The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner's application for a Notice of Proposed Change to its Development of Regional Impact constitutes a substantial deviation from the criteria in Section 380.06(19)(b)1.-15., Florida Statutes, and whether the proposed change is consistent with Bay County's Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Bay Point Club, Inc. (Petitioner), is the owner of Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 located within the Bay Point Yacht and Country Club Resort Development of Regional Impact (Bay Point DRI) in Panama City, Florida. The Bay Point DRI was approved by Respondent, Bay County (County), on July 22, 1986, and authorized the development of 2,161 residential units, 200 hotel units, 123 marina slips, and recreational facilities on approximately 946 acres. The County is responsible for issuing development orders for projects that are to undergo development of regional impact review, including amendments to development orders of previously determined DRIs, in conformity with the requirements of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. When the original Development Order was issued in 1986, Bay Point Yacht & Country Club was the sole developer of the Bay Point DRI. Since that time, the ownership and control of the properties within the Bay Point DRI has changed, and there are now multiple owners and developers of the 36 separate development areas or parcels included within the Bay Point DRI, including Petitioner, who owns the above four parcels. The Bay Point DRI was approved by the County prior to the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). When the first Plan was adopted in 1991, the County recognized and incorporated the Bay Point DRI through the adoption of an overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which delineates the boundaries of the property. As stated in Future Land Use Element Policy 3.4.5, the overlay was adopted to ensure the consistency and compatibility of the Bay Point DRI with the County's FLUM. Parcels F and 12 were designated as "Seasonal/Resort" and Parcels 9 and 10 were designated as "Residential" on the FLUM. These designations remain in effect as of the date of the final hearing. A Seasonal/Resort classification allows a broad range of uses such as beach houses, multifamily housing, condominiums, hotels, lodges, restaurants, and other similar uses, while a Residential classification permits those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy. The Bay Point DRI has been amended 15 times, which amendments cumulatively reduced by 145 the total number of residential units. None of these amendments constituted a substantial deviation from the approval given in the original Development Order, and the County has never required a corresponding amendment to its Plan, FLUM, or DRI overlay as a condition for approval for any of these changes to the DRI. In July 1993, PFP One, Inc., Petitioner's parent company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as manager of the FSLIC Resolution Trust Fund, to purchase Parcels F (a waterfront lot adjacent to the Bay Point Marina), 10, and 9 for $235,000. At that time, Parcels 9 and 10 were vacant, and they remain vacant today. A private membership tennis facility was operating on Parcel F through a lease agreement Petitioner inherited as a part of the purchase. These tennis facilities were closed on April 1, 2000, due to a lack of membership support. Parcel 12 was purchased by PFP One, Inc. in 1994. It contained a private clubhouse facility which had once been operational prior to the approval of the DRI, but was closed at the time of the sale. The clubhouse was remodeled by Petitioner shortly after the Parcel was purchased and reopened the same year. Due to a lack of membership support, however, the clubhouse was closed in 1996. The single-family residential portion of Bay Point begins within a few hundred feet west of the above Parcels. The Development Order currently provides the following descriptions for Parcels F, 12, 10, and 9: Parcel F: Located adjacent to the Bay Point Clubhouse, this 4.8 acre site currently supports the Bay Point Tennis Center. As a part of Bay Point's long term plan, the Tennis Center is scheduled to be moved to Area 9 in 1986. In 1987, a 70-unit condominium project designated as Port Towers is planned to be built on this waterfront site. [A] total of 97,000-sq. ft. of heated and cooled space are planned. Included will be a pool and recreation center. Building height would be restricted to not more than five stories with a majority of the project being of the two and three story height. Four, 2100 sq. ft. penthouse units, eight (8) 1,800 sq. ft. three-bedroom units, forty (40), 1400 sq. ft. two-bedroom units and eighteen (18), 1000 sq. ft. one-bedroom units are planned. There would be no restrictions of resort rental use, although it is assumed that, like Marina Club Village, the vast majority of these units will be primary and secondary homes because of pricing. Restrictive covenants for this project would be developed similar to those currently in force at Bay Point. Parcel 12: A 4-acre main clubhouse site, which is adjacent to the swimming pool, snack bar, health club and real estate facilities, is in the vested area and was substantially completed prior to July 1, 1973. Parcel 10: This one acre site is the planned location of the new Sport Center Clubhouse which will serve Bay Point's member golf facilities and the resort's tennis and health facilities. Included in the 14,000 square ft. Clubhouse will be a 90-seat restaurant and snack bar area, a health club, exercise and massage rooms, men and women's locker rooms, offices for the Director of Tennis and Golf Professional and a classroom. Additional space will house the club's sports retail center which sells both hard and soft goods associated with golf, tennis and physical exercise. Parcel 9: This 6 acre site has been set aside as the future location of the Bay Point Tennis Center. When completed, it will consist of up to 14 tennis courts, one of which will be the center court with stadium stands. The original description of Parcels F and 12 reflects that the acreage of the two sites combined is 8.83 acres. A survey completed just before the NOPC was submitted determined that the combined acreage of the two parcels was actually 9.67 acres. Petitioner has stipulated that in the event the smaller acreage number is correct, the density that will be developed on the property will be in conformity with the limitations imposed by the smaller acreage. On May 14, 2001, Petitioner filed with the County a Notification of Proposed Change to a Previously-Approved Development of Regional Impact (NOPC) under Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. Copies were also provided to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the West Florida Regional Planning Council (Council). Under the NOPC, Petitioner proposes to change the Development Order as to Parcels F and 12 as follows: The proposed project will be a 136-unit condominium project with approximately 58 units on Parcel F and 78 units on Parcel 12. The number of units on both parcels will increase from the current 70 units authorized on Parcel F to 136 units on Parcels F and 12 combined, a cumulative increase of 66 units. Three concrete structures are planned. The center building, which is the farthest from any existing development, is 11 stories in height with a step increase to 12 stories. The two exterior buildings are six stories in height with step increases to ten stories. All improvements to the project will be built by year end 2004, which is the current build-out date for the Bay Point DRI, as amended. The existing tennis courts located on Parcel F will be reduced to four hard surface courts with separate restroom facilities. The residential units will consist of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom condominiums, approximately 900 to 2,400 sq. ft. in size. Thus, the proposed change in Parcels F and 12 will increase the number of condominium units from 70 to 136, change the height limitation from 5 stories to 12 stories, and eliminate the existing tennis facility. In addition, Petitioner proposes to eliminate the swimming pool and clubhouse now located on Parcel 12 and replace them with condominiums. The NOPC also proposes to change the Development Order as to Parcels 9 and 10 in the following manner: The designations for Parcels 9 and 10 will be changed from "Tennis Complex" and "Sports Center/Clubhouse," respectively, to Recreation. These changes are sought because of the historical absence of community or public support for the existing private tennis and clubhouse facilities presently located on Parcels F and 12. Funded through annual memberships by residents of Bay Point and the public, support for these facilities has been insufficient to economically sustain them and justify their continued operation. Consequently, due to lack of membership support, the Clubhouse on Parcel 12 was closed in 1996. For the same reason, the tennis courts on Parcel F were closed April 1, 2000. Changing the designation on Parcels 9 and 10, from Tennis Complex and Clubhouse to Recreation[,] will afford the Applicant with the flexibility needed to develop new or expanded active and/or passive recreational opportunities which the residents of Bay Point are willing and able to support, and which are economically feasible. In no event, however, will the Applicant develop, or allow others to develop, recreational facilities on Parcel 9 or Parcel 10 which exceed the intensity standards authorized for the development of these properties by the original Bay Point DRI. Under these proposed changes, Parcels 9 and 10, which are predominately wetlands, will remain undeveloped and constitute a passive recreation area. The changes proposed in the NOPC will require corresponding changes to the uses originally approved for Parcels F, 12, 10, and 9 in the Bay Point DRI Development Order, including changes to Map H, the Master Development Plan Map. The changes proposed by the NOPC for the DRI Development Order, including the changes to Map H, will not require a corresponding amendment to the underlying land use designations for Parcels F and 12 (Seasonal/Resort) and Parcels 9 and 10 (Residential). The NOPC was reviewed by the Council for conformity with the requirements of Section 380.06(19)(f)4., Florida Statutes. On June 11, 2001, the Council advised the County that the changes proposed for Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 did not appear to constitute a substantial change from the previously- approved Bay Point DRI. The DCA did not submit a written objection to the proposed NOPC. On August 7 and September 7, 2001, the County held quasi-judicial public hearings on the NOPC. At the latter meeting, the County denied the NOPC on the basis of a 2-2 tie vote regarding the question of whether the proposal constituted a substantial deviation. The County did not make any determination with respect to the question of whether the NOPC was consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. This finding was confirmed in a letter from the County Attorney's Office dated September 7, 2001, and transmitted to Petitioner on September 11, 2001. On October 11, 2001, Petitioner filed its Petition to Appeal DRI Development