The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondents, B. W. and Mildred Peake, should he granted a permit to construct an addition to an existing dock located on the north shore of Old River in Pensacola, Florida. The Petitioner, Mrs. A. K. Doyle, testified on her own behalf and also called as a witness, Mildred N. Peake, one of the applicants. The Petitioner offered no exhibits into evidence. Mr. B. W. Peake testified on behalf of himself and his wife Mildred N. Peake. The Peakes offered and had admitted into evidence Exhibits 1-7. The Department of Environmental Regulation called as witnesses Mark Snowden and Richard Fancher. The Department offered and had admitted Exhibits 1-6. Subsequent to the final hearing, Counsel for the Petitioner and the two Respondents submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, B. W. and Mildred N. Peake, have filed an application for a permit to construct an addition to an existing private pier located on the north shore of Old River, adjacent to Innerarity Point. It will be centered on a lot located at 878 Innerarity Road, Pensacola, Florida. B. W. and Mildred N. Peake are the owners of the property where the existing dock is located. On December 23, 1982, the Department of Environmental Regulation by letter notified the applicants that the Department intended to grant the permit application. The Petitioner, Mrs. A. K. Doyle, filed an objection to the issuance of that permit. Mrs. Doyle's property is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Peake property. The application, as modified, seeks to extend the existing pier by sixteen (16) feet. The existing pier is five feet wide and approximately 185 feet long. The addition is to be constructed of the same materials used in the existing pier and will rest on treated pine pilings. The purpose of the pier is to allow temporary berthing for two additional sailboats. There will be no fuel pumps or toilets on the pier. The pier will be used for private purposes only and will involve no commercial operation. Upon completion of the addition, the Peake's pier would be approximately 110 feet from the Intercoastal Waterway Channel and will not create a hazard to navigation. The Peakes have obtained approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct the pier extension. They have not obtained consent from the Department of Natural Resources to use the state owned lands beneath the proposed addition. The addition to the pier will total approximately 80 square feet and will require 4 pilings. There is currently an extensive grass bed consisting of Cuban Shoalweed approximately 90 feet from the shoreline. Jetting of pilings for the addition will occur approximately 103 feet from the closest point of this grass bed. The proposed addition will have no significant impact on the existing grass beds. The grassbeds in this area stop growing at the edge of the photic zone or that point at which sunlight can no longer penetrate the water. At this site, this occurs at a depth of 1.5 meters or approximately 4.8 feet. The depth of the water at the site of the proposed addition is from 8 to 10 feet. There are no grasses growing in the immediate area of the project site. The grass beds in the area contain a wide diversity of benthic microinvertebrates. The number of species and density of benthic microinvertebrates were less at the addition site. The proposed addition will not interfere with marine life or destroy marine productivity. The substrate at the immediate project site consists of coarse sand with some fines associated with the sand. During the piling installation, these fines will become suspended in the water, thus creating turbidity. The use of a turbidity screen or control device during construction would limit turbidity to the project site with very temporary, limited violation of water quality. The project will have no deleterious effect on water quality. All boats using the pier will have Coast Guard approved marina heads. These marine heads will not discharge into the waters in the area. Garbage from the boats will be disposed of at the Peake home adjacent to the pier. The pier is presently being used to permanently moor one sailboat.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a permit for the applicants, B. W. and Mildred N. Peake, to construct an addition to their existing dock in accordance with the application as modified. The permit should contain all the specific conditions included in the Department's letter of intent dated December 23, 1982. In addition, the necessary approval from the Department of Natural Resources should first be obtained. DONE AND ORDERED this day of April 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS 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 27th day of April 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. Gary Early, Esquire Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph A. Peterson, Esquire Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 James M. Wilson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1832 Pensacola, Florida 32598
The Issue Whether petitioners have timely availed themselves of a clear point of entry into administrative proceedings on Mr. and Mrs. Rankin's application for a permit to build a dock and, if so, whether the permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On April 12, 1982, Frederick W. Rankin applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock six feet wide and 300 feet long in the waters of Bayou Chico in Escambia County, Florida. Paralleling the dock on either side of the outboard end, two rows of mooring pilings 19.5 feet distance from the dock were proposed in the application. On April 20, 1983, Mark N. Snowdon, an employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) inspected the site, and, in an official DER permit application appraisal dated April 23, 1982, reported: Two large support vessels (crew boats) are moored at a small pier immediately east of the site. A commercial marina facility i[s] located directly across the bayou (north) from the project site. Bayou Chico is approximately 0.25 mile wide at this point. DER Exhibit No. 4. Between the crew boats' dock (Gulfwater Marine) and the site proposed for the Rankins' dock is the mouth of a small embayment (the bayouette). The Holzbauers own a house and lot, separated from the Rankins' lot by a parcel less than 75 feet wide, that fronts on the bayouette. PERMIT ISSUES DER issued a permit on June 9, 1982, and work began on the Rankins' dock on June 12, 1982. On the same day, Mr. Holzbauer inquired of the men putting in pilings whether DER had issued a permit for the work, then telephoned DER and asked DER's Mr. Fancher the same question. Mr. Fancher told Mr. Holzbauer that a permit had been issued, which was the first Mr. Holzbauer was told of issuance of the permit. As far as the evidence revealed, no notice of intent to issue preceded issuance of the permit. On June 26, 1982, the Holzbauers received a letter from W. Richard Fancher on behalf of DER, dated June 24, 1982, in which he stated: It is my understanding that, until recently, you had no knowledge of this private dock project. If this is correct, you may consider this formal notice of the activity. Should you object to this permit, including any and all of the conditions contained therein, you may file an appropriate petition for administrative hearing. This petition must be filed within 14 days of the receipt of this letter. Further, the petition must conform to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 17-1 and Section 28-5.201, Florida Administrative Code (copies enclosed). The petition must be filed with the Office of General Counsel, Department of Environmental Regulation, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. If no petition is filed within the prescribed time, you will be deemed to have waived your right to request an administrative hearing on this matter. DER Exhibit No. 1. A copy of Mr. Fancher's letter to the Holzbauers was also sent to Mr. Rankin. On July 8, 1982, a letter from the Holzbauers to Ms. Tschinkel reached DER's Office of the Secretary, protesting issuance of the permit and alleging that the dock did not conform to permit conditions. 