The Issue Whether a permit should be issued to Petitioner Theodore B. Meadow to construct a dwelling on the Gulf Coast of Florida as requested in his application filed with Respondent Department of Natural Resources.
Findings Of Fact Having considered the evidence and argument of counsel, the Hearing Officer finds: In July of 1979 Petitioner filed an application for a permit to build a duplex dwelling seaward of the coastal construction setback line on a parcel of land bounded by the theoretical extension seaward of the north/south boundary line of Ponce de Leon Street in Yon's Addition to Beacon Hill on St. Joe Beach, Florida. The parcel of land is 70 feet in width and approximately 175 feet in depth to the high-water line of the Gulf of Mexico and lies between State Road 30 (US Highway 98) and the Gulf of Mexico at St. Joe Beach in Gulf County, Florida. The application, Department of Natural Resources File #79-P-283, was filed pursuant to Rule 16B-25.05, Procedure to obtain variance; application, Florida Administrative Code, which had been promulgated under the authority of Sections 161.052, 161.053 and 370.021(1), Florida Statutes. Attached to the application was a copy of a deed to subject property to Albert H. Hinman dated December 12, 1977; an undated authorization from the owner of the property to Petitioner Meadow to apply for a variance and if granted to construct a building on the property; a survey of the property; a floor plan of the building with a typical wall section; and a topographical plat of the lot involved. In response to Rule 16B--25.05(1)(d): "Statements describing the proposed work or activity and specific reasons why the applicant feels the variance should be granted." Petitioner stated, in part, "...the reason that the permit should be granted is because applicant does not have sufficient space on property he is purchasing from A. H. Hinman to construct said building outside of the DNR Coastal Construction Control Line." The survey shows that 14 to 15 feet of the property lies landward of the Department of Natural Resources' setback line. At the time of the hearing no purchase had been made, but there is no dispute regarding the authorization of the owner to allow Petitioner to build if a variance is granted. After filing the application Petitioner consulted with the staff of the Department concerning the construction seaward of the setback line. The Chief Engineer of the permitting section of the Bureau of Beaches and Shores, who is responsible for accepting, evaluating and making recommendations for permits for construction, inspected the site of the proposed structure on October 11, 1979. He took a copy of the plans and specifications for the structure, a plot plan, and the engineering statement which accompanied the plans to review on the site. After the inspection he made a determination that the structure was appropriately designed for the hazard environment and located in such a position as to offer the least potential adverse impact to the beach in the area. Recent topographic changes, topographic data including that submitted by Petitioner, and other historical information was used to assess and evaluate the project. Thereafter, the engineer consulted with the Executive Director of the Respondent Department and gave a favorable recommendation in terms of minimal impact. The Executive Director determined that the structure was designed and located to have the minimum adverse impact on the beach, and that the structure was adequately designed to resist natural forces associated with a hundred-year storm surge (Transcript, pages 52-56). At the formal hearing the Executive Director stated that he based his recommendation for approval by the Executive Board on the precedence of previous action of the Executive Board and because he found that the Petitioner had his application in order. Petitioner Meadow has followed the guidelines of the administrative rules and submitted all required information. He has provided his reason for requesting a variance and believes the information furnished compels the Respondent Department to grant the waiver inasmuch as no modification was requested and he cannot build the structure he desires on the 14 to 15 feet of land he is authorized to use which lies landward of the 1975 setback line. The immediate area involved in this proceeding is relatively undeveloped beach property approximately one (1) mile in length at St. Joe Beach, Gulf County, Florida some twenty-nine (29) miles to Panama City and six (6) miles to Port St. Joe. The real property has been divided into fourteen (14) lots more or less similar to the lot on which Petitioner seeks to construct a duplex (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Transcript, page 137). No structures except one multifamily dwelling have been constructed on any of the fourteen (14) lots. Most the construction along the nearby coastline was completed prior to March 21, 1975, the date the Respondent Department established a coastal setback line under the then applicable statutes and rules. Beacon Hill is a subdivision about a mile and a half from the subject area on the coastal western edge of Gulf County. The structures are close together, the majority of which were constructed prior to 1975 without a permit from the Respondent Department. Historically, the area would have had a similar topography and beach conditions to the subject area, but because of structures built on the beach vicinity the primary dune system has been eradicated, the beach is narrow in that vicinity, and there is virtually no vegetation (Transcript, pages 135-136). It has been found that any construction, particularly of a building, generally has an adverse impact on a beach dune system (Transcript, pages 149, 161). The "setback line" defined in the 1975 statutes and rules was established March 21, 1975 (Transcript, page 169). Thereafter, in 1978 the legislature amended Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and ordered the Respondent Department to establish a "coastal construction control line" to replace the setback line, but said line has not yet been established, although at the hearing a member of Respondent's engineering staff stated that a study was in progress. Neither Petitioner Meadow nor Mr. Hinman, the owner of subject property, requested the Respondent Department to review the setback line or establish a coastal construction control line prior to filing of the application in 1979 for a variance of the 1975 setback line (transcript, page 93). "Setback line" and "coastal construction control line" are not synonymous. The setback line set a seaward line for construction, and the coastal construction control line defines the impact of a 100-year storm surge or other predictable weather condition (Transcript, page 179). An engineer on the Respondent Department's staff who qualified as an expert was of the opinion that the coastal construction control line, when established, would be landward of the setback line established in 1975 (Transcript, page 198). There have been two (2) hurricanes which have impacted the Gulf Coast since the setback line was established, one in September of 1975 and one in September of 1979. These storms had relatively little visual impact on the subject beach area except for erosion of the fore dune, but the storms substantially impacted the accretion of the coastline (Transcript, pages 189- 195). At the final hearing Ms. Sally Malone, a resident living one block from the proposed structure of Petitioner Meadow, protested the proposed construction on the beach and in general the removal of trees. The evidence shows she has a legitimate concern for the effect through erosion the construction might have on the beach near her home. Petitioner Meadow and the Respondent Department submitted proposed findings of fact and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended by the Hearing Officer that the application of Theodore B. Meadow for a waiver or variance be denied without prejudice to his refiling an application after the coastal construction control line is established as required by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, supra. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire 413 Williams Street Post Office Drawer 98 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Dr. Jack G. Nichols, is a resident of the State of Illinois. He and his parents have, for many years, owned property on Dog island, a barrier island in Franklin County, Florida. Dr. Nichols owns Lots 107 and 108 on Dog Island, and has for many years entertained plans of building a beach house on each lot, consisting of a single-family residence for himself on Lot 108 and such a house on Lot 107 for his parents. Dr. Nichols has the habit of visiting Dog island to inspect his property on his vacations and has done so from time to time prior to April, 1984. Over the years he conceived of the general type of house he wished to build and determined prior to April, 1984 to locate the houses landward of the then-existing Coastal Construction Control Line. Pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources undertook to survey and delineate a new Coastal Construction Control Line for Franklin County. The location of that line is described in Rule 16B- 26.14, F.A.C. and the new jurisdictional line became effective on April 30, 1984. Dr. Nichols came to Dog Island for his vacation in April, 1984, at which time he learned for the first time that the Department of Natural Resources had adopted the new Coastal Construction Control Line. After hearing of this new jurisdictional boundary from other property owners on the island, he sought to determine how that newly-defined boundary would affect his property and his plans for constructing a beach house. He observed aerial photographs depicting the Coastal Construction Control Line which would take effect April 30, 1984. He determined that the sites he had selected for the houses on his lots would be seaward of the new control line, as opposed to the preexisting line which he had taken into account in selecting his original home site. He also learned that if the houses he envisioned were under construction upon the effective date of the new Coastal Construction Control Line then he would be able to proceed with their construction without having to obtain a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. The Petitioner had not originally intended to construct the houses on his lots as early as April, 1984, but he became concerned that if he did not commence construction prior to the effective date of the new control line, he would not be able to place the houses at the location he had previously planned for. Thus, he took steps to retain a contractor and commence construction immediately. The Petitioner contacted Mr. William A. Shults, a contractor with experience building in the coastal areas of Franklin County. Mr. Shults was available and able to undertake construction activities and the two parties entered into a contract calling for construction of a beach house for both lots on approximately April 20, 1984. Mr. Shults immediately had necessary engineering work accomplished, had plans drafted for the structures and retained a construction crew. He cleared sufficient area on both lots to accommodate the residences and thereafter, on April 26, obtained a building permit for the structures. Materials were delivered to the island by landing craft on April 26 and 27, 1984. Mr. Shults also had a truck equipped with an auger or drilling equipment transported to the island and placed on the job site on or before April 27, 1984. The plans called for construction of the houses with a piling or pole foundation, so that the houses would be constructed above the specified flood levels. The poles and other materials necessary for construction of the foundation had all been delivered by April 27, 1984. The foundation lines were marked, the corner "batter boards" placed and other minor site preparation accomplished. The holes for the piling were to have been drilled on Saturday, April 28 but the trucks with the auger machine aboard, suffered a broken axle prior to its being positioned on Dr. Nichols' lots so that it was impossible to get the auger machine to the lots on April 28 or 29. Mr. Shults and his crew attempted to pull the truck to the site, but the difficulty of the terrain rendered that impossible. There was one other piece of auger equipment on the island, but its owner was engaged in construction activity with it at the time. That person agreed to bring his machine to the site on April 29 and begin augering and placing the poles for the pilings. His work became behind schedule however, and his machine was still involved in construction activity at his own site and could not be brought to Petitioner's site on that day. Mr. Shults, upon learning that the augering machine would not be available when needed, began commencing hand-digging of the pilings with post hole diggers