Order with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission). On November 7, 2001, Intervenors, K. Earl Durden, David Allen Spencer, Harry B. Sipple, III, Unal Tutak, David W. Hill, Lucy N. Hilton, and William F. Fusselman, who all own property within the Bay Point DRI and have standing to participate, filed a Petition to Intervene. On November 8, 2001, Intervenor, Bay Point Community Association, Inc., which is the homeowners' association for the approximately 1,300 residences within the Bay Point DRI and likewise has standing to participate, filed its Petition to Intervene. These Petitions were granted by the Commission on December 19, 2001. Although the Petitions to Intervene contended that the NOPC constituted a substantial deviation requiring further DRI review by the County, that issue has been abandoned. Remaining at issue is the contention that the NOPC is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan (Plan) by generally failing to protect residential property values, promote viable neighborhoods, and maintain the community character in residential areas, as required by various Plan Objectives and Policies. Intervenors also contend that the NOPC lacks a needed stormwater plan. In more simple terms, however, Intervenors object to any high- rise development in an area surrounded by single-family residential homes and in a community (Bay Point) where no other buildings exceed seven stories in height. The characteristics of the community Bay Point is a unique, residential resort development on St. Andrews Bay in Panama City, Florida. A large portion of the land lying north of Bay Point is owned by the United States Navy; thus, Bay Point is somewhat isolated from the unplanned developments which occur in other inland areas, as well as along the Gulf of Mexico. Residential and commercial development commenced in Bay Point in 1971. To date, no high-rise buildings have been constructed in the community. Most structures are one or two stories in height, and only four buildings in Bay Point exceed two stories: the Bay Town commercial and condominium development (three stories); the Lagoon Towers condominium with sixty-three units (seven stories), which is the tallest building in Bay Point; the Marriott Legends Edge timeshare with twenty-eight units (six stories); and the Marriott Hotel (five stories). The three tallest buildings are in the extreme southeast portion of Bay Point a minimum of 1,600 feet and as far as 3,000 feet from the site of Petitioner's proposed high rise condominium buildings. When viewed from a distance, the four buildings which exceed two stories in height can barely be seen above the tree line. Bay Point is a mixed use development because it includes residential and nonresidential uses, as well as some community facilities. However, it is fair to state that Bay Point is a low-rise, low-density residential development, and it was planned as a predominately residential community under the 1986 DRI Development Order. Access to the residential part of the community is controlled through gates and a security force. Although there are some resort rental activities and tourist accommodations (a Marriott hotel), Bay Point is comprised of predominately permanent residents. There are 681 single-family homes on individual lots in the western portion of Bay Point, which are one and two-story structures comprising 79.9 percent of the development in Bay Point. The two-story single-family homes tend to be clustered along the bay or along the canals running through the development. As originally developed, commercial development made up only 10.4 percent of the land area of Bay Point. Of that total, 6.6 percent is retail and office development (such as offices, restaurants, retail shops, and a post office); 1.5 percent is commercial recreation (pro shops and golf and tennis club); and 1.7 percent is a Marriott Hotel. In addition, community facilities (including a playground for children) comprise 1.5 percent of the land area. There is also a 201-slip marina and a semi-private golf club on the premises. The "resort core" area of Bay Point refers to certain development in the Seasonal/Resort land use category containing a mixture of mainly seasonal and tourist residential, commercial, and noncommercial uses. Of the almost 1,000 acres in the Bay Point DRI, only about 24 acres were planned and approved for "resort core," or less than 15 percent of the 200 acres designated as Seasonal/Resort. The remaining 85 percent of the Seasonal/Resort area has a predominately residential character. Petitioner's project on Parcels F and 12 is far from any development that could be characterized as "resort core," and all of the development in the immediate vicinity of and surrounding Parcels F and 12 is residential development with structures not exceeding two stories in height. Thus, Petitioner cannot rely on any perceived proximity of Parcels F and 12 to the "resort core" as a basis for justifying the high-rise structures. Consistency with the Plan Intervenors contend that the NOPC is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 3.4.5 (which allegation is subject to an objection by Petitioner); Housing Element Objective 8.5; Housing Element Policy 8.5.1; Housing Objective 8.9 (which allegation is subject to a Motion to Strike); Stormwater Management Objectives 5E.9 and 5E.12; Stormwater Management Policies 5E.9.1, 5E.10.1, and 5E.12.1; and FLUE Policy 3.3.1. Each of these items will be addressed separately below. As a part of its 1999 Plan (which amended and updated the 1991 Plan), the County adopted special treatment zones (STZs) to be designated on the FLUM in addition to the future land use categories. The specific STZs are established pursuant to FLUE Objective 3.4, which provides that the zones are created "for purposes of dealing with unique or desirable circumstances." The unique circumstance in this case is the DRI. In the Plan, the County has either adopted or expressed its intent to adopt distinct land development regulations or land use controls for each STZ. FLUE Policy 3.4.5 establishes the Bay Point DRI STZ. This policy provides that: [t]he Bay Point Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Special Treatment Zone shall be established in order to ensure compatibility and consistency between the Bay Point DRI Development Order and the FLUM. Development in this area shall be governed by the DRI Development Order. (Emphasis supplied) The last sentence of Policy 3.4.5 was added by comprehensive plan amendment adopted on July 10, 2001. By virtue of the underscored language, the conditions and restrictions on the use and development of Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 in the DRI Development Order in effect on July 10, 2001, are incorporated into the County's Plan. This was confirmed at hearing by the County's Planning and Zoning Manager. Thus, the maximum five-story height limitation on Parcel 12 contained in the DRI Development Order is incorporated into the Plan by reference through Policy 3.4.5. Because all three of Petitioner's proposed high-rise condominium buildings exceed the five-story height limitation for Parcel F found in the DRI Development Order in effect on July 10, 2001, the NOPC is inconsistent with Policy 3.4.5. Objective 8.5 of the Housing Element provides that all projects in the County will "preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods through the enforcement of land use regulations." Petitioner contends that this Objective cannot apply to the development on Parcels F and 12 because these parcels are in a mixed land use category under the FLUM and therefore are not in "residential areas or neighborhood" as contemplated by the Objective. However, the Objective refers to "residential areas and neighborhoods," and not to future land use categories. Thus, the Objective is directed towards existing residential and multi-family development in Bay Point, including Intervenors' property, and must be taken into account when judging the merits of Petitioner's application. "Character" and "aesthetics" are not defined in the Plan. Rather, they are terms of art in the planning profession and are commonly understood by planning professionals. These terms refer to development as it exists, not development that could occur based on a land use category. This is because one cannot protect the character and aesthetics of a land use designation. The evidence shows that "character" consists of those attributes that lend a sense of place to an area, which people in the area can identify with that is distinguishable from other such areas. It includes such factors as type of buildings, building height and mass, the relationship of one building to another, the types of activities that go on in the area or neighborhood, the presence or absence of vegetation, the presence or absence of underground utilities, street design, architectural design, and the preservation of the long-standing stable nature of a neighborhood. "Aesthetics" are those attributes that determine whether an area is visually pleasing. The character of the Bay Point community is that of a stable, low-rise, low density, residential resort community. The buildings in Bay Point consist of individual homes and small villa or townhouse-type buildings clustered on parcels. There are no high-rise buildings in the community or beachfront property. The evidence clearly supports a finding that Bay Point is a predominately neighborhood residential community. Petitioner proposes to construct on Parcels F and 12 three separate high-rise buildings. The outer buildings are six stories at their exteriors, with step increases to ten stories at the interiors. The center building will be eleven stories at the outer edges, with a step up to twelve stories at the peak. The construction of these high-rise condominiums will be in stark contrast to, and out of harmony with, the existing low-rise, low-bulk structures which surround the proposed project and will dramatically change the low-rise, neighborhood character of Bay Point. Thus, the proposed condominiums are not consistent with Objective 8.5 in that they do not preserve the character of the existing residential development within Bay Point. Policy 8.5.1 of the Housing Element requires compatibility between types of residential structures. The Policy also requires that specific criteria be included in the County's Land Use Code "for the preservation and protection of residential areas." It further provides that these standards should ensure that "compatibility between types of residential buildings" will be maintained, and that "residential areas will be used primarily for residential purposes." As of the date of hearing, however, no standards had been adopted, although the County is now in the process of developing such criteria. Until specific criteria are adopted and included in the Land Use Code, Petitioner contends that the Policy cannot be relied upon by Intervenors. If this proposition were true, however, no existing project could be measured for compatibility, and the Policy would be meaningless. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that in the absence of specific standards in the Land Use Code, it is appropriate to rely upon standards used by land use professionals for determining compatibility between types of residential buildings. Indeed, every land planning expert who testified at hearing agreed that a consistency determination should be made based on the guidance provided in the Objectives and Policies of the Plan. The County has addressed the subject of compatibility in Objective 3.9 and Policy 3.9.1 of the Future Land Use Element. The former provision provides that "[a]ll proposed land uses shall be compatible with adjacent conforming land uses," while the latter provision defines "compatibility" to mean "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." The evidence establishes that land use planners view compatibility as meaning the relationship between buildings, uses, and activities to one another. Factors to be used in making this determination are density, building height, scale and mass, lot configuration, and building orientation. Other factors used in this determination include established development patterns, expectations that arise from established development patterns, character of the neighborhood, and stability of the neighborhood. The evidence supports a finding that the development pattern in Bay Point, the expectations of Intervenors and the community based on that development pattern, and the atypical height and mass of Petitioner's project render the proposed project incompatible with Bay Point and thus inconsistent with Objective 8.5.1 of the Plan. In making this finding, the undersigned has found that Petitioner's compatibility analysis is too narrow in scope and ignores the reality that Petitioner proposes to develop three high-rise buildings, grouped together in one location, in an established, predominately low-rise residential community. Objective 8.9 of the Housing Element requires that any project in the County "[p]rotect residential property values and ensure that each homeowner has the opportunity for quiet use and enjoyment of their residence." Thus, in order to be consistent with the Plan, Petitioner must demonstrate that its project will not impact the residential property values in Bay Point in a negative manner. To demonstrate consistency with the foregoing Objective, Petitioner's expert opined that the proposed project would infuse new capital and value into the Bay Point area thereby increasing property values. However, Petitioner's market study (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) is flawed in several respects. For example, it incorrectly defines the Bay Point neighborhood as including an intensely developed Gulf front tourist district along Thomas Drive and the east end of Highway 98 in Panama City, within a three to six mile southern radius of Bay Point, and which includes high-rise condominiums, motels, and commercial uses that are dependent on the tourist industry. The study also concludes, erroneously, that most of the condominium units in Bay Point are utilized as second homes and rental properties by absentee owners. Finally, the study uses two "comparable" projects on which to base a market analysis, one in Destin and the other in Seascape. Neither property is really comparable since both are located on the Gulf of Mexico in neighboring Walton County. The more credible evidence establishes that the threat of development of high-rise buildings on Parcels F and 12 has caused a decline in residential property values in Bay Point. Further, if the NOPC is approved, the property values will continue to decline. This decline has been exacerbated by the loss of the Bay Point community center and tennis courts, which were previously located on the lots in question. Given these considerations, it is found that the NOPC is inconsistent with Housing Element Objective 8.9, in that the NOPC does not protect property values within the community. Intervenors further contend that the NOPC is inconsistent with various Objectives and Policies in the Stormwater Management Element since the NOPC does not contain a detailed stormwater plan for the proposed project. These Objectives and Policies are designed to reduce and eliminate flooding, protect surface waters from contamination and sedimentation caused by the stormwater, and prevent future problems by regulating development. This contention has been rejected since the specific requirements for the stormwater system necessary to serve Parcels F and 12 are not properly addressed in the DRI process, but rather will be considered by the County at the time the actual construction documents for these parcels are submitted for review and permitting. Finally, Intervenors assert that the NOPC is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.3.1, which designates criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development. No credible evidence was presented on this issue, and therefore the contention has been rejected. All other matters raised by Intervenors have likewise been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a NOPC on the ground that it is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.4.5, Housing Element Objective 8.5, Housing Element Policy 8.5.1, and Housing Element Objective 8.9 of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5201 Michael S. Burke, Esquire Burke & Blue 221 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401-3128 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Offices of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6214 Richard W. Moore, Esquire Amundsen and Gilroy, P.A. Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1759 Raquel Rodriguez, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Harbor Course South is a one hundred and seventy two lot real estate development which is a portion of the Ocean Reef Club located at the extreme northern end of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The Harbor Course South property was acquired in approximately 1964 along with over 1200 acres of adjoining property for approximately 1.5 million dollars. Driscoll Properties, Inc. ("Driscoll"), a Florida Corporation, is the developer of Harbor Course South. Driscoll Foundation, Inc., (the "Foundation") is a non-profit Florida corporation which owns a portion of the Harbor Course South property. (Driscoll and the Foundation are collectively referred to as the "Intervenors" or the "Permittees.") The Ocean Reef Club is a one thousand two hundred unit development encompassing approximately eight hundred acres including at least two eighteen hole golf courses, a marina and an air strip. Nine holes of golf are located in Harbor Course South. These nine holes were leased to the Ocean Reef Club in 1974-1975 pursuant to an agreement providing for creation of golf course lots and lake-front lots in Harbor Course South. The nine holes of the golf course located in Harbor Course South were in place by at least 1978 and have been in use since that time. In order to install those nine holes, some roads were cut through the property and the lakes were dredged. Thirty-eight of the one hundred and seventy-two lots in Harbor Course South were originally platted in 1978 or 1979. These thirty eight lots are referred to as Section 1 of Harbor Course South. All of lots in Section 1 have been sold to individual purchasers for an average price of $34,210.00 per lot. The thirty-eight lots in Section 1 were all sold prior to 1988. In approximately 1979, some roads were cleared and paved on the Harbor Course South property in order to provide access to the thirty-eight originally platted lots in Section 1. A number of the lots in Section 1 have been permitted for construction by Monroe County and houses have been constructed on several of them. No individual lot owner in Section 1 has been denied a permit for clearing at least some of his land for a homesite. Both the United States Fish and Wildlife Services ("U.S.F.W.S.") and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (the "Commission") have determined that the clearing and/or development of the lots in Section 1 will not require permits for the taking of endangered or threatened species or their nests. In 1985, the Intervenors, in conjunction with the Ocean Reef Club, sought a determination as to the extent of their vested development rights with respect to the Harbor Course South property by initiating a vested rights hearing before Monroe County. These proceedings were initiated under Chapters 380 and 120, Florida Statutes and resulted in a Joint Stipulation on February 23, 1988 recognizing that the Intervenors have vested rights to develop the Harbor Course South plats. (The Joint Stipulation is referred to as the "Vested Rights Determination.") The Vested Rights Determination recognized that the Intervenors and the Ocean Reef Club had incurred obligations and expenditures based upon the approval of the master plan for development of Ocean Reef in 1977 in accordance with the then-existing regulations of Monroe County. The expenses and improvements upon the property included the construction of roadways, water main extensions, medical facilities, and golf courses. As a result of these expenditures, the Vested Rights Determination established that the Intervenors were authorized to continue development under the master development plan for the Ocean Reef Club, notwithstanding the enactment of a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations by Monroe County on September 15, 1986. No appeal of the Vested Rights Determination was filed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs or any other party. The remaining one hundred thirty-four lots in Harbor Course South were subdivided into three plats in 1986. These plats have been designated Ocean Reef Plat Numbers 17, 18 and 19 (also referred to as Sections 2, 3 and 4 respectively of Harbor Course South.) The Intervenors were not required to obtain a permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission prior to subdividing and/or selling lots of the Harbor Course South property. Most of the infrastructure for development of Plats 17, 18 and 19 is in place. Paved roads were completed in 1987-1988. The electrical lines and sewer lines are in place and operational in all three plats. The water lines are in place and connected in Plat 17. The waterlines are also in place, but not connected, in Plats 18 and 19. The total area of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Harbor Course South is 134.09 acres. The remaining one hundred thirty-four lots occupy approximately 53.66 acres of this total. The lots in the area are priced at an average of $127,000 each. The Intervenors have begun selling the lots in Plat 17 (Section 2 of Harbor Course South). This plat consists of twenty-five lots. No competent substantial evidence was offered to establish the exact number of lots sold or houses constructed in this area, but it appears that ten to twelve lots were sold between July 1, 1989 and December 13, 1989. At least one house has been constructed on this plat and three building permits are pending before Monroe County. Prior to selling the lots in Plat 17, the Intervenors reached an informal agreement with the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission as discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 33 below. In accordance with that agreement and because there was no indication of the presence of endangered or threatened species on these lots, it was determined that none of the lots sold in Plat 17 would require the issuance of a permit from the Commission before