proposed house, the north boundary drops to about 18 feet NGVD (directly across from a point along the south boundary that reaches about 25 feet NGVD) and then to about 17.5 feet NGVD, at a point just landward of the point closest to the junction of the proposed house and garage. The proposed house would occupy elevations, prior to proposed site preparation, of about 28 feet NGVD at the seaward side, 22-26 feet NGVD at the midpoint, and no more than 21 feet NGVD at the landward side. The proposed deck, house, and all but a sliver of the garage lie seaward of the coastal construction control line. The northeast corner of the proposed house is 72 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. The dune is largely vegetated. The vegetation includes sea oats, shrubs, and some palm trees, although Brazilian pepper, a nuisance exotic, also vegetates part of the dune. Just seaward of the southeast corner of the proposed deck is a hole, perhaps from past excavation, about ten feet deep and occupying 8-10 percent of the lot. This is the only portion of the lot significantly below-grade. Overall, the dune is functional and healthy. To the extent that it has been disturbed in the past, the dune seems to be recovering vigorously. On or about July 21, 1999, Petitioners applied for a permit to construct a residence seaward of the coastal construction control line. In their application, Petitioners proposed a structural elevation of 19 feet NGVD. The structural elevation, which is about two feet lower than the finished-floor elevation, is the lowest portion of the effectively horizontal structural elements supporting the floors and walls of the structure. Respondent's examination of the application raised concerns about the proposed structural elevation of 19 feet NGVD. The greater elevation of much of the dune under the footprint of the house would necessitate the relocation of dune materials on the lot or removal of dune materials off the lot. However, discussions between Respondent's representative and Mr. Bullard, Petitioners' engineer, failed to identify design modifications upon which both sides could agree. Thus, on June 5, 2000, Respondent issued a Final Order and Notice to Proceed Withheld (Final Order). The Final Order states that Respondent found that Petitioners' application was complete on March 6, 2000. Although the Final Order generally contemplates that construction will eventually proceed, Special Permit Condition 1 prohibits construction until Respondent issued a written notice to proceed. Special Permit Condition 2 warns that Respondent will not issue a notice to proceed until Petitioners submit plans that raise the structural elevation to 24 feet NGVD, relocate all excavated materials seaward of the coastal construction control line (but not more than 120 feet seaward of the line), prohibit net excavation seaward of the coastal construction control line, and specify the planting of all filled or disturbed areas with salt-resistant native vegetation transplanted from onsite areas that will be excavated and other sources, as needed. Special Permit Condition 7 requires Petitioners to obtain the fill material from a source landward of the coastal construction control line. The fill material also must be of a sand that is similar to that onsite in terms of grain size and coloration. However, nothing in the Final Order specifies any requirement to replicate present--or design scientifically verified new--seaward and landward slopes of the portion of the impacted dune. In resisting Respondent's demand to raise the structural elevation, Petitioners have sought to reduce the slope of their driveway, which involves traffic-safety issues in turning on and off busy South Atlantic Avenue, and eliminate the need for an extensive design modification to allow wheelchair- bound persons access to the house from the garage. At the hearing, Petitioners offered mitigation in the form of an artificial dune to be constructed seaward of the residence with excavated materials. However, this proposal would destroy existing vegetation and failed to specify slopes, so that the artificial dune would likely suffer significant and rapid erosion. Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposed construction activities, with a structural elevation of 19 feet NGVD, would not adversely impact the most prominent dune landward of the ocean, so as to reduce the existing ability of this dune to resist erosion and protect upland persons and property.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing Petitioners' challenge and issuing the Final Order and Notice to Proceed Withheld dated June 5, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: David P. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Robert R. Bullard, P.E. Qualified Representative Absolute Engineering Group Post Office Box 269 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Timothy E. Dennis Certified Legal Intern Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