on April 29. This method was a slow and laborious process because the holes had to be excavated much deeper than the length of the post-hole diggers. As a result, when the hole was dug as deep as the post-hole digger could reach from the surface of the ground, a hole had to be dug alongside the piling foundation hole so that a crew member could stand down in that hole and thus dig the piling hole deeper, handing the post-hole diggers with each load of dirt up to another crew member on the surface to dump, who would then hand the post-hole diggers back to the lower-placed crew member. This made the process of digging the foundation piling holes much slower than the use of the auger equipment. In this manner, however, Shults succeeded in digging four foundation holes on Lot 105. At that point, the augering machine arrived on the site and four piling holes were dug and the pertinent poles placed in them on Lot 107 as well. Throughout this construction process, Mr. Shults' crew was working on both foundations at one time. This allowed for less costly construction due to the efficiency of undertaking the same kind of work on two structures with the same crew at the same time. Since the two lots and construction sites adjoined each other, one crew could efficiently be used for both construction sites in an economic fashion. On April 30, Shults' construction crew proceeded to work on the structure on Lot 108 to further secure and place foundation posts. The four pilings placed in the holes on Lot 107 the day before remained in place. The construction crew and most of its equipment, and most construction work, was proceeding on Lot 108 merely because of the order of Mr. Shults to his crew to finish placing the foundation posts on that lot first, on that day. During the morning of that day, representatives of the Department arrived on the site and advised Mr. Shults that the construction activities appeared to be illegal and seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. They advised him that any further activity of that type would be undertaken at his and the lot owner's risk and expense. Mr. Shults thus ceased activities on both lots for a time, but during the following week, after discussing the dispute with certain Department employees, arrived at the opinion that the owner's construction activities had achieved grandfather status and that no permit from the Department would be required. He thus undertook to finish placing the foundation pilings on both lots. All the foundation pilings were installed on both lots by the end of the second week of May, 1984. Mr. Shults then contacted Dr. Nichols by telephone in Illinois informing him about the progress of the job, including the height of the piling. During this conversation Dr. Nichols became concerned that the pilings on Lot 107 did not project above the surface of the ground as far as he had anticipated, thus obstructing his view of the Gulf of Mexico from the beach house which would be constructed on top of the pilings. The view would be obstructed by the existing sand dune which Dr. Nichols had not wanted to disturb, hence locating his house in the more landward position at issue. In order to provide the desired view of the Gulf over the intervening sand dune, Dr. Nichols instructed Mr. Shults to replace the existing pilings on Lot 107 with longer ones. Mr. Shults purchased new pilings, had them delivered to the site, removed the original poles and installed the new ones in their place in the same holes, including the four holes that were dug prior to the effective date of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Dr. Nichols and Mr. Shults established that the original poles had been placed with the intention that they would be the permanent foundation for the house and no decision was contemplated nor made concerning their removal and replacement with the longer poles until after the foundation was fully constructed. In any event, by its letter of May 21, 1984, advising Dr. Nichols of the alleged violation of the Coastal Construction Control Line, the Department made a "free-form" determination that the construction activities on Lot 107 before April 30, 1984, were not sufficient to confer "grandfathered" status and that the activities were illegal unless a permit was obtained. The subject petition was filed and this proceeding ensued. It is true that Dr. Nichols' original intent was not to commence construction of the beach houses as soon as he did in April, 1984 and that he only began construction at that earlier time when he learned of the impending effective date of the new Coastal Construction Control Line which would require him to obtain a permit before constructing the houses at the sites he had previously selected. However, it is equally true that Dr. Nichols' bona fide intention when he retained Mr. Shults to commence construction was to not merely clear the site and place pilings and then construct the houses at some indefinite later time, but rather to commence construction and pursue construction activities on an ongoing, uninterrupted basis through to completion of both houses on both lots. If the Department had not intervened with its letter to the effect that the Petitioner might be in violation of the Coastal Construction Control Line, construction activities on Lot 107 would have continued to completion in an uninterrupted fashion. Prior to the effective date of the Department's Coastal Construction Control Line, the Petitioner's construction activity, involving the excavation for and placing of the foundation pilings for the residence to be on Lot 107, was undertaken and engaged in a continuous, uninterrupted fashion. The decision to remove the original pilings and replace them with longer poles was not envisioned, intended or made prior to the completion of the entire pole foundation for the house on Lot 107 in the first or second week of May. It was only at this time, when the poles were all installed, that it was determined by the owner and Mr. Shults that the original pilings were not long enough to confer a sufficient view of the Gulf from the house to be constructed on top of them. Thus, the removal of the original pilings and the replacement of them with longer poles in the same holes the original pilings had been installed in, was not an interruption in the construction activities, but was rather the correction of a deficiency in the original materials. This replacement did not involve an alteration or modification of the design, extent and type of materials of the original foundation (except to the immaterial extent that the replacement poles were round instead of square). In short, the construction activity undertaken after April 20, 1984 was a good faith effort to commence construction on the house on Lot 107 and continue it to completion in an uninterrupted fashion. The parties, Dr. Nichols and Mr. Shults, intended from the beginning to use the poles first placed in that foundation as the ultimate foundation for the structure, and did not intend merely placing those original poles, which were later removed, as a subterfuge to obtain a grandfathered status for the construction activity. The construction was landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line as it existed prior to April 30, 1984.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order determining that the structure on Lot 107, Dog Island, Franklin County, Florida is not in violation of the Department of Natural Resources permitting authority. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 September, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Sarasota County and MPS both filed extensive exceptions to the Recommended Order. I have grouped these exceptions according to the following issues: Manatee Protection, Turtle Nesting impacts, Fisheries impacts, Seagrass impacts, Wetlands Impacted, Water Quality Improvement, Public interest Balancing Test, Miscellaneous Exceptions, Requests For Additional Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law. I shall discuss and rule on each exception by the above groupings. 1. Manatee Protection Sarasota County Exception Number 1 and MPS Exception Numbers 6 and 8 are directed to the issue of adverse affects on the West Indian Manatee. Sarasota County and MPS take exception to Finding of Fact ("FOF") No. 24, claiming that there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that it is anticipated that increased motorboat traffic in the pass vicinity would be an increased potential danger to manatees. MPS additionally takes exception to the finding in FOF No. 29 that maintenance dredging will entail a danger to manatees similar to that during the construction phase. At the outset, I note that where a Hearing Officer's finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence I am not permitted to reweigh the evidence and reject the finding of fact. See, e.g., Florida Debt. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 120.57(1)(b)1O., Florida Statutes. In this case the record does contain competent substantial evidence supporting FOF Nos. 24 and 29. The Hearing Officer's finding that increased motorboat traffic is an expected result of opening of the pass is not disputed. FOF No. 34. The area is designated as a critical habitat for the West Indian Manatee. FOF No. 22. The prefiled testimony of Ms. Kimberly A. Dryden states that "[a]n increase in boat/manate collisions associated with increased boat presence in the pass may occur." Dryden, PF-11. Ms. Dryden was admitted as an expert in wildlife biology including expertise in manatees, and her prefiled testimony was accepted into evidence. TR-756-760. Finally, the fact that Sarasota County itself proposed a manatee protection plan involving, among other things, that all project vessels operate at "no wake" speeds, supports the finding that increased motorboat traffic in the pass vicinity would be an increased potential danger to manatees. Sarasota County and MPS point to the public notice of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Hearing Exhibit 26) and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter (Hearing Exhibit 27) as overwhelming evidence that no adverse effect on the manatee is expected. In essence, Sarasota County and MPS are asking me to reweigh the competent, substantial evidence. As noted above, I may not lawfully do that. The parties do not dispute the Hearing Officer's finding that maintenance dredging is expected to be needed as long as the inlet remains open. FOF No. 21. For the reasons set forth above, the Hearing Officer's finding that maintenance dredging will present a danger to manatees similar to the construction is supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. Sarasota County and MPS also assert that FOF No. 24 must be rejected because it is contrary to a stipulation of fact by the parties. Indeed, the record shows that a prehearing stipulation was filed and accepted into the record without objection at the hearing. TR-8. Stipulation of Fact No. 24 states: With the implementation of recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is not expected that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the manatee or its habitat. Steven Sauers, Director of the Coastal Zone Division for Sarasota County, testified that he believed the County "could adhere to these [U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service] recommendations under a condition of authorization." TR-94-98. I note that when the prefiled testimony of Ms. Dryden was accepted into evidence at the hearing, neither Sarasota County nor MPS objected to those portions dealing with manatee impacts as being contrary to Stipulation of Fact No. 24. I must therefore consider whether the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the stipulation, and whether the Hearing Officer, as the ultimate finder of the facts, is bound by a stipulation of fact when the record contains competent, substantial evidence which conflicts with the stipulation. It has long been the eablished rule of law that stipulations of fact properly entered into are binding on both the parties and the court. See, e.g., Troup v. Bird, 53 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 1951) (where case is tried on stipulation, no further or different facts will be presumed to exist). Where a party seeks to be relieved from a stipulation, he or she generally must file a timely motion, with notice to opposing parties, showing good cause and no prejudice to opposing parties. U.S. Fire insurance Co. v. Roberts, 541 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lopez v. Dublin Co., 489 So.2d 805, 807 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Munilla v. Perez-Cobo, 335 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. den., 344 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1977); Villa v. Mumac Construction Corp., 334 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Curr v. Helene TransportatIon, 287 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Good cause requires showing of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, withholding of facts by the adversary party, or such other element as would render the agreement void. Spitzer v. Bartlett Brothers Roof in, 437 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Citv of Vero Beach v. Thomas, 388 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In this case, neither the Department nor the Respondent Intervenors sought to be relieved from the stipulation, and there is no contention that any basis for good cause exits to be relieved from the stipulation. However, it is also a long established rule of law that failure to contemporaneously object to the admission of contested evidence is a waiver of the right to object. See, e.g., Swan v. Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 404 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); DeLuca v. State, 384 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. den., 389 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1980); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, Section 104.1 (2d Ed 1984); Section 90.104, Florida Statutes. in this case the testimony which conflicts with the stipulation was pre-filed before the hearing and the opposing parties had ample opportunity to review it before the hearing. Yet, although Sarasota County did raise objections to certain portions of Ms. Dryden's pre- filed testimony, no objection was raised to the portion relevant to impacts on manatees. TR-754-760. There is also authority for the proposition that when evidence contrary to a stipulation is introduced at trial without objection, the finder of fact is not bound by the stipulation. Special Disability Trust Fund v. Myers, 492 So.2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), cause dism'd, 491 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1986); Espada Enterprises Inc. v. Spiro, 481 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Woods v. Greater Naples Care Center, 406 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. den., 413 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1982). In consideration of the above authorities and circumstances, I conclude that the Hearing Officer was not bound by the stipulation and could properly consider the relevant portion of Ms. Dryden's pre-filed testimony. Therefore the record contains competent, substantial evidence in support of the above findings of fact. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are denied. Turtle Nesting Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 2 and MPS Exception No. 7 dispute FOF No. 26, which states that: "Once dredged, the beach area in the pass vicinity would be permanently lost for the purpose of turtle nesting." Sarasota County and MPS argue that although a portion of the beach will be removed to create the inlet, the loss of beach will not significantly impact on turtle nesting. Sarasota County and MPS contend that the "overwhelming weight" of the evidence is contrary to FOF No. 26. They are in essence asking me to reweigh the evidence. For the reasons stated above, I cannot do so. If the finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence, then I am not at liberty to reject it. Florida Department of Corrections, supra; Section 120.57(1) (b)10., Florida Statutes. Ms. Belinda Perry, Projects Coordinator in the Coastal Zone Division of Natural Resources of the Sarasota County Natural Resources Department, testified that she had maintained records of sea turtle nests in the vicinity of Midnight Pass. She testified that on the average over the last eight years there have been four nests per year in the area that the new inlet at Midnight Pass will be located. Perry, TR-537-538; Perry PF-2, 5, 8. This is competent, substantial evidence of an adverse impact on the nesting habitat of sea turtles. Sarasota County and MPS argue that this impact is not "Significant." If I were to consider the "significance" of the loss of 4 nests per year for the purpose of accepting or rejecting FOF No. - 26, I would in effect be weighing that evidence. This I may not do. If the finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence I may not reject it. Although not articulated, Sarasota County and MPS may be arguing that when evidence which supports a finding of an adverse impact on an endangered or threatened species is "not significant," then such evidence or finding of fact cannot be considered when weighing the seven factors set forth in the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. I reject any such argument as contrary to the law. Neither the statute nor any authority requires a minimum threshold weight for any of the factors. The statute merely requires the Department to "consider and balance" the seven criteria. For the foregoing reasons, Sarasota County's Exception No. 2 and MPS's Exception No. 7 are rejected. Fisheries Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 4 and MPS Exception No. 10 challenge that part of FOF No.-3- that states "the flushing and arrival of predator fishes will adversely affect the nursery habitat now enjoyed by the fish community currently within the LSB." (emphasis added) Sarasota County and MPS contend that this finding is unsupported by any competent substantial evidence in the record. I disagree. Robert L. Stetler, Environmental Administrator, Wetlands Resource Management for the Department's Southwest District testified as follows: Q. What impact on fisheries does the present, i.e., closed condition of the Midnight Pass area have? A. Current conditions in the backwater area of Midnicht Pass as mentioned Before, as quiescent in nature. This influences the fisheries utilization to the competitive advantage of the smaller species and of the early life stages of many of the larger pelagic fish species. The additional cover afforded by seagrass communities and the very shallow water nature of large portions of the site tend to limit successful predation on the smaller specimens. The periphyton communities associated with shallow water areas and seagrass beds also provide large quantities of food to the smaller or younger fish. The conditions now found at Midnight Pass enable it to be classified as a nursery area because they perform the functions of feeding and protecting the early life stages of numerous fish species. Nursery areas like the pass region have been identified as essential to the maintenance of healthy, well balanced fish populations. Q. Does a quiescent estuarine zone provide any particilar benefit to commercially important fish species? A. Under the estuarine conditions, water quality also contributes to the success and/or failure of certain fish species. Many of the estuarine dependent fish species have life histories that include spawning in or near the marine environment and the mitigation [sic] of the larval forms into areas of lower salinity, sometimes lower dissolved oxygen and, in the summer months, often very high water temperatures. These harsh conditions are tolerable to a early life stages of several commercially important fish species and further protects them from predation by adult piscivorous (fish eating) fish that cannot tolerate these conditions. Some of the important commercial species exhibiting this life cycle are the Tarpon, Spotted Seatrout, Redfish, Mangrove snapper, Sheepshead and Mullet. Q. What, in your opinion, would be the overall impact to fisheries resources from the opening of Midnight Pass? A. The overall impact of the project to fisheries would be significant. Reactivating an inlet would produce conditions conducive and reintroducing larger, motile, pelagic fishes into the area. increased flushing would likely occur resulting in increased salinities, higher energy conditions from waye and tidal action. The recreational fishery would probably produce more larger fish utilizing the pass as a migratory, spawning and feeding site. However, the direct impact of the project would also result in the loss of significant portions of the nursery habitat previously described. Q. in your opinion, would opening Midnight Pass be in the public interest from a fisheries standpoint? A. No. Q. Why not? A. The expected physical damages associated with reopening the pass -- increased water depths, destabilization of the substrate by tide and wave energy and destruction of existing shallow water habitat will eliminate or significantly change the habitat characteristics and water guality conditions essential to the early life stages of many fish species. Loss of nursery habitat has been a long-term trend to Tampa and Sarasota Bay due to past dredge and fill activities and increased development. This long-term loss results in a need to classify remaining nursery areas, like Midnight Pass, as critical habitat warranting special protection. (emphasis added) Stetler PF-11-13. This prefiled testimony was accepted into evidence. TR-836, 839. When read in its entirely it clearly provides competent, substantial evidence to support the above finding of fact. Mr. Stetler testified that the existing nature of LSB provides a nursery for certain fishes that in the early stages of their life take advantage of areas of lower salinity, sometimes lower dissolved oxygen and, in the summer months, often very high water temperatures. Such harsh conditions protect them from predation by adult fish that cannot tolerate such conditions. He further testified that reopening Midnight Pass would result in increased flushing, increased salinity, and the loss of significant portions of the above characteristics with a consequent loss of significant portions of the nursery habitat. This testimony is competent, substantial evidence supporting FOF No. 32. Therefore, i may not disturb this finding of fact. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Seagrass Impacts Loss of Seagrass Sarasota County Exception No. 5 and MPS Exceptions Nos. 10 and 11 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the submerged areas of LSB in the vicinity of the inlet are vegetated with seagrasses (including shoalgrass, turtle grass, manatee grass, and halophila), and that a significant portion of these grasses will be dredged if the proposed project is implemented. FOF No. 33. The Hearing Officer also found that the dredged seagrass areas will no longer serve as a nursery to young fishes. FOF No. 34. Sarasota County and MPS contend that only 10 acres of seagrasses will be dredged, and that the evidence shows that reopening Midnight Pass will cause more dense growth of seagrasses in those areas not dredged. Sarasota County and MPS also contend that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that all four of the above noted types of seagrasses would be lost. The gist of Sarasota County's and MPS's argument is that the loss of ten acres of seagrss is less than 10% of the total seagrass acreage in the project area, and therefore is not significant. Sarasota County and MPS further argue that even if the loss of 10 acres of seagrass was significant, it would only be a temporary loss because the opening of Midnight Pass would result in greater seagrass growth, density, and diversity in those areas not dredged. Neither Sarasota County nor MPS take exception to the finding that l0 acres of seagrasses will be dredged, and that, due to the depth of the channel to be dredged, seagrasses would not be expected to reseed or colonize in the deep channel cuts. FOF No. 34; Prehearing Stipulation of Fact No. 22. The record contains competent, substantial evidence that in the vicinity of the project there are 108 acres of seagrasses. Lewis, PF-6 (accepted into evidence TR-425-436). A loss of ten acres of seagrasses would be a loss of more than 9% of the total acreage in the vicinity of the project. A loss of seagrass can have an adverse impact on a fish nursery. Leiby TR-507, 509-510. I reject any suggestion that such a loss is not significant. MPS and Sarasota County contend that there will be no net loss of seagrass because the loss of the ten acres will be offset by increased growth, density, and diversity of seagrasses in the areas not dredged. in asking me to reject the above noted findings, Sarata County and MPS are in effect asking me to weigh the evidence of the impact of the loss of ten acres against the evidence that increased growth, density, and diversity of the seagrasses elsewhere will soon offset any reduction in nursery value to young fishes. When I rule on exceptions to findings of fact I cannot reweigh the evidence. If the record contains any competent, substantial evidence to support the finding, I must accept it. Finally, as to issue of the types of seagrasses present, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that all four of the species mentioned in the finding of fact are found in the project area to be dredged. Stetler PF- 6, TR-843-845; Wilber PF-33, TR-908-915; Dryden PF-5-7; Prehearing Stipulation of Fact No. 21. For all of the reasons set forth