land clearing could take place. The sales of the lots in Plat 17 were not completed until after the issuance of a Proposed Permit by the Commission for the "incidental taking" of endangered and threatened species with respect to the entire Harbor Course Property. (This Proposed Permit is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 44.) After the Proposed Permit was issued and this challenge was filed, the titles to the lots sold in Plat 17 were transferred to the purchasers. As indicated above, some of these lot owners have proceeded with the development of their property without the need of a permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission. None of the lots in Plats 18 and 19 (Sections 3 and 4) have yet been offered for sale. The natural vegetation of North Key Largo, including the Harbor Course South property, consists largely of tropical hardwood hammock. The quality of the vegetation varies widely throughout the area. Development of the Ocean Reef Club has largely supplanted the hardwood hammock in that area. The golf course which is located on the Harbor Course South property was placed in the midst of the hammock. The golf course and the infrastructure for development of Harbor Course South have fragmented the hammock in Plats 17, 18 and 19. The hardwood hammock of North Key Largo is a unigue flora to North America, being extremely tropical in character. It is characterized by vegetation more commonly found on the tropical islands of the Carribean and is different from the tropical hammocks of mainland South Florida because of a difference in hydrology, i.e., the Florida Keys are substantially drier and have a lower water table. The hammock of North Key Largo has a very high species diversity with one hundred and five species of trees and shrubs and fifteen species of woody vines in the hammock vegetation. The ecology of a hardwood hammock is cyclical. Over the years, the hammock has demonstrated its ability to regenerate naturally. Thus, while much of North Key Largo was used as agriculture land in the late nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century, the hammock has recovered in those areas where it has been allowed to naturally regenerate. The species of plants in the hardwood hammock are well-adopted for colonizing. The trees are "good at getting their seeds into places where they will grow." Many of the species of hammock trees and shrubs have fruits that are attractive to birds and some animals such as raccoons. These animals, birds, and raccoons eat the fruit, do not digest the seeds, but pass them in their fecal material which helps spread the vegetation. Tree growth in a young hammock is initially rapidly vertical before spreading out to provide larger coverage. A mature hammock provides a "closed canopy" of branches which affords protection and transportation for many animals including woodrats and cotton mice. As the hammock matures, there is an accumulation of humis and leaf litter on the ground beneath the trees. This humis layer serves as a seed bed for new growth and accumulates over the years. The humis layer is an important factor in assessing the quality of a hammock as habitat for endangered species. It takes decades for a hammock to fully mature to the point that it provides habitat and food sources for woodrats and similar creatures. Because of the biological richness of the hardwood hammock, as well as to protect the off-shore coral reefs from the detrimental effects of run-off from development, the State of Florida, through the Conservation and Recreational Land Acquisition program, ("CARL") has designated much of area of North Key Largo at the top of the acquisition priority list. The area slated for acquisition under the CARL program extends approximately twelve miles from the point where U.S. Highway 1 enters Key Largo northeastward to the southern boundary of Harbor Course South. The State of Florida has already acquired large tracks of North Key Largo under the CARL program. These tracks include a large portion of the land on the east side of State Road 905 from Port Bougainville to the southern border of the Ocean Reef Club (Harbor Course South.) Moreover, the Foundation is currently negotiating with the State regarding the acquisition of approxiately twelve hundred acres immediately adjacent to Harbor Course South. The federal government has established the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge which embraces most of the land lying west of State Road 905 from Card Sound Road (near and west of the Ocean Reef Club) south to Lake Surprise, a distance of approximately twelve miles. In sum, a large portion of the property in North Key Largo outside the Ocean Reef Club and Harbor Course South does not have vested development rights. A vast majority of this property is, or will likely become in the near future, publicly owned for conservation purposes. Thus, large quantities of high quality tropical hardwood hammock habitat have been, or are in the process of being, acquired in the immediate vicinity of the Harbor Course South property. The hardwood hammocks of North Key Largo are inhabited by certain endangered and threatened species. The Commission has the authority to determine endangered species within the area of its jurisdiction under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 35 U.S.C.A. 1531, et seq. The Key Largo woodrat (neotoma floridana smalli) and the Key Largo cotton mouse (peromystus gossypinus allapaticola) are animals which can be found in the secondary growth and mature tropical hardwood forests of North Key Largo. Both the woodrat and cotton mouse as well as the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly (heraclides aristodemus ponceana,) have been listed as endangered species in Rule 39-27.003, Florida Administrative Code. The hardwood hammock of North Key Largo also serves as a habitat for the Eastern Indigo snake (drymarchon corais couperi), which has been listed as a threatened species by the Commission pursuant to Rule 39-27.004, Florida Administrative Code. Rock piles, tree roots, mounds, piles of sticks, holes in the rock substrate, holes in the humis layer beneath the trees and similar hiding areas all serve as nests or "refugia" for the woodrat. A mature hammock provides an ideal habitat for the woodrat. Destruction of the habitat of the woodrat has been a key factor in the woodrat becoming an endangered species. The Key Largo cotton mouse occupies much of the same habitat as the woodrat. Although the density of the population has not been established, there is no dispute that some portions of the Harbor Course South property are populated with woodrats and cotton mice. The quality of the habitat varies significantly throughout the property. There is only limited evidence of the presence of the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly on the Harbor Course South property. There have been a few citings of the species in the vicinity of Harbor Course South, but it does not appear that this property is an important habitat for the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly. There is no specific evidence of the presence of the Eastern Indigo snake on the subject property. Before a lot owner in Harbor Course South can clear his homesite, the Monroe County Code requires the owner to secure a habitat analysis which must be prepared by an accredited biologist approved by the County. That analysis determines the quality of the hammock on the lot, which in turn determines the amount of vegetation which the County will allow the lot owner to clear. This requirement was in place for the first thirty eight lots that were originally platted in Section 1. Under the existing Monroe County Land Clearing Regulations, only twenty percent of a lot with high quality tropical hardwood hammock can be cleared; forty percent of a lot with medium quality hammock can be cleared and forty to eighty percent of a lot with low quality hammock can be cleared. As of the date of the hearing in this case, all lot owners in Harbor Course South who have applied for a building permit were allowed to clear at least a portion of the lot for construction of a homesite. It does not appear that any lot owner was permitted to clear more than forty percent of his lot. As indicated above, no permits from the Commission or the U.S.F.W.S. were necessary in order to clear the lots and commence building on the thirty- eight lots in Section 1. Likewise, the Commission determined that the habitat quality in the area of Plat 17 was sufficiently low that a permit would not be required for development on that Plat. However, the Intervenors were aware of the presence of endangered and threatened species in this area. Around the time that the Vested Rights Determination was obtained, the Intervenors entered into discussions with the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission in an attempt to obtain an overall permit for Plat 17, 18 and 19 with respect to endangered and threatened species. During these negotiations, the Intervenors received permission from the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission to proceed with development in Plat 17 even before a permit was issued. The Commission determined that the Intervenors could proceed with the development of Plat 17 without obtaining a permit because of the relatively low habitat value of most of the parcel and the apparent absence of any endangered species in this area. As part of the negotiations regarding this authorization, the Intervenors agreed to seek a permit with respect to the remaining one hundred and nine lots in the subdivision. The negotiations were prompted, at least in part, by an agreement between the U.S.F.W.S. and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (which provides water to the area) that established certain requirements before water connections could be made to new residential property in North Key Largo. This agreement requires that, before water connections can be made to an area inhabited by endangered or threatened species of wildlife, a permit must be obtained by the U.S.F.W.S. During the negotiations, the U.S.F.W.S. indicated to the Intervenors its desire to address the conflict between the endangered species on North Key Largo and development interests in "one big conflict rather than having to handle it land owner by land owner." The Commission agreed with this approach feeling it could better protect the subject species through required mitigation by the developer which would probably not be possible or practical when dealing with individual lot owners. Although the Intervenors questioned the legality of the requirements imposed as a result of the agreement between the U.S.F.W.S. and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, the Intervenors decided to try and work with both the federal and state agencies and attempt to meet their concerns rather than engage them in a legal battle over their authority to impose mitigation requirements on new developments. A permit from the U.S.F.W.S. or the Commission is not necessary for the Intervenors to sell the lots in Plats 17, 18 and 19. The Intervenors sought permits from the Commission and the U.S.F.W.S. in a good faith attempt to cooperate with the agencies responsible for enforcing the Endangered Species Act and to eliminate obstacles to the clearing and