1/ This letter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whose Director entered an order, sua sponte, on July 28, 1982, that "[t]his matter is dismissed without prejudice." No. 82-1947. An amended petition dated August 4, 1982, reached DER's Office of the Secretary on August 9, 1982, and the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 20, 1982. No. 82-2314. NO PERMIT RELIANCE The dock has been continued to completion, at a cost of $11,000.00. As built, the dock veers out from shore at a more easterly angle than the permit purported to allow. Whereas the permit contemplated construction at an angle several degrees west of north, the dock has in fact been built at an angle about 15 degrees east of north. One result is that the end is some 90 feet east of the point contemplated by the permit. Although a DER employee testified that this deviation was "within reason," it is clearly a significant departure from what the permit putatively allowed. The Rankins only own 86 feet of bayou frontage. The mouth of the bayouette is no more than 110 feet across. The mooring pilings, moreover, have been set in two rows parallel to the dock not 19.5 feet on either side, but 40 feet from the west side of the dock and 30 feet from the east side. If any of the landowners on the bayouette (with one exception) tried to build a pier perpendicular to their shore line extending even half the length of the Rankins' dock, it would intersect the Rankins' dock. NAVIGATION While the dock does not seal off the bayouette, it makes access considerably more difficult, especially for Mr. Holzbauer who sails in and out in his 14 foot boat. The dock juts out from the point at the western edge of the entrance into the bayouette at such an angle that it comes within 70 feet of the eastern edge of the entrance into the bayouette. Petitioner's Exhibit No. The crew boats moored to the east of the Rankins' dock have overall lengths ranging from 65 to 85 feet and there were three of them moored at Gulfwater Marine last summer. When the crew boats are docked, the distance between the westernmost one and the most inboard mooring piling next to the Rankins' dock is 81.5 to 103 feet. Where traffic from Bayou Chico to Pensacola Bay passes under a bridge, the channel is only 80 feet wide and the crew boats sometimes hit the bridge. The greatest problem the Rankins' dock has caused the crew boats is making docking more difficult. It is not always easy to turn an 85 foot boat around in the wind. The root of the problem, according to Mr. Kingry, who owns the crew boats, is that a patch of slightly deeper water in this generally shoaled area has been cut or blocked by the Rankins' dock. Sooner or later, Mr. Kingry predicted, a crew boat will "wipe out" the Rankins' mooring pilings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation deny the application for a dredge and fill permit for a dock located and aligned as this dock is. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 27th day of April, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Sea Isles Condominium Association (Petitioner) is the riparian owner of lands at 25714 Hickory Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923. The Petitioner's lands lie along the Broadway Channel connecting the Gulf of Mexico to Estero Bay. There are 84 upland units in the condominium. Some condominium residents without docking slips have requested that the Petitioner apply for expansion of the existing facility. The waters adjacent to Petitioner's upland property are located within the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve (pursuant to Section 258.39(28), Florida Statutes) and are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). At some point in approximately 1982, the condominium developer sought approval for the construction of docking facilities. By letter of January 25, 1982, Richard P. Ludington, then Director of the Division of State Lands of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), indicated that there was no objection to the proposed dock project. The parties to this case have jointly stipulated that the Ludington opinion was based on the fact that the proposed project was a private non-income producing facility (a lease therefore not being required) and was not in conflict with any existing rules. The DER issued permit number 36-42521-5E, dated February 9, 1982, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued general permit number SAJ-33, both approving and authorizing the construction of the docking facility. Although the water body had been designated as an aquatic preserve, there were no adopted administrative rules regulating such projects at the time of the initial dock construction. The approved sixteen slip docking facility was constructed along the margin of the shoreline in 1983 by the developer of the condominium. Due to extremely shallow water depths, only two of the slips were accessible. At some point thereafter, the Petitioner began efforts to remedy the unusable slip situation. Initially, the Petitioner desired to dredge the area, but was unable to secure approval to dredge from regulatory agencies. The Petitioner then began to consider additional solutions. The solution upon which the Petitioner decided was removal of the existing slips and construction of an extended boardwalk and dock located in navigable water. On March 28, 1985, the DNR notified the Petitioner that the project would require approval in the form of a submerged land lease from the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board"). On August 20, 1985, the DER issued permit number 361011295, authorizing the removal of the existing structure and the construction of a 22 slip docking facility as proposed by the Petitioner. On behalf of the Board, the DNR reviews applications for leases of sovereignty submerged lands. In reviewing such requests, the DNR calculates the maximum amount of sovereignty submerged lands which may be preempted by a proposed facility. According to administrative rule, the area of sovereignty submerged land preempted by a private residential multi-slip docking facility may not exceed the total square footage equal to ten times the riparian waterfront footage of the affected waterbody. DNR's calculation of the affected shoreline indicated that the Petitioner's riparian waterfront measured 433 feet. Application of the 10:1 ratio would indicate that the area of sovereignty submerged land preempted by the proposed multi-slip docking facility could not exceed 4330 square feet. As early as 1986, a surveyor employed by the Petitioner believed the DNR shoreline calculation to be erroneous and determined the Petitioner's riparian shoreline to be 601 feet. After discussing the discrepancy between measurements, the DNR representative informed a representative of the Petitioner that Sea Isles could obtain a mean high waterline survey to determine the actual shoreline footage if it disagreed with the DNR calculation. Although there is testimony that a survey provided to the DNR established the mean high waterline, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the survey was not identified as a mean high waterline survey, but as a safe upland line survey. No credible mean high waterline survey was provided to the DNR by the Petitioner at that time. Abutting the Petitioner's property to the south is a man-made channel which results in an unnatural extension of the shoreline. Such extensions are not included in computing the allowable square footage of sovereign submerged lands because the man-made shoreline does not abut sovereign submerged lands. It is unclear whether the calculations of shoreline were affected by this consideration. Despite the discrepancy, the Petitioner reduced the size of the requested docking facility to include a boardwalk and dock of ten slips totalling approximately 4300 square feet and extending 208 feet into the waterbody (approximately 35 percent of the waterbody's width). The length of the extension violates administrative rule provisions governing