above, i reject the exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS. Propeller Dredging of Seagrass Sarasota County Exception No. 6 and MPS Exception No. 12 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "increase motorboat traffic which is an expected result of the pass reopening, would also limit grasses from re- establishing in shallower areas due to damage caused by propellers." FOF No. 34. Sarasota County and MPS do not dispute that opening - Midnight Pass will increase motoboat traffic in LSB. Dr. Wilber testified that the "foreseeable increased boat utilization, especially by large boats will increase seagrass bed damage through prop dredging . . . ." Wilber PF-31. There being competent, substantial evidence in the record supporting the above finding, the exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are denied. Wading Bird Habitat Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the grassy flats will no longer be available to the numerous species of wading birds which frequent the areas since the closure of the pass." FOF No. 33. Ms. Dryden testified that wading birds now use the shallow tidal flats and mud flats which are proposed to be removed. Dryden PF-4-8, 10-11. Mr. G. Jeffery Churchill testified that, as a result of the project, approximately 9 acres of wading bird feeding habitat would be lost. Churchill PF-16-17, TR- 485-487. The record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the above finding. Therefore, Sarasota County's exception is denied. Wetlands Impacted Sarasota County Exception No. 6 and MPS Exceptions Nos. 5 and 12 take exception to the finding that the dredging proposed by the County would eliminate at least 50 acres of wetlands. FOF Nos. 17 and 34. Sarasota County and MPS contend that only 1.1 - 1.3 acres of vegetated wetlands will be lost. This contention appears to be based on the assertion that submerged lands are not "wetlands" within the meaning of Sections 403.91 - .929, Florida Statutes. I reject Sarasota County's and MPS's narrow construction of the meaning of jurisdictional wetlands. Section 403.912(1) sets forth the powers and duties of the Department in permitting activities in wetlands, including activities "in waters to their landward extent . . ." (emphasis added). The term "waters" includes "rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters." Section 403.031(12), Florida Statutes. the term "wetlands" therefore is inclusive of surface bodies of waters up to and including the limit of the Department's jurisdiction as established by Section 403.817, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-301, F.A.C. Dr. Wilber testified that the project would dredge 43.8 acres for the two access channels, 3.6 acres for the sediment basin, and 7.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the inlet channel. Wilber PF-5-6. Dr. Wilber further testified that habitat within the proposed channels consisted of valuable biological communities of a natural character that would be severely disrupted or eliminated if the project were permitted. Wilber PF-9. The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the above finding. The exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are rejected. Water Quality Improvement Sarasota County Exception No. 7 and MPS Exception No. 14 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the water quality within LSB will not be significantly improved as a result of the reopening of the inlet. "FOF No. 38. it is contended that this finding is immaterial and irrelevant. These exceptions also challenge as irrelevant the Hearing Officer's finding that "it is impossible to conclude that marine environments serve a more useful purpose than estuarine systems." FOF No. 38. I agree that it is not required that the proposed project improve the water quality in LSB in order to be permittable. Permitting of a dredge and fill project in an Outstanding Florida Water requires that the applicant show that the project is clearly in the public interest, and that reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, including a showing that the existing ambient water quality within the OFW will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity. Section 403.918(1),(2), Florida Statutes; Rules 17-4.242(2) (a), 17-302.300, F.A.C. The applicant must also show that secondary impacts of the project, and cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable similar projects in the same geographical location will not result in violations of water quality standards, and will not result in the project being not clearly in the public interest. Conservancy, Inc. v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, Inc., No. 90-520 (Fla. 1st DCA, March 29, 1991); Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. The analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts is not a third test; rather, it is a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards, and that the project meets the applicable public interest test. Conservancy, Inc., supra; Peebles v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FALR 1961 (DER, April 11, 1990); Concerned Citizens League of America v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 4237, 4246 (DER, March 29, 1989). if the applicant is unable to satisfy the applicable public interest test, the applicant may propose or accept measures to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. 4/ On the other hand, throughout these proceedings Sarasota County has attemptd to justify the project and show that it is clearly in the public interest by asserting the project will improve water quality in LSB. For example, at page 7 of Sarasota County's Proposed Recommended Order it states: Sarasota County has convincingly demonstrated that it meets the statutory criteria for approval of this project in this Outstanding Florida Water. The project will not degrade ambient water quality, and it will cause an improvement in water guality, not only in the immediate vicinity of the Pass but throughout Little Sarasota Bay. This improved water guality will in turn reap substantial benefits to the degraded marine habitat, the flora and fauna, commercial and recreational fishing and the public's general enjoyment and ability to use Little Sarasota Bay. (emphasis added) Similarly, Sarasota County stated in its opening argument at the hearing that: TR-14. We think that there has been a decline in water quality and it will continue to decline and it will continue to get worse. By reopening the pass, we think we can stop that decline. We think that there will be such considerable improvements to the bay to be clearly in the public interest. The Hearing Officer's finding is clearly relevant to Sarasota County's assertion that the claimed improvement in water quality will make or help make the project to be clearly in the public interest. Similarly, since the reopening of the pass will cause the reversion of LSB from an estuarine to a marine ecosystem, the Hearing Officer's finding on the failure to show that a marine ecosystem has a more useful environmental purpose is also, at least arguably, relevant to the public interest test. 5/ The record contains competent, substantial evidence which supports this finding. Nearhoof PF-8-12, TR-891-895; Wilber PF-17-18, TR-920-921. There being competent, substantial evidence to support the finding, I shall not reject it. The exceptions are there denied. Public Interest Balancing Test Sarasota County Exceptions Nos. 8 and 12, and MPS Exceptions Nos. 15 and 17, take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the beneficial changes expected to result from the reopening of the pass do not offset the adverse affects reasonably expected to be caused by the dredging." FOF No. 39. Exception is also taken to FOF No. 43, which states that it was not established that the project is clearly in the public interest. The gist of these exceptions is that the balancing test is a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Even if that were so, the error in mislabeling would be harmless. Even though I agree that the ultimate determination of the public interest balancing test is a conclusion of law, I do not agree that predicate findings of ultimate facts are not appropriate. Florida Audubon Society v. Cullen, ER FALR 91:018 (DER, Sept. 27, 1990). The Hearing Officer's FOF Nos. 34 and 43 are predicate findings of ultimate facts sufficiently supported in other findings of fact for each of the seven criteria in the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes. See for example: Department's Response To Request For Admission No. 17, and R.O. at 21 and 23, accepting MPS's proposed finding of fact- No. 74, and Sarasota County's proposed finding of fact No. 50 (project will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare); (b) FOF Nos. 17, 22, 24-26, 29, and 32-35 (regarding conservation of fish and wildlife, etc.); FOF No. 36 and R.O. at 23, accepting MPS's proposed finding of fact Nos. 134 and 135 (regarding navigation, flow of water, erosion or shoaling); FOF Nos. 32 and 33 (regarding fishing recreational values or marine productivity); FOF No. 21, 29 and 37 (regarding temporary or permanent nature of project); FOF No. 28 (regarding historical and archaeological rsources); and FOF Nos. 30 and 38 (regarding current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by project). The exceptions are therefore rejected. Miscellaneous Exceptions Sarasota County Exception No. 9 Sarasota County Exception No. 9 contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence for the finding that the Department has not permitted the destruction of a habitat of this size without requiring extensive mitigation. FOF No. 40. Mr. Randall L. Armstrong, then Director of the Division of Water Management of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, testified that he had worked at the Department since 1972, and that "[i]n my experience with the Department in issuing permits under those statutes (Sections 403.918-.919] the Department has never permitted the destruction of such a large area of viable habitat without requiring extensive mitigation." Armstrong PF-9, TR-1017. Sarasota County's reliance on the testimony of Mr. Lewis about lack of mitigation in a Key Biscayne project is misplaced since that project occurred before the enactment of the Henderson Wetlands Act in 1984. Lewis TR at 482. in any event, FOF No. 40 is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied. Sarasota County Exception No. 11 and MPS Exception No. 16 Sarasota County Exception No. 11 and MPS Exception No. 16 complain about FOF No. 42, yet do not dispute its correctness. The finding is a irrefutable finding that no mitigation is proposed for 10 acres of seagrasses which will be dredged. The exceptions are merely an assertion that mitigation is not necessary for the loss of seagrasses because additional seagrass will grow elsewhere. This contention was addressed above under the heading of Seagrass impacts. Furthermore, the Department has the ultimate authority to determine whether mitigation is required and, if so, whether the proposed mitigation is adequate. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 522 So.2d. 