development of the lots by individual lot purchasers. The U.S.F.W.S. has developed specific rules and procedures for protecting the habitat of endangered species and issuing "incidental take" permits for activities that may impact on the species or their habitat. The Commission has not adopted any rules that specifically protect the habitat of endangered species other than a prohibition against molesting or harming their nests. Similarly, the Commission has no specific rules regarding "incidental take" permits. The Intervenors filed an application with the U.S.F.W.S. on March 13, 1989 seeking a permit for covering all of Plats 17, 18 and 19. Attached as exhibits to the application were copies of the pleadings from the proceedings whereby Intervenors received their Vested Rights Determination, a summary of a proposed revegetation project to be undertaken in connection with the permit; the Harbor Course Subdivision construction plans together with construction details; a report prepared by Dr. Earl Rich regarding North Key Largo endangered rodent preservation measures; a report by Dr. Jack Stout setting forth the results of woodrat and cotton mice trapping in the subject area; and an aerial photograph of the subject area. The application sought a "permit for the incidental taking of endangered species in connection with completion of development of a residential subdivision and related site improvements surrounding an existing golf course. The area to be cleared may include habitat for the Key Largo woodrat, cotton mice, or Schaus' swallowtail butterfly." A permit has not been issued by the U.S.F.W.S. with respect to Plat 17, 18 and 19. The Intervenors' application for a permit has been transmitted to the Commission. It is not clear how the application filed with U.S.F.W.S. came before the Commission for consideration. The Commission has no direct agreement with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority regarding water connections. The Commission's authority for asserting jurisdiction over the development is not based on any existing rules or statutes regarding "incidental take" permits. The U.S.F.W.S. has apparently agreed to defer to the Commission with respect to the issuance of a permit for the Harbor Course South development. The U.S.F.W.S. has been kept abreast of the negotiations and terms of the Proposed Permit and has suggested various changes during the negotiation process in an effort to coordinate the conditions of the two permits. By letter dated July 24, 1989, the Commission set forth conditions for the issuance of a permit to the Intervenors which would authorize them to take the nests and habitat of woodrats and cotton mice, to harm or molest Schaus' swallowtail butterflies, and to take Eastern Indigo snakes, "incidental to land clearing operations and building construction of single family and cluster homes" on Plat 17, 18 and 19. The permit does not authorize the killing of woodrats, cotton mice or Schaus' swallowtail butterflies. The Commission stated that the permit was being issued pursuant to Rules 39-27.002(1) and 39- 27.002(2), Florida Administrative Code. (The July 24, 1989 letter setting forth the conditions for the permit will be referred to as the "Proposed Permit.") The Proposed Permit states that the permit will inure to the benefit of the Intervenors and their "successors in title or their agents." In other words, purchasers of lots from the Intervenors would be covered by the Permit and no additional permit would be necessary to take the nests and habitat of woodrats and cotton mice, to harm or molest Schaus' swallowtail butterflies, or to take the Eastern Indigo snakes incidental to the development of their lots. The terms and conditions of the Proposed Permit were prepared after several meetings and discussions between Commission personnel, the Intervenors' expert biologist Dr. Stout and the developers themselves. The Proposed Permit requires both on-site mitigation and off-site mitigation. The on-site mitigation requires the permanent dedication in the form of a conservation eastment of 5.94 acres in Tract E of Harbor Course South, Section 3 ( Ocean Reef Plat 18) to provide perpetual protection for the habitat for the species listed in the Proposed Permit. The exact provisions of this conservation easement are not speficified in the Proposed Permit and were not established in this proceeding. The Permit also requires specific habitat enhancement of Tract E by planting torchwood seedlings as a means to attract Schaus' swallowtail butterflies in the area of an old service road on Tract E, revegetation in accordance with specific planting instructions of another road that bisects Tract E and the placement of ten piles of rocks and logs of at least four cubic yards each in the old roadway. A ten thousand dollar surety bond or letter of credit is required to ensure compliance with the planting and debris placement provisions within three years of the date of the issuance of the permit. The Intervenors had intended to subdivide Tract E into ten additional lots to be sold as homesites. While Petitioner contends that the development of lots in Tract E may have been prohibited because of the high quality hammock on some of these lots, the evidence established that most, if not all, of the lots in Tract E will be sold and developed as individual homesites if the area is not set aside as a conservation area pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Permit. The establishment of a conservation area in Tract E will help preserve a continuous habitat area for the endangered species. Tract E is adjacent to a large track of property that has been or is in the process of being acquired by the state for conservation purposes. By requiring the Intervenors to provide rubble and debris piles and revegetation on Tract E, the Proposed Permit will further enhance the quality of the habitat in this area. The Proposed Permit requires the existing dirt road which currently cuts through Tract E to be closed and revegetated. There is no requirement that the fill installed for the road bed be removed. While Petitioners contend that such a condition is necessary for the development of this tract into high quality habitat for the endangered species, the natural regeneration of the hammock will be enhanced by the revegetation plan and this area will ultimately develop into high quality habitat. Planting torchwood in the area of Tract E, which is close to the golf course and areas that will be developed, may actually harm the survival potential of the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly. The butterflies are extremely susceptible to chemical insecticides. Planting torchwood in areas where insecticides will be used may create an attractive nuisance to the butterflies. Therefore, the requirement for planting should be moved to an off-site area that is remote from the development to guard against this problem. The area of the old service road should be revegetated pursuant to a schedule similar to the one used for the other revegetation area. Off-site mitigation is to be provided through the enhancement of hammock succession on five, one acre segments of the right-of-way of Old State Road 905 or an alternative similar site approved by the Commission with an area of enhancement to equal five acres. The amount of off-site mitigation was baseed upon a calculation of the amount of road surface in Harbor Course South. The Proposed Permit requires the old road bed and asphalt to be removed and the road restored to original grade. The enhancement of the site is to be accomplished by planting tropical hardwood vegetation from a specified vegetation list, adherence to specific planting instructions governing phase of planting, survival rate and watering conditions, placement of twenty rock and debris piles, (each four cubic yards in volume), removal of exotic plant species semi-annually for a five year period and removal of weedy species of trees and shrubs in an area within a radius of three feet around each planted tree over a similar time period. Four lots in Plat 18 are to be set aside as an assurance against failure to complete the planting or failure to provide an alternative site. A surety bond or letter of credit in the amount of $50,000.00 is also required to ensure compliance with the planting requirements. Old State Road 905 is currently owned by the Florida Department of Transportation. There are plans to convey this right-of-way to Monroe County which in turn plans to abandon the road, remove the road bed and asphalt, and cooperate with the restoration. Thus, it appears that Monroe County may assume responsibility for removing the asphalt road along Old State Road 905. The Proposed Permit requires the Intervenor to ensure that this removal is accomplished. Old State Road 905 is utilized by some utility companies to service their utility lines. At this point, it is not clear whether the utility easements will preclude the revegetation required by the Proposed Permit from becoming effective. The Proposed Permit provides adequate procedures for selecting alternative sites in the event that Old State Road 905 can not be effectively used for a mitigation area. With respect to both the on-site and off-site mitigation, the revegatation requirements in the Proposed Permit are reasonably related to the Commission's goal of enhancing the long term survival of woodrats and cotton mice on North Key Largo. While the diversity of the flora in a natural hammock is greater than that called for in the proposed mitigation, the revegetation will accelerate the development of the mitigation areas into high quality habitat for the endangered species. While a hardwood hammock has a natural capability to regenerate on its own, the regeneration can be enhanced by planting trees in a scarified area. The revegetation required pursuant to the Proposed Permit will be placed mainly in corridors replacing old road ways. This placement will hasten the redevelopment of these areas into high quality habitat. The Intervenors are required to ensure a two year, seventy five percent survival rate for trees planted. Any trees that die are to be replaced by the species with the highest survival rate. The evidence established that the most effective way to enhance the revegetation process is to plant those species of trees that are slow to seed or that are relatively rare. It is not clear whether the planting schedule and sucession procedures attached to the Proposed Permit have taken this fact into consideration. While the diversity of species detailed in the attachments to the Proposed Permit could be reallocated between species to further enhance the revegetation process, the proposed schedules are adequate except for the requirement of planting torchwood on Tract E. Torchwood is an important habitat and food source for Schaus' swallowtail butterflies and should not be placed in an area where chemical insect control efforts are likely. As indicated above, the Proposed Permit requires a survival rate of 75% for the planted trees within two years of the initial planting. The Intervenors are also required to inspect the revegetation sites semi-annually for five years and to remove invasive exotic plants. In addition, Intervenors are required to remove weeding trees, shrubs and vines within a radius of 3 feet around each planted tree for