extension into a waterbody which are addressed elsewhere herein. On July 23, 1986, Lee County passed a resolution of approval for the proposed docking facility land lease and granted a variance to Lee County Ordinance 85-25. The resolution of approval contained additional requirements, included a provision restricting the approval to not more than ten slips. The Petitioner asserts that the determination of shoreline was incorrect and was the result of "mutual mistake". The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner's acceptance of the DNR's shoreline determination was based upon "mutual mistake." The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's representatives were aware of the discrepancy. The fact that the Petitioner agreed to deed a 575 foot conservation easement to the Board (to offset the potential adverse impact on manatee habitat as discussed elsewhere herein) would suggest that the parties were aware that the 433 foot measurement was inaccurate. For whatever reason, the Petitioner agreed to the DNR shoreline and dock calculation which formed the basis for the lease approved by the Board. Prior to approval of the lease, the Board reviewed a written "public interest" assessment which indicates that the length of the boardwalk to the proposed docking facility exceeded standards set by administrative rules. Pursuant to rule, exceptions to length restrictions may be made only where the applicant demonstrates that such exception is necessary to insure reasonable riparian ingress and egress. The Petitioner apparently demonstrated that, given the location of the existing sand flat, such exception was necessary to provide ingress and egress. According to the written analysis, the proposed project adversely impacted the manatee habitat located in the aquatic preserve. The analysis states that 575 foot conservation easement to the Board would offset the potential adverse impact on manatee habitat. The Petitioner committed to the conservation easement in order to meet the public interest test required of all docking facilities within an aquatic preserve. Special lease condition paragraph 5 requires the Petitioner to record a conservation easement for approximately 575 linear feet of shoreline in perpetuity to run with the land. The provision requires that documentation of the recording of the easement be provided to the Board within thirty days of the Board action and prior to execution of the lease. The lease conditions clearly indicate that the Petitioner will not seek authority to expand the docking facility. Special lease condition paragraph 5 prohibits any additional docking facilities or any other such development along the lessee's shoreline. Review of proposed special lease condition paragraph 6 (as compared to the staff recommendation and a subsequent affidavit executed by the Petitioner's representative on June 6, 1987) indicates that the paragraph appears to contain a typographical error in deleting the word "not" from the condition. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner agreed not to request authorization to dredge the docking area or channel or to request additional expansion of the facility. On April 21, 1987, the Board, apparently acting against the staff recommendation, voted to grant to the Petitioner a submerged land lease for the construction of a ten slip facility. Representatives of the Petitioner appeared before the Board during consideration and approval of the lease. On June 6, 1987, a representative of the Petitioner executed an affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner which sets forth the language of special condition paragraph six as originally proposed. In the affidavit, the Petitioner's representative agrees not to apply for authorization to dredge the dock or access channel, or to request expansion of the facility. A deed of conservation easement dated October 21, 1985, and signed by a representative of the Petitioner, was attached to the materials submitted to the Board for the April 21, 1987 meeting. Contrary to the lease requirement, the attached deed of conservation easement was never recorded. In 1986 or 1987, a conservation easement was recorded by the Petitioner in favor of the Board, but the easement contained no legal description of the subject property. However, the recorded easement does prohibit additional docking facilities and waives the Petitioner's rights of ingress or egress related to any such additional facilities. In early 1991, the Petitioner requested approval to expand the existing dock from 10 to 14 slip. The expanded structure would preempt 5620 square feet of sovereign submerged land. On May 15, 1991, the DER granted approval of the four slip expansion. On November 27, 1991, the DNR, by letter signed by Michael E. Ashley, Chief of the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves, denied the requested four slip expansion. The letter was prepared at the direction and with the approval of the Director of the Division of State Lands. Mr. Ashley cites two reasons for the denial. First, the request violated the terms of the existing lease which provides that there will be no expansion requested. Second, the Petitioner had failed to record the 575 foot conservation easement which was required by the terms of the original lease. The request for extension was not presented to the Governor and Cabinet for consideration, but was reviewed by the "agenda review committee" of the DNR. The committee includes the Deputy Director, two Deputy Assistant Executive Directors, the General Counsel, and the Cabinet Coordinator for the DNR. The committee reviews matters which are identified as potentially requiring Board action to resolve. Where issues exist related to existing sovereignty submerged land leases, the DNR attempts to resolve the matter without referral to the Board. The authority to conduct business in this manner has not been reduced to writing, but is based on verbal direction from the Board and from Cabinet assistants. Subsequent to the letter of denial issued by Mr. Ashley, the Petitioner on or about December 30, 1991, filed a conservation easement granting to the Board, a perpetual interest in a parcel of land lying ten feet landward of the Safe Upland Line as described in the deed recorded in the records of Lee County, Florida, (OR 2268, Page 0401) with the Clerk of Court for Lee County. The parcel of land identified in the deed runs along the shoreline for a distance of 601 feet. The easement provides for modification by the signed agreement of the parties. Because the Petitioner seeks to expand an existing lease, it is required to demonstrate an additional public benefit would result from approval of the request. The Petitioner has proposed to plant an area of mangroves in the shallow "sand bar" area located behind the existing slips. There is no additional public benefit related to the request. The evidence fails to establish that granting the request to expand the docking facility is in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a Final Order denying the request of Sea Isles Condominium Association to modify the existing sovereignty submerged land lease to provide for four additional boat slips to their existing ten slip docking facility. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 15th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1077 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 17. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 19. Rejected as to comments by Miller, irrelevant. 20-21. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected as to 6,010 square feet of permissible preemption. Based upon shoreline calculation which is not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. The manatee information was required under the conditions of the existing lease, and do not constitute a benefit to be considered in addressing the request to modify the lease. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 16. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund c/o Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Robert Routa, Esquire Post Office Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 L. Kathryn Funchess, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact 1. Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1 provides: All docking facilities, whether for private residential single-family docks, private residential multi-slip docks, or commercial, industrial, or other revenue generating/income-related docks or public docks or piers, shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: no dock shall extend waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line more than 500 feet or 20 percent of the width of the waterbody at that particular location whichever is less; * * * Pursuant to stipulation, Petitioner has standing, a dock, and upland access to his property. The parties also stipulated that Petitioner's dock is limited by the 500-foot criterion, as the proposed dock extension would not exceed 20 percent of the width of the waterbody. Petitioner's upland property consists of a single family residence and is located adjacent to sovereign submerged lands located in the Gasparilla Island/Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve. He has lawfully constructed a dock extending about 500 feet from the mean high water mark and into the waters of Charlotte Harbor. The consent of use granted Petitioner acknowledges the relative shallowness of the water adjacent to his property and correspondingly limits the draft of vessels to be moored to the dock. At mean low tide, the depth of the water at the end of Petitioner's dock is about two feet. Petitioner requested authorization to extend his dock waterward another 100 feet. On December 15, 1993, Respondents denied the request, in reliance upon the challenged rule and Section 258.42(3)(e)1, which allows the erection in an aquatic preserve of private residential docks for "reasonable ingress and egress of riparian owners." In a separate administrative proceeding, DOAH Case No. 94-2140, Petitioner is contesting the denial of his request to extend the dock. No single family docks in aquatic preserves extend over 500 feet into the water. In Charlotte Harbor, the average length of a single-family residential dock is 200 feet. Nearby Petitioner's dock is a 600-foot long public fishing pier, which was constructed before the subject 500-foot rule was promulgated. From mean high water waterward, the first habitat surrounding Petitioner's dock is an intertidal sand flat that extends about 100-150 waterward from shore. The next habitat is mostly unvegetated submerged bottom with patches of submerged aquatic vegetation that extends from the end of the intertidal sand flat to about 350-400 feet from shore. The vegetation of the latter habitat is mostly Cuban shoal grass, which occurs in no more than four patches of about 50 square feet, in an area measuring 25 feet in both directions from the dock. Last, extending from 350-400 feet waterward to the end of the dock, is a largely unvegetated area with sporadic pieces of attached algae. Unvegetated bottoms play no role in the propagation of fish or wildlife. The biological or scientific value of unvegetated bottoms is unaffected by a dock, although there is some evidence that toxic substances may leach from the construction materials and adversely impact nearby vegetation. However, the dredging caused by boat propellers scouring any form of submerged bottom suspends sediment that can be carried to areas of vegetated bottom, where the increase in turbidity may reduce the penetration of sunlight and thereby harm the aquatic vegetation. In the vicinity of Petitioner's dock, though, there is no evidence of significant prop dredging from recreational boating. The absence of submerged vegetation is more likely a feature of the high-energy shoreline where wave energy disrupts sediments and provides unsuitable habitat. In promulgating the predecessor to Rule 18- 20.004(5)(a)1, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund attempted to balance interests that sometimes are competing, such as environmental, aesthetic, recreational, and private commercial. There was some concern that previously authorized docks in sovereign submerged lands had infringed upon the riparian access of adjacent upland owners. The 500-foot limitation was not in the original rule, which was promulgated in 1981, but was added by an amendment in 1985. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund tried to set thresholds that would not result in the denial of more than a negligible number of dock applications, based on historic dock application data and predominant vessel lengths of under 27 feet. However, the record does not explain how the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund analyzed the above-described data so as to arrive at the 500-foot limitation now under challenge. Without providing more detail concerning the data and analysis, it is possible that a limitation of 100 feet or 900 feet would have satisfied the considerations stated in the preceding paragraph. Shallow water predominates in the aquatic preserves, and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund realized that a dock extending no more than 500 feet might not reach water depths that are readily navigable. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund could not rationally adopt a rule to ensure minimum water depths for all docks, and chose the 500-foot limitation evidently to provide an easy-to-administer standard.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a private yacht club located on Lots 5-11 inclusive, Block D, Bayside No. 6, Unit A, 830 South Bayway Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida. Founded some five years ago, the club provides a wide array of boating and social functions for its membership. It sits on the north side of Bayway Boulevard and is approximately 50 feet east of Clearwater Pass Avenue. The property is rectangular shaped and has dimensions of approximately 420 feet by 120 feet. The widest portion of the property fronts Clearwater Harbor to the north and Bayway Boulevard on the south. The yacht club is situated within an area currently zoned by the City as CTF-28 (high density commercial-tourist). This District provides for a complete range of motel-hotel developments with a major emphasis on tourism. The primary permitted uses and structures within the CTF-28 District are combination hotel, motel, apartment and business buildings, apartment houses, townhouse developments and restaurants. A number of special exceptions to the permitted uses are authorized within a CTF-28 District. These include, inter alia, three types of marina facilities, namely, Type A (pleasure craft docking), Type B (launching ramp site, commercial) and Type C (private marina). The City has never classified Petitioner under any of these categories. Upon obtaining a Type C classification, a property owner may engage in 12 separate uses of the property as a matter of right, and a thirteenth upon obtaining specific Board approval. These include: (a) sales and service facilities, (b) boat slips (excluding covered boat slips or dry storage unless specific Board approval is obtained), (c) boat handling equipment, (d) boat and gear storage, (e) launching facilities, (f) fuel station, (g) lockers and sanitary facilities, (h) restaurant facilities (not advertised), (i) club house, (j) motel or boatel, (k) recreational facilities (not commercial), (l) park or picnic area, and (m) automobile parking. Petitioner now engages in all permitted activities except items (a), and (j). It does not wish to engage in the latter three uses even if the application is granted. All activities presently conducted are done so in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. On the east side of Petitioner's property is a multi-story restaurant and lounge while to the west lies a 4-story condominium complex (Bayside 17). Directly across Bayway Boulevard and to the south are two high-rise condominium complexes, one of which is still under construction. Boat docking facilities are located on the waterfront throughout the area, including that of Petitioner and adjacent property owners. The area may be generally described as a combination of high density residential and commercial buildings and structures catering to the tourist or part-time resident. The proposed reclassification is compatible with the surrounding properties and the character of the land. Its uses fit within the general scheme of zoning for a CTF-28 District, and are consistent with the Land Use Plan. The chief concern of the adjacent property owners who testified is a fear that reclassification of the property will diminish the view of the water now enjoyed across the clear space on the west side of Petitioner's property. However, since no change in the use of the property will be made by virtue of reclassification, the existing view should not be impaired.