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The exceptions are rejected. Sarasota County Exception No. 3 Sarasota County's Exception No. 3 claims to take exception to FOF No. 29 but does not dispute any of the facts stated therein. The exception is rejected. MPS Exception No. 1 This exception quibbles over an immaterial issue of semantics in FOF No. 2, i.e., whether the project is to "dredge an inlet" or to "restore" the past inlet. The exception is rejected. MPS Exception No.2 MPS takes exception to FOF No. 4 which states that LSB was designated an Outstanding Florida Water. The gist of MPS's exception is that the Environmental Regulation Commission excluded Midnight Pass when LSB was designated as an OFW. Since "Midnight Pass" no longer existed as a body of water when LSB was designated an OFW on April 29, 1986, the exception is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. MPS Exceptions No. 3 and 13 MPS takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding in FOF No. 7 that prior to the closing of Midnight Pass the "beach along the northern stretch of Casey Key eroded badly." MPS also excepts to the finding that without beach renourishment the restoration will cause "harmful erosion" along Casey Key. FOF No. 37. MPS does not dispute the erosion; rather, MPS complains about the choice of words describing the degree of erosion. The choice of words is not material to the underlying validity of the finding. The exceptions are without merit and are rejected as immaterial. MPS Exception No. 9 MPS takes exception to FOF No. 30, contending that there is no support in the record for a finding that, as a result of the evolution of LSB from a marine to an estuarine system, LSB has a longer freshwater residence time. MPS is misreading FOF No. 30. It is clear that FOF No. 30, when properly read, states that as a result of the closure of the pass LSB has evolved from a marine to an estuarine system, and that this evolution is a consequence of the longer freshwater residence time which was caused by the closing of the inlet. This is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Echernacht TR-707. MPS also takes exception to the finding that levels of dissolved oxygen and salinity within LSB are fairly typical for a healthy estuarine system. FOF No. 30. The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support this finding. Wilber PF-32. The exceptions are rejected. Requests For Additional Findings of Fact Sarasota -County Exceptions Nos. 3, 10, and 13 through 16, and MPS Exceptions Nos. 4 and 18 are in essence asking me to make additional findings of fact, or to accept proposed findings of fact which were rejected by the Hearing Officer. I may not lawfully make an independent determination of a disputed fact. Cohn v. Department of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039, 1047 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985). Accord, Miller v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 504 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Inverness Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 512 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Friends of Children v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As to Sarasota County Exception No. 14, which requests a finding of fact that the project will not adversely affect the pubic health, safety and welfare, I note that the Hearing Officer accepted this finding of fact which was proposed in both paragraph 74 of MPS's proposed recommended order and in paragraph 50 of Sarasota .County's proposed recommended order. See R.O. at 21 and 23. Therefore, I consider the requested finding of fact to have already been made by the Hearing Officer. No additional finding is required of me. Sarasota County Exception No. 15 asks me to make specific additional findings of fact in relation to effects of the project on marine productivity. Sarasota County orrectly points out that a finding regarding whether the project will adversely affect marine productivity is needed to conduct the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. However, I note that the Hearing Officer's FOF Nos. 32 and 33 are sufficient predicate findings for her to consider and weigh this criteria in the balancing test. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer has considered and ruled on Sarasota County's proposed findings related to marine productivity as set forth in Sarasota County's proposed recommended order paras. 105-108 and 110 (accepted) and para. 111 (rejected as vague). See R.O. at 22. Sarasota County Exception No. 15 is essentially a reiteration of proposed findings of fact which had been asserted before the Hearing Officer. Where the Hearing Officer clearly and specifically addressed and ruled on the proposed finding in the recommended order, I am not required to provide further reasons for my ruling. Britt v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 492 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), overruled on other grounds sub nom., Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1988). I concur with and adopt the Hearing Officer's rulings as being based on competent, substantial evidence, and therefore reject the exception. Sarasota County Exception No. 16 asks me to make specific findings with regard to cumulative impacts. The matter ofwhether the proposed project will have any significant adverse secondary or cumulative impacts was a disputed issue at the hearing. See Prehearing Stipulation at 24, Stipulated Disputed issue VI(A)9. Section 403. 919, Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the cumulative impacts of the project in conjunction with other existing or future projects where there is a "reasonable likelihood" of similar project applications in the same geographic location in the future. Caloosa Property Owners Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Reasonable expectation of future projects is the polestar of cumulative impact analysis. Chipola Basin Protective Group v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 F.A.L.R. 467, 477 (D.E.R. December 29, 1988). Testimony at the hearing showed that the Department conducted an evaluation of the project for cumulative impacts and was unable to identify any such impacts. Wilber PF-30, TR-949-950; Armstrong TR-1021-1022. A finding that the Department conducted a cumulative impact analysis and concluded that it was unable to identify any cumulative impact was proposed by Sarasota County in its Proposed Recommended Order, paras. 118 and 119. - These findings were accepted by the Hearing Officer (R.O. at 22). Therefore, the requested findings of fact have already been made by the Hearing Officer, and no additional finding is required of me. The exception is therefore rejected. MPS Exception No. 18 asks me to adopt numerous proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer expressly rejected. The Hearing Officer expressly ruled on each of these proposed findings of fact. (Recommended Order at 23-24) Where exceptions merely reiterate proposed findings of fact which had been asserted before the Hearing Officer, and where the Hearing Officer clearly and specifically addressed each in the recommended order, I am not required to provide any further explicit reasons for my ruling. Britt v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, supra. I concur with and adopt the Hearing Officer's rulings on these proposed findings of fact. I therefore reject the above exceptions. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Public Interest Test Sarasota County's Exception To Conclusion of Law No. 2, and MPS Exception No. 20 take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that "the County has failed to establish that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest." Conclusion of Law No. 6, R.O. at 15-16. As I noted in my earlier discussion on findings of fact, in order to obtain a permit to dredge and fill in an Outstanding Florida Water, the applicant must show, among other things, that the project is clearly in the public interest. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Failure of the applicant to make that showing makes the project not permittable. In order to determine whether the project is clearly in the public interest, the Department must consider and balance the following seven factors set forth in Section 403.918(2)(a): Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. In order to consider and balance these factors it is necessary, of course, to make sufficient findings of fact as to each factor. As I discussed above, the Hearing Officer had accepted or expressly made findings of fact relevant to each of the above factors. in Conclusion of Law No. 6, she considered and balanced those factors in reaching her determination that it was not shown that the project is clearly in the public interest. I am, of course, not bound by the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law. I am free to substitute my own legal conclusions for those of the Hearing Officer, so long as competent, substantial evidence supports my legal conclusions. Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 16 FLW D458 (Fla. 2d DCA, Feb. 20, 1991); Hunter v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); MacPherson v. School Board of Monroe County, 505 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Section 120.57(1) (b)lO., Florida Statutes. I have considered and balanced each of the seven criteria set forth in Section 403.918(2) (a) in the light of the findings of fact discussed above. I concur in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that it has not been demonstrated that the project is clearly in the public interest. In reaching my conclusion I am aware of the holding in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) that no net public benefit need be shown. I conclude that Findings of Fact Nos. 17, 22, 24-26, 29 and 32-35 on balance establish that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Findings of Fact 32 and 33 on balance show that the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in LSB. Findings 30 and 38 on balance sfrthat the current conditiofr of LSB makes it a valuable estuarine ecosystem which will be lost if the project is permitted. Finding of Fact 36 and MPS proposed findings of fact Nos. 134 and 135, which were accepted by the Hearing Officer, on balance show a net benefit to navigation. And, the Hearing Officer's acceptance of Sarasota County's proposed finding of fact No. 50, and MPS's proposed finding of fact No. 74, allow me to conclude that the project will not adversely affect the public health, welfare or safety. I note that there is abundant proof that the project is permanent in nature and that there will be no adverse affect on historical or archaeological resources. When I consider and balance all of these factors and their relevant facts, I conclude that the adverse impacts outweigh any benefits, and therefore donclude that there has been no showing that the project is clearly in the public interest. Since I have determined that it has not been shown that the project is clearly in the public interest, I must also consider any mitigation which Sarasota County has proposed. Sarasota County and MPS contend that no mitigation is needed for the loss of ten acres of seagrasses because reopening the pass will result in recolonization of new areas of seagrass, greater density of growth in existing areas, and greater diversity of seagrass species. Even when I assume that Sarasota County's and MPS cotentions are true, I still conclude that the adverse effects of the loss of ten acres of seagrass will not be mitigated by the proposed project. 6/ Accordingly, I reject the exceptions. Water Quality Improvement Sarasota County Exception To Conclusion of Law No. 1, and MPS Exception No. 19, challenge the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law No. 4. Specifically, the exceptions challenge the statement that "[t]he County has not established, however, that the reopening of the inlet will somehow improve water quality and justify the proposed dredging." Conclusion of Law No. 1, R.O. at 14. To the extent that the Hearing Officer may have thought that a showing of improvement in water quality was a requirement for obtaining a permit, she erred. However, for the reasons set forth in my previous discussion of water quality in relation to findings of fact, Sarasota County and MPS had made improvement in water quality an issue in determining whether the project was clearly in the public interest. Rather than erroneously imposing a requirement of improvement of water quality, it appears that the Hearing Officer was merely making a predicite observation prior to conducting the public interest balancing test. Regardless of how one interprets the above matter, it is clear that the issue does not affect the outcome of this case because both the Hearing Officer and I have concluded that there has been no showing that the project is clearly in the public interest. I therefore reject the exception on the basis that the conclusion of law is not erroneous, or if error, then it is harmless error. Having ruled on all of the exceptions it is ORDERED: Except as is otherwise stated in this Final Order, the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Sarasota County's Permit Application No. 581473069 is DENIED. NOTICE OF RIGHTS Any party to this Final Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is filed with the clerk of the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation CAROL BROWNER Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL. 32399-2400
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by Sarasota County. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-3533 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant, speculative or immaterial to the issues of this case. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 through 29 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is accepted with the deletion of the quotation marks around the word monitor and with the deletion of the last phrase following the words "survival rate" which is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant or not supported by the record. Paragraphs 32 through 36 are accepted. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 38 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 42 through 44 are accepted. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 46 through 48 are accepted. Paragraphs 49 through 53 are rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues, comment, repetitive, or argumentative. Paragraphs 54 through 62 are accepted. Paragraph 63 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 68 through 73 are accepted.