a period of five years. Semiannual reports must be filed with the Commission for the first five years after planting to advise as to the presence of such species. There are no enforcement mechanisms in the Proposed Permit to ensure that the monotoring and removal of exotic species requirements will be completed. The bond requirements of the Proposed Permit only apply to the plantings and installation of debris piles. The requirement for removal of exotic species will help ensure that those exotic species cannot invade the mitigation sites and prevent or retard the natural hammock regeneration process. This requirement will enhance the development of a high quality hammock which will hopefully provide habitat for the endangered species. It is important that an enforcement mechanism be provided in the permit with respect to this requirement. The State Department of Natural Resources has a program for the removal of exotic plants from state lands. DNR is currently preparing a major management plan for North Key Largo and DNR employees are currently involved in removing exotic species from the right-of-way of Old State Road 905. The requirements of the Proposed Permit will augment the on-going efforts of DNR and free-up resources to focus on the removal of exotic species in neighboring areas. The Proposed Permit does not impose qualifications on the individuals who will be responsible for removing the exotic species. The permit should require the Intervenors to retain qualified people to identify the exotic species. The spacing, watering and survival rate aspects of the revegetation plan were based, in part, upon the experiences with revegetation at a previous mitigation site (the Budd Post site discussed below) and represent a reasonable effort for enhancing the revegetation of the hammock. While there is no requirement that the planted trees survive longer than two years after the initial planting, the 75% survival requirement during the first two years provides reasonable assurance that the revegetation will be done properly and with a high probability of success. General Condition 1 of the Proposed Permit indicates that the Commission will review the Permit periodically and "may initiate enforcement or revocation action for any violation of the Permit Conditions by the Permittee, its agents, its employees, or representatives." There is no provision for enforcement or revocation of the permit for violations of the permit conditions by purchasers of lots or other third parties who obtain title to the property from the Intervenors. This enforcement mechanism will become essentially obsolete if and when the Intervenors transfer their interests in the property. General Condition 2 of the Proposed Permit indicates that the Permit is valid "only for the specific processes and operations applied for and indicated in the approved drawings or exhibits." This provision is meaningless since there are no "specific processing operations applied for" and there have been no approved drawings or exhibits other than the planting schedules which are part of the revegetation aspect of the mitigation requirements. There are certain provisions of the Proposed Permit which are vague and/or ambiguous. Special Conditions 4(b) indicates that the requirements of Specific Condition 3(j) are applicable to the restoration of Tract E. Special Condition 3(j) requires the placement of twenty debris piles. However, Specific Condition 4(c) only requires a placement of ten such piles in Tract E. This ambiguity should be clarified. Special Condition 4(d) indicates that there are utility lines in the revegetation area which will have to be maintained. Under this provision, the applicant is allowed to maintain, using hand tools only, a clear path of up to eight feet wide over each utility line. It is not clear from the evidence presented how many utility lines are involved and whether a separate eight foot area can be cleared for each utility line. If several separate utility lines are involved, this provision could effectively prevent the regeneration of the area into high quality hammock habitat. Free ranging domestic pets, especially cats, are a significant threat to the endangered species. One of the conditions imposed by the Proposed Permit would prohibit free ranging pets within the subdivision pursuant to a subdivision covenant to run with the land. The specific wording of such a covenant has not been provided. The Proposed Permit does not provide for any enforcement mechanism with respect to this covenant. Some enforcement mechanism must be provided in order for this condition to provide any effective protection for the endangered species. The Proposed Permit requires the Intervenors to hold four lots from sale until the off-site mitigation requirements have been met. If the planting is not accomplished within a five year period, the Intervenors are required to include these four lots as part of the conservation easement in Tract E. The lots being withheld for sale have an average market value in excess of $120,000 per lot. Thus, this requirement places a major incentive on the Intervenors to comply with the terms of the Proposed Permit. However, it is not clear whether this enforcement mechanism can be applied to the provisions of the Proposed Permit regarding the removal of exotic species. The Proposed Permit does not allow the Intervenors to kill any member of the endangered species. The Proposed Permit does allow the "incidental taking" of the threatened species (Eastern Indigo snake). The term "incidental taking" is interpreted by the Comimssion to include the killing of a member of the threatened species which is incidental to the conduct of otherwise lawful activities. The Commission contends that it has the jurisdiction to issue such an "incidental take" permit for an endangered species under appropriate conditions and mitigation requirements. The Commission did not believe an incidental take permit was necessary with respect to the endangered species on this site because the Commission felt that the habitat quality was relatively low and the likelihood of encountering a member of the species at the site was also low. The evidence established that there is a possibility that some members of the endangered species, i.e., woodrats and cotton mice, will be killed during the development and building of the subdivision. While this possibility is speculative, the chances of such a killing can be minimized by incorporating further protections in the permit. The evidence did not indicate any likelihood that East Indigo snakes or Schaus' swallowtail butterflies will be killed incidental to land clearing and/or development of Harbor Course South. The U.S.F.W.S. requires a habitat conservation plan ("H.C.P.") before it will issue an incidental take permit. A habitat conservation plan committee was established by the Governor in 1985 to prepare an H.C.P. for the North Key Largo area. The goal of the Committee is to designate areas which would be suitable for development and areas which may be necessary for conservation. A Draft Habitat Conservation Plan has been prepared, but it has not yet been officially approved. Harbor Course South is outside the study area of the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan and therefore is not proposed as a conservation area. The framework and structure of the Proposed Permit reflects the Commission's desire to apply a comprehensive permitting approach to the Harbor Course South development rather than rely upon a lot-by-lot determination of jurisdiction with each individual lot purchaser at the time clearing or development activities are sought. The evidence established that there is insufficient indicia of woodrat or cotton mouse presence on a number of the lots in Harbor Course South. Thus, if a lot-by-lot approach was used, the Commission would not have the authority under its current rules to require a number of the individual lot owners to obtain a permit before land clearing. Without question, further fragmentation of the hammock will reduce the quality of the habitat for the endangered species. If a lot-by-lot permitting process is utilized, the owners of the lots that do not show any signs of the presence of woodrats or cotton mice would be able to clear to the maximum extent allowable under the Monroe County development ordinances. Such an approach would not halt the further fragmentation of hammock. By utilizing a comprehensive permit, the Commission can establish uniform standards for development and require stronger mitigative measures to offset the impact of development in the area on the endangered and threatened species. The approach is further justified in view of the Commission's determination that the Harbor Course South property is of only minimal importance as a habitat for the endangered and threatened species. See, Findings of Fact 80-81 below. In sum, land development and land clearing activities are likely to take place on the Harbor Course South property regardless of whether the Proposed Permit is issued. If the Commission utilizes a lot-by-lot determination of jurisdiction, a large portion of the lots on Harbor Course South would not be required to obtain a permit from the Commission because many of those lots do not have nests or any indication of the presence of the endangered species. Under these circumstances, the Commission would probably not be able to obtain comprehensive mitigation conditions and the habitat for the endangered species would be further fragmented with little or no mitigation. As noted above, the Commission has not adopted any rules setting forth its policies and procedures for issuing an overall blanket permit for the "incidental taking" of endangered species. Similarly, there are no formal guidelines adopted to establish when the Commission has jurisdiction over land- clearing activities. In determining whether to assert jurisdiction over a particular piece of property, the Commission looks for evidence of existing nests or habitat of an endangered species or the probability that a taking, killing or some other molestation will occur to a particular member of the species. In connection with the Proposed Permit, the Commission determined that it had the authority under Rule 39-27.002, Florida Administrative Code, to issue permits for clearing and development activities that molest the nests of endangered species. As discussed below, the Commission has issued only one prior permit for land clearing and development activities. That prior permit is was not timely challenged. No rules or standards have been promulgated by the Commission to set forth the mitigative requirements that can be imposed, if any, upon individual lot purchasers. An important factor in the Commission's decision to issue the Proposed Permit in this case was the Commission's determination that the overall quality of the Harbor Course South property as habitat for the endangered species was minimal. In determining that the Harbor Course South property was of minimal importance to the survival of the endangered species, the Commission took into consideration various reports on the sparse density of the population of the endangered species on the subject property. The Commission also took into account what it deemed to be inevitable future development as reflected in the Vested Rights Determination, the fact