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 216.14, Laws of Florida, 1941, establishes the Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port District for the primary purpose of obtaining land and easements to be turned over to the U.S. Government in connection with various harbor and channel improvements in Volusia County. The name and authority was changed in 1963, 1965 and 1969, so that now it is called the Ponce de Leon Port Authority whose powers were expanded to include "long-range development of the facilities for ports and recreation facilities within the district and traffic through these said ports." (Exhibit 1). In 1964 the qualified electors of Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port District approved the issuance of $4,000,000 special obligation bonds for the purpose of creating port and harbor facilities. Federal legislation authorized the stabilization of Ponce de Leon Inlet conditioned upon local authorities, viz. the Port Authority, complying with certain provisions such as paying part of the cost, providing spoil disposal sites, easements, etc. and providing "necessary mooring facilities and utilities including an adequate public landing or wharf with provisions for the sale of motor fuel, lubricants and potable water, equal to all on equal terms." (Exhibit 4). Pursuant to such federal legislation the channel improvements were completed in 1970-71. The availability of mooring and harbor facilities was an element used in determining the favorable cost-benefit ratio for the channel stabilization project. (Exhibit 2). The Port Authority's application in 1971 to the then Department of Pollution Control for a permit to construct a port and marina facility north of Ponce de Leon Inlet was denied. Thereafter an extended search for a suitable site was instituted. Included in this study are plans for a waterfront park which are referred to in various exhibits but are not a part of or integral with the application here under consideration. The Volusia County Planning Department was retained by the Port Authority to work on site selection and site design. After surveying existing marinas and determining that a need for the proposed marina existed, the planners determined that to meet the expressed need for a marina the site would require a minimum of twenty acres to accommodate water and land based boating facilities. Also, the site must satisfy the following requirements: It must be located to serve both New Smyrna Beach and Daytona Beach. The land use in the vicinity of the site must be compatible with the proposed marina. The site must be readily accessible by both land and water. There should be a minimum conflict with vehicular traffic over bridges which need to be opened to allow boat traffic. Municipal services such as electricity, water and sewage disposal facilities must be available. Topography of site must be such as to accommodate the construction of a marina. The site must offer protection to moored boats from wind and wave action. Consultants were employed to locate potential sites within the study area and six sites were identified with potential for developing a marina thereon. Three of these sites were quickly ruled out because of ecological factors and access problems, and various studies were conducted over a six months' period to evaluate the plant and animal life occupying the other three sites. In 1976 the results of the investigations, studies and meetings with various government agencies were documented in Marina and Park Study (Exhibit 8) which constituted the recommendations of the Volusia County Planning Department as adopted by the Port Authority. Upon completion of the study it was determined that Site V comprising some 90 acres which was given to the Port Authority by the City of New Smyrna Beach to whom title had earlier been conveyed by the Trustees, Internal Improvement Trust Fund, offered the best site for the project. Part of this tract consisted of a spoil disposal site upon which the New Smyrna Power Plant had been built. In addition to spoil disposal in this area some dredging had been done both north and south of the power plant site to provide access by fuel barges and other boats. Thus part of the area had previously been disturbed by man's activity and was no longer pristine. This site is close to Ponce de Leon Inlet and boats going from the marina to the ocean would have no drawbridges to pass under; the site is readily accessible from U.S. 1; Municipal facilities are available at the site; an industrial park has been established at the airport across U.S. 1 from the site thereby providing space for businesses to serve the proposed marina; the topography of the site is suitable for a marina; and the site will provide protection from wind and waves to boats moored there. Plans for the construction of the proposed marina were prepared and submitted to DER for the issuance of a permit. The Port Authority's position in 1976, which is substantially the same as now, is succinctly stated in Exhibit 8, p. 5, as follows: The Ponce de Leon Port Authority is committed ideologically and contractually to the provision of these facilities and fulfillment of these needs subject to state and local cooperation in permitting land acquisition and construction. In many respects the proposed park-marina is in fact a completion of park and recreation plans prepared as part of the original inlet stabilization proposed by the Corps of Engineers. Those parts of the current proposals not specifically contained in the plans prepared by the Corps of Engineers are modifications or logical extensions of the ideas contained therein. Numerous conferences between representatives of the Port Authority and officials of DER resulted in two modifications of the original development proposal. On each of these modifications the Petitioner further reduced the dredged area containing the most productive habitat. The final proposal, for which the application for permit was denied and is the subject of this hearing, reduced the area of mangroves to be dredged to approximately five acres and contained a design which would provide 90 percent flushing of the marina area each one-half tide cycle. By this application Petitioner seeks to construct a marina to accommodate 40 commercial vessels and 136 recreational boat slips (Exhibit 15) with the commercial boats and recreational boats on separate sides of the upland area involved. Ecological Considerations Involved The entire site owned by Petitioner and comprising some 90 acres is an impounded area bounded on the east by the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW); on the south by a road providing access to Inlet Shores, a residential development erected on a former spoil disposal site immediately south of Petitioner's property; on the west by U.S. 1 and east of that by a power line road; and to the north by the access road to the power plant site. The power line road which runs north - south and is east of U.S. 1 is breached in several places and some tidal effects are present in the marshy area between the power line road and U.S. 1. Petitioner proposes to dredge 327,000 cubic yards of which 93.5 percent is seaward of mean high water. Part of this dredged material would be used to fill and develop upland portions of the marina site, and the remainder will be deposited on disposal sites generally west of the power line road. The dredging will be