Findings Of Fact Respondents' File No. 76-3-V-90, is an application by J. Edwin Chancey for a variance from the coastal construction setback line in Walton County in an area referred to as Grayton Beach. The application for variance involves approximately 450-470 feet of open beach which the applicant proposes to divide into nine 50-foot wide lots upon which he proposed to construct dwelling houses. As shown by Exhibit 5 the proposed dwellings would be no less than approximately 150 feet and no more than approximately 300 feet seaward of the coastal construction setback line previously established by the Department of Natural Resources for Walton County and the subject beach area. The Department of Natural Resources' staff has recommended to the Governor and Cabinet as the Department of Natural Resources that the variance be granted subject to eight stated conditions set forth in Exhibit 2 of this proceeding. These conditions include the following: "1. No construction will be more than 150 feet gulfward of the most upland property line. All building structures will be constructed on open piling foundations with floor elevations above 14.5 feet mean sea level and pile tip penetration below 5 feet mean sea level. * * * The variance, if approved, will cover the construction of nine 50 foot lots in accordance with the subdivision plans on file in this office. . . . Construction plans on each lot will be submitted individually for staff review and if approved will be issued a variance placard for construction. The placard will be valid for construction commencing within six months and completion within 18 months. In the event septic systems are used, these systems will be installed on the landward most portion of the lots." On July 15, 1975, the Department of Natural Resources approved a variance from the coastal construction setback line requirements for a development with 30 lots proposed for the land involved in this application and an additional and contiguous 930 feet of beach. However, the developer experienced financial difficulties and as a result deeded away approximately two-thirds of the beach front property involved in that variance and abandoned the variance. The developer in that instance was J. Edwin Chancey. The land involved in this proceeding is generally open beach dunes interrupted by lakes. The engineer for the Department of Natural Resources estimated that the elevation of the subject property for which a variance is sought ranges from +3 feet mean sea level to +7 feet mean sea level except for the remnants of several large dunes which range from +10 feet mean sea level to +13 feet mean sea level. The area was somewhat higher prior to Hurricane Eloise which caused the dunes to recede on the average 55 feet and reduced 20 foot dunes to their current elevation of +10 feet to +13 feet mean sea level. Several hundred yards east of the subject property there is a large body of water known as Western Lake. Western Lake is connected directly to the Gulf by an open water course presently located 200-400 feet east of the subject property. This natural water course historically migrates to the west from its present general location in a series of migrations. As its length increases its efficiency decreases so that periodically it moves back to the east to begin again its western migration. This natural water course, in its western migration, has, in the past, encroached on the property for which a variance is herein sought. It appears that, absent an artificial barrier, this natural water course is likely in the future to migrate westward to the subject property. This water course is sometimes deep enough to accommodate an outboard boat and can be 150 feet or more wide. During Hurricane Eloise, the construction site on the property for which the variance is sought had approximately 3 feet to 4 feet of standing water. The Applicant has not provided the Department of Natural Resources with evidence of his ownership of the property for which he seeks a variance. It appears from the evidence presented that the Applicant is not the sole owner of the property, but may be a part-owner with three other persons. The Applicant has not provided the Department of Natural Resources with a duly executed statement from the owners of record consenting to the work, activity, or construction for which the variance has been requested. No statement of the specific reasons why the Applicant feels that the variance should be granted has been received by the Department of Natural Resources. There have been communications between staff members of the Department and the Applicant or his representatives, but apparently these communications dealt with the details of the requested variance rather than the reasons why the variance should be granted. The Department of Natural Resources has not received a recent topographic survey showing the plot plan of the proposed construction. The Department has received a topographic survey and a plot plan showing the position of the proposed nine lots. (See Exhibits 5 and 9) Exhibit 5, on Lots 1, 2, 6 and 8 does show what appears to be the plot plan of some structure, though apparently, the Applicant does not necessarily intend to construct dwellings in accordance with those drawings. The Department of Natural Resources has not received construction plans showing cross sections of all sub-grade construction or excavation, elevations of the lowest floor and the first dwelling floor, or the details and justification for any proposed waste water discharge unto, over, under or across the beach and/or dunes. The Applicant has verbally communicated to the Department that if septic tanks are used on the subject property they will be located as far landward as possible with no discharge toward the Gulf. No further details of this proposed wastewater discharge have been submitted to the Department. According to the engineer for the Department there will be sub- grade construction. However, the plot plan (Exhibit 5) showing the location of the proposed nine lots is apparently the only plan received by the Department with regard to this request for a variance. No evidence was presented showing that the Department has waived any of the requirements for an application for variance set out in Section 16B- 25.05, F.A.C. The engineer for the Department whose responsibility it was to initially review and make recommendations with regard to the application for variance testified that he did not believe that he had the authority to waive the above requirements and that he did not know who, if anyone, within the Department had that authority. He did not make any recommendation that the requirements be waived and did not know if the requirements had been waived. The application for variance which is the subject of this proceeding was received by the Department of Natural Resources no earlier than November, 1975, and was given the Department File No. 76-3-V-90. The application is a series of documents rather than a formal application. The Applicant had sought variances for a larger piece of property which included the subject property which variances would have allowed up to 128 dwelling units. Those requests for variances predated that which is the subject of this proceeding and were apparently given different file numbers by the Department of Natural Resources and were considered separate applications. The Petitioners, W. A. Covell and Bonnie Covell, own property in the community of Grayton Beach upon which there is a house. Their property is approximately 700 feet or more from the open beach property for which a variance is sought and does not abut the subject beach property. The Covell's think that construction of the nine dwelling units which would be allowed by the variance would lower the value of their property. Petitioners Jennings N. Byrd and Mrs. J. N. Byrd own property in the community of Grayton Beach upon which there there is a dwelling house. Their property is approximately 750 feet to 800 feet from the beach property for which a variance is sought. Mr. Byrd testified that he felt his interest in objecting to the variance was the same as that of any other Florida citizen. He further testified that he did not mind his view being obstructed by the dwelling units proposed by the Applicant. All Petitioners and their families have used the open beach area of which the property for which a variance is sought is a part, for many years as a picnic, sunning and swimming area. Petitioners G.A.P. Haynes and Betty H. Haynes own, in the name of Mrs. Haynes, property which is immediately adjacent to Applicant's property. The Haynes own a dwelling house which is located approximately 100 feet from Applicant's property. It is the opinion of the Haynes that the construction of the nine dwelling units in front of their house as proposed by the Applicant would lower the value of their property. The Haynes further indicated their concern that construction on the beach in front of them, because of the apparent inherent instability of the shifting sands, would have an adverse impact upon their house in times of high wind and water. They recounted seeing water standing, as the result of storms other than hurricanes, on Applicant's property and near their house.
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 for determination is whether Petitioners are eligible for a permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in Broward County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1993, Vander Ploeg and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Paul Leto, Richard Meyer, and Berta Anderes (Petitioners) submitted an application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent) for a permit to perform construction on their property seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line. Respondent deemed their application complete on April 18, 1994. Petitioners proposed construction will be seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The proposed construction will occur on two adjacent lots in Broward County. Petitioner Leto is the owner of one of the lots described as Lot 19, Block 196, Hollywood Central Beach, Plat Book 4, Page 20, Public Records of Broward County. Petitioners Meyer and Anderes are the owners of the other lot described as Lot 20, Block 196, Hollywood Central Beach, Plat Book 4, Page 20, Public Records of Broward County. Petitioner Leto purchased his lot in September 1992 and Petitioners Meyer and Anderes purchased their lot in March 1993. The lots were platted in or around the 1920's. Both lots are seaward of the seasonal high water line, on a sandy beach with no frontal dune structure. They are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern most side and by a roadway (Surf Road) which is immediately adjacent to the lots on the western most side and landward of the lots. Approximately 200 feet north of the lots is an existing structure and approximately 800 feet south of this first existing structure is another existing structure. Petitioners topographical survey, which was submitted to Respondent in December 1993, showed that Lots 19 and 20, each measured 40 feet in a shore parallel direction and 80 feet in a shore normal direction, i.e., perpendicular to the shoreline. The proposed structure will be located directly on the sandy beach. The City of Hollywood, Florida has granted Petitioners a variance. Further, the proposed construction complies with the rules, zoning regulations, and ordinances of the City of Hollywood. Petitioners' application requests a permit for the construction of a single-family residence on the lots, which will house two families. However, the proposed construction is for a duplex, not a single-family residence. Petitioners are willing, and agreeable, to changing the design of the proposed structure to comply with Respondent's specifications for a single- family residence. Additionally, the proposed construction includes a riprap which will also be located on the sandy beach. A riprap is typically used for protective armoring. No structure presently exists for the riprap to protect. Furthermore, the riprap proposed by Petitioners is not adequately designed as a coastal protection structure, and if the proposed single-family residence is modified in accordance with Respondent's specifications, the proposed modified single-family residence would not be eligible for coastal armoring. The riprap structure is not an integral part of the structural design. Petitioners are willing, and agreeable, to eliminating the riprap structure. No other issues exist as to the structural integrity of the design of the proposed project. The lots on which the proposed structure will be located are a part of the beach-dune system. The natural function of the beach provides protection to upland property. The lots on which the proposed structure will be located are subject to normal storm-induced erosion. Tide and wave forces will impact the proposed structure during storms of minor intensity, including five-year storms. The proposed structure will induce greater erosion on the lots as a result of scour due to the interaction of the storm waves and currents with the proposed structure. During the storm, the normal storm-induced erosion combined with the scour erosion will form a breach or depression in the subject property. In turn, the upland property will be exposed to greater tide and wave forces, increasing the risk of erosion and damage to the upland property. The subject lots and surrounding properties have been subjected to unnatural forces which have added to the erosion. The Port Everglades inlet has inhibited the natural downdrift of sand. The City of Hollywood's beach maintenance division has been regularly pushing sand seaward and in the process, breaking down natural forming cliffs. Even though these unnatural forces are capable of being eliminated, the normal storm-induced erosion and the scour erosion would still exists. The existing developed structures to the north and south of the subject lots appear to create a reasonably uniform line of construction. However, the developed structures have been unduly affected by erosion. The proposed structure will be located within this line of construction. During a major storm along the shoreline, waves remove sand from the beach and dune area and deposit the sand in an offshore bar. After the major storm, a recovery of the beach and dunes takes place. Normal wave activity carries the sand from the offshore bar back to the beach, and the sand is then carried landward by winds and is caught and trapped by dune vegetation; thereby reforming a dune. Constructing the structure as proposed will not locate the structure a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system. As a result, the proposed structure will interrupt natural fluctuation in the shoreline and not preserve the natural recovery following the storm-induced erosion. The cumulative impact on the beach-dune system by the proposed structure would be severe, i.e., the effects on the beach-dune system by repeating this same proposed structure along the subject shoreline would be severe. There would be structure-induced scour and general degradation of the beach-dune system. Additionally, the recovery potential of the subject area following a major storm event would be threatened. Over the years, the beach of the subject property has been subjected to a re-nourishment project consisting of pumping sand from offshore. This method of re-nourishment may have negatively impacted the sand bar system immediately offshore affecting the hindrance of erosion. A sand bar system immediately offshore softens wave action on the shore and aids in inhibiting erosion. The proposed structure will hinder lateral public beach access. Currently, lateral beach access exists along the beach between the existing northern developed property and the existing southern developed property. The proposed structure will be located on the sandy beach, and the seaward face of the proposed structure will be within approximately one foot of the wet sand beach. At times, the proposed structure will be surrounded by water on at least three sides. No alternative beach access would be available. The proposed riprap will also be located on the sandy beach and will further hinder lateral public beach access. 2/ Loggerhead turtles, which are nesting marine turtles, engage in nesting activities along the stretch of beach where the subject property is located. They are a threatened species, i. e., close to extension. Although they do not nest every year, the turtles usually provide several nests in a single year. Typically, one hundred eggs comprise a turtle nest. In 1992, approximately 2,221 loggerhead turtle nests were in Broward County, with 22 of these nests located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Turtle nesting efforts have been observed in the beach area of the subject property. One nest was found within the subject property. Structures located on the sandy beach interfere with marine turtle nesting habits. If female turtles make contact with the structures, they often abort nesting attempts, which results in false crawls. Repetitive false crawls harms successful nesting, which may cause malformed egg chambers, impacting the successful incubation of the nest. Also, interaction with a structure can cause injury or death to a female turtle attempting to nest. Additionally, urbanization activity and lighting on the beach deter nesting. A loss of marine turtle nesting habitat will result if the proposed structure is constructed. Also, armoring, such as the proposed riprap, can result in nests being placed more seaward. 3/ Consequently, the nests would be threatened with tidal inundation, which would affect the mortality of the nest itself. As one nest has been located within the subject property, at least one nest or crawl per year would be affected by the proposed structure. Within 30 years, the proposed structure will be seaward of the seasonal high water line. The location of the proposed structure is seaward of the 30-year erosion projection for the subject property. Beach Defense Fund, Inc. (Intervenor) presented no evidence to show that its interest is different than the public at large and that it has substantial interest separate and apart from the public.
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 denying the application of Paul Leto, Richard Meyer, and Berta Anderes for a permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 31st day of May, 1996.
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.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Petitioner Blaha possessed the requisite standing to maintain this action and if so, whether the Applicant Aquarina Developments, Inc., established by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to a permit from the Coastal Construction Control Line ("CCCL") which would authorize construction of the following: (1) twelve above-ground balconies extending five feet over the CCCL; (2) two roof overhangs extending approximately one foot over the CCCL; (3) two dune walkovers and four decks providing elevated beach access; and (4) a temporary fence extending no more than five feet beyond the CCCL. At the final hearing, the Respondent Aquarina Developments, Inc., (hereafter "Aquarina" or "Applicant") offered Respondent's Exhibits 1-16, which were admitted into evidence. Edward Fleis, Howard J. Teas, Bert Leltz and Ross Witham testified on behalf of the Respondents. Peter Pritchard, Rob Lee and Georges Blaha testified for the Petitioner. Additionally, public comment was taken as provided at Section 120.57(1)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. A Proposed Recommended Order has been submitted by the Respondent Aquarina Developments, Inc. To the extent that the proposed findings submitted by Respondent are not reflected in this Order, they are rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence or as being immaterial to the results reached.