done by suction dredges, and necessary safeguards will be provided to prevent turbidity or water degradation during the dredging and filling operations. To provide 90 percent flushing of the marina basin on each one-half tide cycle the water portion of the marina will be dredged to ten feet below mean low water. Of the uplands and tidal areas proposed to be dredged 0.66 acre is populated by red mangroves, 4.28 acres are populated by black mangroves, and 7.52 acres are populated by Batis/Salicornia. The fill area comprises 1.02 acres of black mangroves and 9.43 acres of Batis/Salicornia. (Exhibit 42). These vegetations are approximate because each specie is not the sole occupant of the area but merely the dominant specie thereon. Plant species in this site also include Spartina and Barrichia. To provide the 90 percent flushing of this proposed marina Petitioner proposes to make the power plant and uplands marina site into an island connected to the mainland by a bridge. This will result in eliminating the existing power plant access road and replacing it with a rerouted road and the construction of a bridge spanning the channel connecting the commercial and recreational slips. Petitioner proposes to bulkhead around the upland area of the marina and to stabilize the south side of the marina channel with rip-rap. The project slope of this channel, which abuts the area of greatest ecological significance, is two to one. Connected to the proposed marina basin to the south of the project site is a shallow tidal creek two or three feet deep which extends southward through the impounded property and provides a flushing channel for the entire impounded area east of U.S. 1. This tidal creek is the most significant ecological feature of this tract and is little affected by the proposed dredging. The proximity of this site to Ponce de Leon Inlet gives it a coastal oceanic component imposed on what would otherwise be simply an estuarine system. This component is evident from the aquatic species inhabiting the site. This is significant in that there is an import of food from the ocean as well as an export of food from the estuary both adding to the food chain at this location. Tidal range in most of the area is approximately 2.5 feet. This tidal range decreases to less than one foot west of the power line road. The few breaks in the power line road allow this tidal component to enter this area, but the reduced tidal component is due to the barrier presented by the power line road. As a result of this lower tidal range the flora west of the power line road has a much smaller red to black mangrove ratio and is generally less productive. Furthermore, greater freeze damage has occurred west of power line road than east of it; however, there remains considerable evidence of extensive freeze damage to black mangroves in the western portion of the tract east of power line road. The last freeze causing extensive damage occurred in 1977. In connection with the proposed marina project Petitioner proposes to install culverts under the power line road to allow more tidal flushing west of power line road. This will increase the productivity and ecological value of this area and thereby increase the productivity of the impounded area comprising this estuarine system. No evidence was presented from which the quantum of this increase can be determined. The most ecologically significant vegetation in this site is located adjacent to the IC and immediately south of the proposed entrance channel to the marina. Earlier applications included dredging in this area. Although not the most significant in the tract, those areas now proposed to be dredged are ecologically productive and provide sanctuary and nursery habitat for aquatic species important to the fishing industry. In this connection, studies conducted by Respondent show this area to be much more productive than do the studies conducted by Petitioner. Respondent's studies were conducted for a one- year period; Petitioner's studies were completed in six months. Additionally, Respondent used a smaller seine opening, thereby capturing a large number of small animals that could have passed through Petitioner's seines. Accordingly, more credence is given to the Respondent's evaluation of the productivity of the impounded area than is given to Petitioner's evaluation of this productivity. Biomass studies were not conducted by any of the parties hereto. Therefore, a quantitative evaluation of the loss to the site by the proposed dredging cannot be made. Suffice it to say that this loss to the ecology caused by the dredging is significant, and this significance is demonstrated by the variety of species found in the area. Water Quality Degradation With respect to water quality degradation the parties have stipulated that there will be no short-term water quality degradation due to the construction of the proposed marina. If short-term degradation will not occur due to construction it would seem obvious that this construction could not cause long-term degradation of water quality. Water quality degradation resulting from operation of the proposed marina can only be addressed by considering measures proposed by Petitioner to insure the integrity of the water quality against those forces that would cause degradation. Those forces primarily attested to include oil and gas spills, waste from moored boats, discharge from upland areas, and paint flakes from boat bottoms. The assurances that water quality degradation will not result from marina operations is provided by the necessary equipment to clean up any accidental oil or gas spills; adequate waste disposal facilities at the marina plus regulations precluding people from living aboard boats that are moored at the marina; provisions for retention of water runoff on the upland area of the marina; and 90 percent flushing on each one-half tide cycle designed into the project. This constitutes reasonable assurances that long-term degradation of water quality will not occur. Respondent's witnesses' testimony that long-term water quality degradation could occur in the estuarine channels south of the marina basin is based on the assumption that oil spills and discharge from boats is inevitable, that some of these contaminants would be carried by incoming tides up the estuarine creeks, that all of these contaminants will not exit with the outgoing tides, and consequently these contaminants will build up to a point the quality of the water will be below minimum standards. No evidence to support these assumptions was presented. While it is possible or even probable that some contaminants will enter the shallow estuarine channels on incoming tides, most of these contaminants will also exit on outgoing tides. Some of the contaminants that do not exit the estuarine channels through the marina basin will exit these channels through the mangroves on outgoing tides directly to the ICW. Other contaminants will be assimilated and absorbed by the plant life in this system. Absent flagrant violations of all laws and regulations protecting water quality, the design and equipment proposed does provide reasonable assurances that water quality will not be degraded. Responsible enforcement of these various laws and regulations will preclude flagrant violations. Wildlife Interference Manatees have been sighted in the vicinity of the power plant site. It is also an accepted fact that manatees are known to congregate near warm water discharges from industrial plants. The power plant has its water intake on the north side of the plant and its discharge on the south side of the plant site into the proposed channel to be used by recreational boats entering the marina. From these facts Respondent concludes that the proposed marina would increase the frequency of harmful and fatal encounters between boats and manatees. Manatees have been sighted in many areas of the ICW between New Smyrna Beach and Daytona Beach with the only concentration reported at the warm water discharge from the sewage treatment plant at Edgewater (just south of New Smyrna Beach). No evidence was presented from which it can be concluded that greater danger