Findings Of Fact By application No. 775-020.61 filed on July 1, 1981, Respondent Aquarina requested a coastal construction permit for construction of portions of twelve cantilevered balconies, two roof overhang sections, a temporary construction fence, four elevated wooden decks, and two dune crossovers, all seaward of an established coastal construction control line ("CCCL") in Brevard County, Florida. The purpose of the proposed structures is to enhance utilization of the beach by residents of Aquarina's PUD located between the Atlantic Ocean and Mullet Creek, a tributary of the Indian River in South Brevard County, while at the same time inhibiting the deleterious effects of unrestrained pedestrian and vehicular access across the beach dune on the property. Respondent Aquarina's project is located on the barrier islands separated from the mainland by the Indian River, thirteen miles south of Melbourne and five miles north of Indian River County. Aquarina proposes to develop a condominium community approved as a PUD by Brevard County, with a projected population of 3,400 persons including 1,600 residential units, a commercial area, and 500 hotel rooms. The project includes at least two condo- mini urn buildings located entirely landward of the CCCL except for the following specific portions: Twelve cantilevered balconies ex- tending approximately five feet beyond the CCCL but not touching the ground; Two roof overhang sections extending approximately one foot beyond the CCCL; Two beach-dune walkover structures to be constructed a maximum of seventy- five feet seaward of the CCCL, which are to provide controlled beach access; Four elevated wooden observation decks constituting integral parts of the walkover structures; A temporary construction fence extending no more than five feet beyond the CCCL. On or about November 20, 1981, the Department indicated its intent to recommend to the Executive Director the issuance of the Applicant's coastal construction permit. After the granting of a requested extension of time, Petitioner Blaha filed objections and a Petition for the Initiation of Formal Proceedings under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition raised three issues: Whether construction of the proposed minor structures seaward of the CCCT would harm sea turtles inhabiting the area at issue; Whether a new CCCL should have been set based on changing conditions in the area; Whether the additional shading caused by the proposed structures would harm the dune vegetation system. At the beginning of the hearing, the Hearing Officer heard argument and received evidence on the issues raised by the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Department and the Applicant. The Respondent's Motions raised three issues: Whether the Petitioner had standing to initiate this cause; Whether the alleged impact that the Applicant's proposed coastal construction would have on sea turtles lies within the jurisdiction of the Department and the Hearing Officer under Chapter 161 of the Florida Statutes; and Whether the exact configuration of the CCCL is a proper subject for consi- deration at a hearing challenging the proposed issuance of a coastal construction permit. Petitioner Blaha admitted that he did not live on the beach at issue and in fact lived on the west side of State Road A1A, three miles to the north of the Applicant's proposed project. The Petitioner stated that he was the Director of the Space Coast Branch of Friends of Animals, an environmental organization concerned about wildlife, although not representing the organization in this proceeding, and that he had a general interest in protecting the beach from erosion, a problem affecting everyone on the barrier island. In response to the argument that Petitioner Blaha had no special interest differing in kind from the interests of the general public, the Petitioner alleged that he runs on the beach and observes the sea turtles, arguing that this evinces a more than average interest in protecting the beach and its wildlife. The Hearing Officer also heard argument on whether the Department has jurisdiction to consider potential impacts on the nesting habitats of sea turtles from proposed coastal construction, under Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. Petitioner Blaha urged that although Section 161.053, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder do not address sea turtles and their protection, the statute should be so interpreted. The Department responded that any jurisdiction it may have over sea turtles would be reposited in its Marine Resource Division, not in the permitting procedures for a coastal construction permit. In addition, federal laws protect endangered sea turtles, and the federal government has primary jurisdiction over the regulation of the nesting habitats of such sea turtles. Similarly, the Applicant and the Department pointed out that the Petitioner's criticism of the placement of the present CCCL falls outside the scope of a hearing on the issuance of a coastal construction permit, since Section 120.54, Florida Statutes provides for rulemaking proceedings for those attempting to change a rule established CCCL and Rule 16B-33.10, Florida Administrative Code, contains provisions for CCCL revisions or modifications on application of a riparian owner of property at or on the CCCL. Petitioner Blaha is not a riparian property owner and this was not a proceeding under Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Respondent Aquarina established that it had taken and would continue to take all reasonable actions necessary to ensure the protection of sea turtles that inhabit the site through public relations campaigns and public advertisements to educate the public and especially the residents of the PUD and through architectural design efforts and dareful construction practices that will limit the impact of the proposed development on sea turtles and their nesting habitats. Moreover, to the extent that the development might have an impact on sea turtles, the source of the impact would not primarily be the structures at issue in these proceedings, but the buildings, parking lots, and other human habitation lying landward of the CCCL. The proposed temporary construction fence to be placed five feet beyond the CCCL will help conserve the dunes by limiting the potential impact of construction, and the Respondent Aquarina has agreed to restore that affected area to its natural state upon the completion of construction. Most importantly, the proposed dune crossovers will protect the dunes from the destruction that is occurring in the dunes to the north of the project and on the project site itself because of unrestrained pedestrian and vehicular traffic over and/or through the dunes and the accompanying destruction of dune vegetation in those areas. The dune crossovers are wooden walkways on raised pilings designed to have as little contact with the dunes as possible, with railings to restrain pedestrians from straying away from this direct access from the condominiums to the beach. The crossovers will make it unnecessary and undesirable for residents and visitors to create alternative foot paths through the heavy dune vegetation to the beach. Coupled with the educational program already being implemented by Aquarina, the dune crossovers should help to conserve the dunes. The Respondent Aquarina established that the incremental shading caused by the proposed roof overhangs extending about one foot beyond the CCCL and the cantilevered balconies extending approximately five feet beyond the CCCL would not significantly add to the shading from the buildings themselves, which lie entirely landward of the CCCL. The evidence showed that even the impact of the shading from the landward buildings would have no significant impact on the dune vegetation system or increase the rate of erosion or deterioration of the dune. See Rule 16B-33.02(23)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The additional impact from the minor structures for which the Respondent Aquarina seeks its permit should be minimal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Department of Natural Resources, through its Executive Director, grant the requested construction control permit to the Applicant Aquarina Developments, Inc., subject to the conditions stated in the proposed permit (No. BE-80), the draft of which was attached to the Department's letter of November 20, 1981, notifying Petitioner Blaha of the Department's intent to issue the requested permit. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 ApA1Achee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Georges Blaha 280 Flamingo Drive Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Assistant Department Attorney Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Clifford A. Schulman, Esquire GREENBERG TRAURIG ASKEW HOFFMAN LIPOFF QUENTEL & WOLFF, P.A. 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Henry Dean, Esquire General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact The site of the revetment that is the subject of this litigation is located near the northerly coast of Pine Island in Charlotte Harbor. The property fronts on Pine Island Sound which is inside the barrier islands westward of Pine Island. Pine Island Sound is as an Outstanding Florida Water and Charlotte Harbor at this location is classified as Class II waters. Petitioner's property abuts the property owned by Meister Development Group. On Petitioner's property is located a two-story residence and two rental units. On Meister's property a four unit residential development has been erected. Sometime around 1970 a vertical seawall was erected to protect both Petitioner's property and Respondent's property. Since that time the beach has accreted to the point that by 1989 the sand beach extended an average of approximately twenty-five feet seaward of the seawall in front of Petitioner's property. However, this seawall ended near the middle of Respondents property and erosion of the beach became serious at the four unit residential development building located thereon in 1984. In 1984 the beach at this location had eroded to the point that the high water mark had passed the northern most portion of the building foundation and was threatening to undermine the structure. At this time this shoreline was devoid of aquatic vegetation. Meister employed an engineering firm to prepare a solution to the erosion problem. That firm concluded a revetment was needed and the application for the dredge and fill permit that is here contested was filed in July 1984. Since the application involved use of land seaward of the mean high water, permission of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was required before the application could receive final approval. To obtain the approval of DNR Meister agreed to provide a conservation easement to DNR and a public easement to allow the public access to cross the property seaward of the residential development. Additionally Meister conferred with Outstanding Florida Water Group to obtain their acquiescence to the project and agreed to provide navigational aids to mark the Jug Creek Channel across form the Meister property. Before a dredge and fill permit can be granted involving an Outstanding Florida Water the applicant must show the project to be in the public interest. In consulting with DER the applicant proposed a sloping revetment which is generally considered to better tolerate wave action than does a vertical wall. To enhance the public interest concept the applicant agreed to place toe stones at the foot of the revetment and plant mangroves. The toe stones would serve to hold sand in which the mangroves could grow and serve as a habitat for aquatic organisms. The applicant also agreed to place an artificial reef of rocks on the sand shoal which sits about one half mile north of applicant's and petitioner's property. Although the mangroves planted did not survive due to heavy wave action and the permit did not require survivability of these mangroves, at the hearing Meister agreed to a provision in the permit's next renewal that will include a requirement that a percentage of these mangroves planted in the toe stones survive. Landward of the residential development is a stormwater retention area that serves to keep contaminants out Pine Islands Sound. The erosion of the beach at the Meister property was threatening to extend further inland and allow contaminants to leach from the water retention area into Pine Island Sound and contaminate that body of water. Approval of the project would serve to remove that threat and be in the public interest. Finally consideration was given to the fact that the foundation of the condominium was being threatened which affected the dwelling of the residents. Protecting these residences is also considered to be in the public interest. The project was completed during a two weeks period in August 1986. The revetment generally takes off in the same line as the Vertical seawall on petitioner's property and is basically convex to fit the existing building and meet the zoning setback requirement of twenty-five feet from the building. To construct the revetment the existing vertical seawall on Meister's Property had to be removed. During construction turbidity screens were installed and construction was restricted to periods of low water to reduce turbidity. Any excess turbidity caused by the construction would settle out within twenty-four hours. Dr. O'Malley left Pine Island in March and returned in October 1986. At the time he left the beach in front of his seawall extended an average of twenty-five feet from the seawall. When he returned in October the revetment had been completed and approximately fifty-percent of Petitioner's beach had eroded. In October 1986 the beach on O'Malley's property extended two to twenty feet from the seawall. O'Malley was aware that prior to his departure the Meister property had suffered severe erosion. Believing that the construction of the revetment was the cause of the erosion of his beach Petitioner instituted this action. This was the only issue seriously contested. Petitioner's expert witness opined that the revetment acted like a groin east of Petitioner's property and caused a littoral drift, which is basically from east to west in this area, to take the sand from Petitioner's property. Further this witness opined that the longer fetch (area of open water to the north-east of Meister property) was the primary cause of the erosion of the Meister property. Historically beaches erode and accrete. Gentle waves have the tendency to cause accretion while storm waves result in seaward migration of beach sand. Photographs (exhibit 3) of Petitioner's property show typically storm wave generated erosion. The expert opinion of Respondents' witnesses that the erosion of Petitioner's property was caused by storm driven waves and was not caused by the revetment is deemed the more credible explanation of the erosion of Petitioner's beach.