to manatees will result if the marina is located as proposed rather than at another site. Boats generally enter marinas at reduced speeds due to the restricted area in which they must operate, the potential damage wakes could create for moored boats, and the increased danger of collision with boats or docks while operating in restricted waters. While operating at reduced speeds it is less likely that a boat will hit a manatee than when operating at high speed and, if such a collision does occur, the damage to the manatee or the boat will be much less. Furthermore, without a marina near the entrance to Ponce de Leon Inlet boats will travel a much greater distance in the ICW (and at higher speeds than when entering the marina) while making a voyage to the ocean and back. This increased travel in the ICW would increase the probability of collision with a manatee more than would a concentration of boats at the marine. Various birds, some of which are endangered species, have been sighted in the area herein involved. No specific damage to these birds was shown by the proposed marina other than the potential effect removal of the productive vegetation would have on these animals. No evidence was presented that any of these endangered species nest in this area or that removal of productive vegetation would have any specific adverse effect on these birds. Public Interest and Benefits As noted above, one of the factors used to arrive at a favorable cost to benefit ratio for the channel stabilization project at Ponce de Leon Inlet was the construction by local authorities of port facilities where fuel and docking spaces would be available to the public. Surveys of existing facilities were conducted in connection with the Marina Port Study 1976 (Exhibit 8). This revealed existing marinas were full and that a substantial waiting list for berths at these marinas existed. At this time the registered boats per 1,000 population in Volusia County was 43.2. (Exhibit 11). The significance of this figure is that it shows a substantial increase since 1967, and by 1980 the registered boats per 1,000 population was 57. At the same time the population of Volusia County was also increasing each year. Available slips for boats have not kept up with these increases; in fact, statistics presented show a further widening between the number of boats and the availability of berths in Volusia County. This is also reflected in the increase in number of boats on the waiting lists at those marinas polled. Facilities for commercial fishing vessels designed to work out of Ponce de Leon Inlet are minimal. While some docking facilities exist, these consist only of piers to which to moor. Fuel is available at only a few marinas, and then by tank truck. Inadequate facilities are available in this area for unloading the catches from commercial fishing vessels. Some 30 fishing vessels are owned by local residents. Thirteen of these owners submitted signed statements that they needed and would use the proposed facility for all the needs of their vessels. Marina owners and fish house operators testified in opposition to the proposed marina, contending that a marina constructed with tax revenues and low interest loans would offer unfair competition to them, that their facilities were adequate to meet the existing needs for marina and fishery services, that if the public facility was not built they would expand their facilities to meet the need, that there are insufficient fish to provide a source to support the additional boats to be attracted by the marina, and that no increase in the available fish to be taken off Ponce de Leon Inlet is a realistic concept. While there have been wide fluctuations in the annual fish harvest in this area, the average fish catch over the past ten years indicates that this harvest is now at or near its maximum sustainable yield. Therefore, a significantly increased harvest is not anticipated. This does not mean that if facilities for off-loading fish are provided by the proposed marina that there will not be a substantial increase in the quantity of fish landed here. If so, this would mean that these fish loadings would be taken from another port. While this would result in no economic increase for Florida (assuming the landings were taken from Cape Canaveral), it would represent an economic benefit for Volusia County. Considerable testimony was presented respecting the desirability and economic feasibility of governmental intrusion into private enterprise which will occur if the marina is constructed by the port authority as proposed. The answer to such a question is predominantly a political one which has been answered in favor of such intervention by the voters. The evidence that a business enterprise is more efficiently run by private interests than by a governmental entity was not disputed. However, there are occasions where the size of the project, the risks involved, or the necessity for the project is such that it will only be done if constructed by a governmental entity. Classic examples of such projects are airports, bridges, tunnels, low-cost housing projects, large reclamation projects, and port and harbor facilities. There are also many marinas that have been constructed and run by public bodies such as cities, port authorities or other political subdivisions. The facilities when completed are to be leased to private enterprise to operate these facilities. This will be more efficient than if the port authority operated the facility. The primary, if not sole, consideration used by Respondent to deny the permit was the destruction of productive habitat that will result from the construction of this marina. No evidence was presented that Respondent weighed the loss of habitat against the public need for the marina; or, if such was done, the factors used in determining the weight to be given to each. At the hearing evidence of need (and lack thereof) for a marina was presented as well as evidence bearing on the economic feasibility for this marina. After considering all of the testimony I find that the construction of the marina will result in the destruction of valuable habitat, that the slips to be provided at this marina are needed for both commercial fishing boats and recreational boats, and that the marina will provide economic benefits to Volusia County. Balancing the loss to be caused by the proposed dredging and filling against the gain to the people of Volusia County and the surrounding area by the construction and operation of the proposed marina, I find construction of the marina not to be contrary to the public interest.
The Issue Whether Sam Patterson’s proposed dock project is exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mr. Scully resides at 941 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 16, adjacent to and south-southeast of Mr. Patterson's residential property. The northern or rear portion of Mr. Scully's lot borders on an artificial canal that is designated a Class III water by Department rule. He does not have a dock per se; he moors his boat against and parallel to a narrow concrete area (and his lot line), separated by buffering material. Mr. Patterson, the applicant, owns the property at 930 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 15. Lot 15 is north-northwest and adjacent to Mr. Scully’s property. This residential property is currently leased to others. The residential property (Lot 14) adjacent to and north-northeast of Mr. Patterson's lot is apparently owned by an individual named Meloche. The Department has the jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed project is exempt from ERP requirements. The Proposed Project On or about September 13, 2004, Mr. Patterson filed an application requesting an exemption to replace an existing five- foot by 21-foot (105-square feet) marginal dock in the same location, configuration, and dimensions as the existing dock. He also requested an exemption to install a five-foot by 16-foot (80-square feet) wooden finger pier extending perpendicular to and from the middle of the existing marginal dock. As of the final hearing, the project has been revised such that the wooden finger pier will extend 11.8 feet (rather than 16 feet) and perpendicular from the middle of the marginal dock. Mr. Patterson changed the length of the finger pier to comply with City regulations, which are not at issue in this case. The “Site Plan” is attached to the Department’s Notice of Determination of Exemption. (JE 1). The “Site Plan” shows a one-story residence on Mr. Patterson's Lot 15. The front of the lot measures 100 feet, whereas the rear of the lot (that abuts the canal on the easternmost portion of the lot) is 50 feet in length from south to north. The seawall is one-and-one-half feet in width. The existing marginal dock abuts the seawall running south to north and is 21 feet long and five feet wide. Small concrete platforms abut the marginal dock on the south and north. The Department reviewed the original application and on October 13, 2004, advised Mr. Patterson, in part, that his project was exempt from the need to obtain an ERP under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d). The Department had not reviewed the change to the project prior to the final hearing. See Finding of Fact 5. Lots 16, 15, and 14 are situated as a cul-de-sac (semi- circle) with the canal north of Lot 16, east of Lot 15, and south of Lot 14. Lot 14 is across the canal from Mr. Scully's Lot 16. There are five properties on each side of the canal, running west to east. The artificial canal runs directly east from Mr. Patterson’s property for an uncertain distance to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Mr. Patterson’s property (Lot 15) is the western end-point for this canal. Mr. Patterson’s eastern property line (fronting the canal) is 50 feet in width. However, the precise width of the canal between Lots 14 and 16 is unclear. Ms. Smith reports (in her site inspection report of March 3, 2005 (JE 3)) that the canal is approximately 50 feet wide. Mr. Patterson testified that Karen Main with the City of Boynton Beach advised him that the consensus opinion of City employees reviewing the issue was that the canal measured 66 feet in width. There appears to be some widening of the canal east of Mr. Patterson’s property line and then the canal appears to straighten-out as it proceeds to the east to the ICW and past the easterly property lines for Lots 14 and 16. See (JEs 1-site plan; 5-aerial). The weight of the evidence indicates that the canal, between Lots 14 and 16, is approximately 60 to 66 feet wide. See, e.g., id. In the past, the prior owner of Lot 15 (Mr. Patterson's property) moored a boat at and parallel to the marginal dock, which means that the bow, for example, faced Lot 14 and the stern faced Lot 16. Mr. Patterson currently owns a 16-foot boat that he wants to moor at the marginal dock. However, he feels that it is unsafe to do so, particularly if Mr. Scully’s boat drifts. Meloche (Lot 14 to the north) has a fixed boatlift, which allows for the elevation of a boat out of the water, with the bow facing west toward and in front of the northern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. (JE 4). Mr. Scully moors his boat parallel to the shoreline of Lot 16 and perpendicular to Mr. Patterson’s 50-foot eastern seawall and property line. (JEs 4 and 6). Mr. Scully’s seawall intersects Mr. Patterson’s seawall such that when Mr. Scully’s 22-foot boat is moored at his seawall, it is also in front of the southern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. Id. When Mr. Scully’s boat is tightly moored at his seawall, it does not interfere with or block Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 6). However, when Mr. Scully’s boat is loosely moored, it drifts toward the center of the canal in front of Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 4). With no boat moored at the marginal dock, Mr. Scully is able to freely maneuver his boat to his seawall with limited “backing” of his boat required (stern first). With a boat consistently moored at Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock, Mr. Scully would have to back into his area beside his seawall in order to avoid colliding with that boat. Mr. Patterson’s finger pier would enable him to safely moor a boat perpendicular to the marginal dock. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock is likely to make it easier for Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully to navigate to their respective mooring areas, depending on the size of the boats moored by Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully. (The Department, in reviewing similar exemption requests, does not consider the type and size of the boat(s) to be moored at the proposed dock or adjacent mooring site.) It is preferable for the boats to be moored, in this location, stern first, with the bow facing down the canal from the wake of the boats traveling in the ICW. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock and mooring Mr. Patterson’s boat on the north side of the finger pier is likely to enable Meloche, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Scully to moor their boats parallel to each other and avoid collisions.1 Placement of the finger pier at the northern end of the finger pier, while favored over the proposed location by Mr. Scully, is likely to interfere with Meloche’s use of his property and boatlift. With the finger pier centered on the marginal dock and a boat moored to the north, Mr. Scully can maneuver his boat to his seawall by “backing in” stern first. An experienced boater can accomplish this task in two to three maneuvers. Mr. Scully is an experienced boater and has lived on the canal for approximately eight years. Shortening the finger pier from 16 feet to 11.8 feet will not affect Mr. Patterson’s ability to safely moor a boat on the northern side of the finger pier. The Challenge Mr. Scully contends that the placement of the wooden finger pier and the mooring of a sizable boat on the proposed finger pier will interfere with his ability to navigate in and out of the canal in or around his property, and necessarily interfere with his ability to moor his boat adjacent to his property. He also contends that the marginal dock and the finger pier are two docks, not one. Resolution of the Controversy Replacement of the existing marginal dock will consist of replacing the decking and using the existing pilings. The existing marginal dock is currently functional. Reconstruction of the marginal dock and construction of the finger pier will be done by a licensed marine contractor. The licensed marine contractor will use best management practices to avoid water quality problems in the canal during construction. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect flood control or violate water quality standards. The proposed project will not impede navigation. But see Endnote 1.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order concluding that Mr. Patterson’s proposed dock project, as revised, is exempt from the need to obtain an ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's property is zoned CTF-28 which contemplates high density residential, motels and marinas. Riprap at existing seawall along Petitioner's property extends four to six feet from the seawall, which makes it hazardous for boats to moor to the seawall. By constructing a dock 122 feet long extending nine feet into the water Petitioner is, in effect, extending the beneficial use of its property nine feet into and over navigable waters. Marina facilities are permitted in CTF-28 zoning as a special exception (Section 131.099, Clearwater Building and Zoning Regulations). Other commercial properties in the vicinity have been granted special exceptions to construct the same type dock. The proposed dock will be the same level as the finger piers extending therefrom to eliminate any step that could create a safety hazard. No evidence was presented that the proposed project would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare other than the conclusion by the board that granting the special exception would allow this riparian owner to use public property, thereby creating a precedent which would be followed by others.