that the site was not designated for preservation in the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, and the fact that the site was not part of the North Key Largo CARL acquisition project. Finally, the Commission considered that the site was already a highly fragmented tropical hardwood hammock as demonstrated by Landsat Thematic Mapper Classfied Satellite Imagery. The only previous instance in which the Commission has issued a permit to molest or harm the nests or habitat of endangered species pursuant to land clearing or development activities involved another residential sub-division in North Key Largo. In June of 1986, separate permits were issued by the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission to the Nichols/Post Hendrix Corporation to destroy nests and habitat of the Key Largo woodrat and Key Largo cotton mouse. (The permit issued by the Commission in connection with this prior project will be referred to as the "Budd Post Permit.") The property covered by the Budd Post Permit is south of Harbor Course South. It lies approximately six miles south of the intersection of Old State Road 905 and Card Sound Road. That property consists of approximately ten acres of high quality hardwood hammock located within the project area of the North Key Largo Hammocks, CARL land acquisition program. Thus, the property was essentially surrounded by high quality tropical hardwood hammock. The Budd Post property is similar to the Harbor Course South property in that both areas run from County Road 905 east to the ocean and both tracts contain habitat suitable for use by endangered species. However, Harbor Course South is a lesser quality habitat than the Budd Post property because it is more highly fragmented and is bordered on the north by the highly developed Ocean Reef property. Overall, there was a significantly greater indication of the presence of the subject endangered species on the Budd Post Property than there is at Harbor Course South. The Budd Post Permit was the first of its kind issued by the Commission and was processed simultaneously and concurrently with the comparable federal permit from the U.S.F.W.S. As a condition to issuance of the Budd Post Permit, the Commission required the permittee to set aside a preservation area, build debris piles to encourage nesting of woodrats and cotton mice and plant vegetation off-site to mitigate the loss of hammock habitat. A condition of the Budd Post Permit required the permittee to trap and remove the endangered species during land clearing activities. A similar condition in the Proposed Permit would help reduce the likelihood of any killing of the endangered species. The results of the mitigation plan for the Budd Post Permit indicate that such a plan can serve to enhance the survivability of the endangered species by providing high quality habitat and accelerating the revegetation of scarified areas. A little more than two years after the mitigation plan for the Budd Post Permit was implemented, it appears that the efforts are achieving their intended results. Specifically, the plants that were planted as a result of the revegetation plan are flourishing and at least some of the debris piles have been colonized by woodrats. Thus, it appears a viable habitat has been created. There is no definitive method for determining the density of population of woodrats or cotton mice at a given site. In making its jurisdictional determination with respect to the Budd Post property, the Commission looked for the presence of stick nests, (which are widely presumed to be constructed by woodrats) as the primary jurisdictional indicator. Subsequent to the issuance of the Budd Post Permit, the Commission has recognized that stick nests are not the sole indicators of the presence of wood rats and the Commission now considers other factors as well. The U.S.F.W.S. requires a trapping study of woodrats and cotton mice as part of its permit application. The permittee for the Budd Post Permit provided the U.S.F.W.S. and the Commission with a "trapping report" prepared by Dr. Stout. The Intervenors also hired Dr. Jack Stout, who is a biologist and professor at the University of Central Florida, and a similar report was prepared for Harbor Course South. The same methodology was used to trap woodrats and cotton mice on both sites. Dr. Stout concluded that the Harbor Course South property had a low density population of woodrats and cotton mice. Dr. Earl Rich, a biologist and ecologist and a former professor at the University of Miami with extensive experience researching woodrat habitat on North Key Largo, also inspected the Harbor Course South property on behalf of the Intervenors. His inspection took place after the date of the Proposed Permit. He determined that the overall quality of the subject property as habitat for the endangered species was low because of the fragmented and uneven quality of the hammock. These qualities are largely attributed to the existing intrastructure and the golf course which winds throughout the subject property. Julie Hovis, a wild life biologist employed by the Commission, performed a site inspection report in connection with the application for the Proposed Permit. While not an expert on the endangered species, she was qualified to identify certain signs of the presence of the species. She found that there was some evidence that woodrats and cotton mice were present on the Harbor Course South property. She noted that the quality of the habitat varies greatly. Her inspection and conclusions were the basis for the Commission's assertion of jurisdiction over the subject site. Dr. Steven Humphrey and Dr. Numi Goodyear inspected the area on behalf of the Petitioners to determine the presence and/or density of the endangered species populations. While their studies find more evidence of the presence of wood rats and cotton mice on the subject property than the prior studies had indicated, they also conclude that the property is a mixed quality habitat for the endangered species. While there are some areas that appear to be high quality habitat, these experts recognize the fragmented character of the habitat and the effect of the golf course in disrupting the habitat and producing "islands of vegetation." The Goodyear and Humphrey studies confirm that the densities of the endangered species are lowest in areas where the hammock is highly fragmented. The Goodyear and Humphrey studies do not refute the Commission's conclusion that a significant number of the lots of Harbor Course South do not reflect sufficient indicia of the presence of the endangered species to allow the Commission to assert jurisdiction on all the property if a lot-by-lot permitting process was utilized. The Commission has concluded that the continuing development of Harbor Course South is inevitable. The Commission has also concluded that its authority over clearing of individual homesites is limited. In view of these conclusions, the Commission has attempted to enhance the survivability of the endangered species by imposing certain mitigation requirements on the Intervenors. The evidence has established that, assuming the development of Harbor Course South is inevitable, and the Commission lacks the authority to halt the development of Harbor Course South, the Commission's comprehensive approach to permitting will be more favorable to the survival potential of the endangered species than a lot-by-lot jurisdictional determination would be.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission enter a Final Order setting forth the terms and conditions for an Agreement with the Intervenors for a specific period of time as set forth in Paragraph 30 of Conclusions of Law, whereby permits will be issued for the incidental destruction and/or molestation of the nests and habitat of the subject endangered species in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Proposed Permit as modified in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 32 of the Conclusions of Law above. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of October, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 18th day of October, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and developer of the Plaza Venetia Marina, located in Biscayne Bay in Dade County, Florida, just north of the Venetian Causeway. Respondent has constructed the marina on submerged lands leased from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, acting through the Department of Natural Resources. The submerged lands which are the subject of the lease in question in this proceeding are sovereignty lands lying within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve as defined in Section 258.165(2)(a) , Florida Statutes, and in Chapter l6Q-18, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter l6Q-18 became effective March 20, 1980. In 1976 and 1977 Respondent received permits from the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, and the Army Cords of Engineers for two "J" shaped main docks, one 700 feet long and the other 500 feet long, roughly forming a half circle extending about 450 feet from the shore. The permits also authorized the construction of two 280-foot long "T" shaped docks within the semicircle, one on each side of the central dock and fueling facility which is the subject matter of this proceeding. on October 27, 1977, DER issued Permit No. l3-30-0740-6E to Respondent, authorizing the construction of the central dock and fueling facility. On August 18, 1977, Respondent applied to the Board of Trustees and DNR for the lease in controversy. The letter and enclosures indicated the area to be leased would encompass 38,268 square feet of bay bottom. The applicant's letter makes reference to a "docking and fueling facility," while the legal description submitted with the application is captioned "Omni Marina Phase II and Fueling Dock." The plan-view drawings and cross-sectional views of the pier which Respondent filed with DER and which were in turn furnished to DNR show a platform at the end of the central pier labeled with the words "FUEL," but do not show any building associated with the pier. A cross-sectional view of the platform alone was neither provided by Respondent nor requested by either DER or DNR. Notwithstanding this fact, however, during the course of DNR review of the lease application, Respondent advised DNR officials of its intention to place some structure on the platform at the terminus of the central pier to serve as a "fueling station." DNR personnel in charge of the application evaluation in fact conducted in-house discussions concerning the agency's interpretation of what would constitute a "fueling facility." These DNR officials in fact knew that Respondent intended to erect a structure on the platform of the central pier to serve as a fueling facility. Despite this knowledge, DNR officials did not request additional information relating specifically to the character of any structure which Respondent intended to erect on the platform at the end of the central pier for reasons hereinafter set forth. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund met on March 23, 1978, and approved Respondent's lease application The minutes of that meeting state that: This facility is consistent with existing usage and does not unreasonably interfere with lawful and traditional public use of-the Preserve and is in compliance with Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. As a result of the Board approval, a lease was issued and duly executed allowing Respondent ". . . to operate exclusively a fueling facility upon sovereignty lands. . . ." Respondent was granted a lease term of five years commencing March 21, 1978. At the time the lease in question was approved, neither the lease itself nor any rule, statute, or agency practice defined the term "fueling facility." There were, in fact, no rules adopted by the Board of Trustees or DNR in existence on March 23, 1978, governing the leasing of sovereignty submerged lands. Instead, DNR and the Board of Trustees employed former Rule 18-2.22, Florida Administrative Code, as a policy guide in processing submerged land lease applications. Under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, the provisions of Chapter 18-2, Florida Administrative Code, had become null and void as of October 1, 1975, by virtue of the failure of the Board of Trustees and DNR to readopt those rules in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Even Chapter 18-2, Florida Administrative Code, however, failed to define "fueling facility," "marina," or "commercial docking facilities," all of which terms appear in the disputed lease issued to Respondent. Former Rule 18-2.164, Florida Administrative Code, contains licensing requirements for marinas, including furnishing construction drawings of proposed structures and complying with the requirements of that rule in the event any structural modifications occur. The record in this cause establishes, however, that DNR, at the time the lease in controversy was issued, did not uniformly apply the "policy guide" contained in former Rule 18-2.164, Florida Administrative Code. In fact, it appears that prior to the promulgation of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve rule, Chapter 16Q-18, Florida Administrative Code, on March 20, 1980, DNR's policy in the leasing of sovereignty submerged lands was to concern itself only with the amount of state land that a proposed use would require. In this connection DNR and the Board of Trustees were not concerned with the design of structures to be placed on leased sovereignty submerged lands, but were concerned only with maintaining the (integrity of lease boundaries. After December 20, 1978, DNR expressed this policy as a rule, exempting the modification of existing structures from lease modification requirements so long as the structural modification did not require ". . . the use of any additional sovereignty submerged lands." Rule 16Q-17.14(1)(j) , Florida Administrative Code. At the time of the issuance of the lease here in question, Respondent did not know the exact nature, size, or height of any structure that it might wish ultimately to build on the central platform. The words "fueling station" appear on the platform at the end of the center pier in one of the drawings submitted to DER, and in turn forwarded to DNR by DER. On January 11, 1979, approximately fourteen months after issuance of the DER permit and less than one year after issuance of the lease here in question, Respondent furnished a copy of the floor plan of the proposed building on the central pier to DER. This floor plan indicated areas to be included in the building for bait and tackle facilities, a food store, storage areas, restroom facilities, and a marina office. Also shown on the floor plan was a storage area for electric carts to be used in servicing vessels utilizing the marina facilities. On April 20, 1979, the City of Miami issued a valid building permit for construction of the marina fueling station. Respondent notified DER and DNR in July of 1979 that it intended to begin construction of the marina shortly thereafter. Construction of the central pier began on July 16, 1979, and ended on June 11, 1980. Construction of the fueling platform began on February 25, 1981, with erection of the fueling station walls beginning sometime after April 1, 1981. Prior to construction of the fueling platform and building, but after completion of the central lease pier, DNR made an annual inspection of the marina on February 16, 1981. During this inspection, the central lease dock was checked and found to be in compliance with the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. In December of 1981, DNR learned that Respondent had constructed a building on the platform at the end of the central pier through receipt of a copy of a DER warning notice issued to Respondent. DNR then sent a letter to Respondent on January 29, 1982, advising Respondent to revise its plans and locate the building on the uplands since the building as constructed might be in violation of Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. Correspondence then ensued between DNR and Respondent culminating in a March 8, 1982, letter from DNR advising Respondent of DNR's intent to seek cancellation of the lease for the central pier at an April 20, 1982, meeting of the Board of Trustees. The following day, on March 9, 1982, an inspection was made of the central lease facility. The building constructed on the platform at the end of the central pier has a floor area of approximately 3,800 square feet, and a roof area of approximately 5,292 square feet. The building was constructed at a cost of approximately $500,000. The net area of the platform at the end of the central pier contains about 9,640 square feet. The height of the structure is approximately 18 to 20 feet, and it is situated over the water approximately 400 feet east of the bulkhead. The interior of the building has been divided into six rooms, and no fuel pumps were found on the leased area on March 9, 1982. Construction of the building was halted before it could be completed or put into use. The building as presently constructed has provisions for the following uses: a waiting area for water-borne transportation, a bait and tackle shop and marine supply store, an electric cart parking and recharging station, and an attendant' room with cash register and equipment for fuel pumps. In addition, the structure contains bathroom facilities for boat owners and passengers and employees, and shower facilities for marina employees. All of these uses are customarily associated with the operation of marina facilities. Construction of the fueling station at the end of the central pier did not require the use of any sovereignty submerged lands in addition to those encompassed within the existing lease. Further, construction of the building did not require additional dredging or filling nor did it result in any significant adverse environmental impact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund dismissing this cause, and denying the relief requested against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Clifford A. Shulman, Esquire and Thomas K. Equels, Esquire Brickell Concours 1401 Brickell Avenue, PH-1 Miami, Florida 33131 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lee Rohe, Esquire Assistant Department Attorney Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether Sam Patterson’s proposed dock project is exempt from the need to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) from the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Mr. Scully resides at 941 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 16, adjacent to and south-southeast of Mr. Patterson's residential property. The northern or rear portion of Mr. Scully's lot borders on an artificial canal that is designated a Class III water by Department rule. He does not have a dock per se; he moors his boat against and parallel to a narrow concrete area (and his lot line), separated by buffering material. Mr. Patterson, the applicant, owns the property at 930 Brookdale Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida, Lot 15. Lot 15 is north-northwest and adjacent to Mr. Scully’s property. This residential property is currently leased to others. The residential property (Lot 14) adjacent to and north-northeast of Mr. Patterson's lot is apparently owned by an individual named Meloche. The Department has the jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed project is exempt from ERP requirements. The Proposed Project On or about September 13, 2004, Mr. Patterson filed an application requesting an exemption to replace an existing five- foot by 21-foot (105-square feet) marginal dock in the same location, configuration, and dimensions as the existing dock. He also requested an exemption to install a five-foot by 16-foot (80-square feet) wooden finger pier extending perpendicular to and from the middle of the existing marginal dock. As of the final hearing, the project has been revised such that the wooden finger pier will extend 11.8 feet (rather than 16 feet) and perpendicular from the middle of the marginal dock. Mr. Patterson changed the length of the finger pier to comply with City regulations, which are not at issue in this case. The “Site Plan” is attached to the Department’s Notice of Determination of Exemption. (JE 1). The “Site Plan” shows a one-story residence on Mr. Patterson's Lot 15. The front of the lot measures 100 feet, whereas the rear of the lot (that abuts the canal on the easternmost portion of the lot) is 50 feet in length from south to north. The seawall is one-and-one-half feet in width. The existing marginal dock abuts the seawall running south to north and is 21 feet long and five feet wide. Small concrete platforms abut the marginal dock on the south and north. The Department reviewed the original application and on October 13, 2004, advised Mr. Patterson, in part, that his project was exempt from the need to obtain an ERP under Florida Administrative Code Rules 40E-4.051(3)(c) and (d). The Department had not reviewed the change to the project prior to the final hearing. See Finding of Fact 5. Lots 16, 15, and 14 are situated as a cul-de-sac (semi- circle) with the canal north of Lot 16, east of Lot 15, and south of Lot 14. Lot 14 is across the canal from Mr. Scully's Lot 16. There are five properties on each side of the canal, running west to east. The artificial canal runs directly east from Mr. Patterson’s property for an uncertain distance to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). Mr. Patterson’s property (Lot 15) is the western end-point for this canal. Mr. Patterson’s eastern property line (fronting the canal) is 50 feet in width. However, the precise width of the canal between Lots 14 and 16 is unclear. Ms. Smith reports (in her site inspection report of March 3, 2005 (JE 3)) that the canal is approximately 50 feet wide. Mr. Patterson testified that Karen Main with the City of Boynton Beach advised him that the consensus opinion of City employees reviewing the issue was that the canal measured 66 feet in width. There appears to be some widening of the canal east of Mr. Patterson’s property line and then the canal appears to straighten-out as it proceeds to the east to the ICW and past the easterly property lines for Lots 14 and 16. See (JEs 1-site plan; 5-aerial). The weight of the evidence indicates that the canal, between Lots 14 and 16, is approximately 60 to 66 feet wide. See, e.g., id. In the past, the prior owner of Lot 15 (Mr. Patterson's property) moored a boat at and parallel to the marginal dock, which means that the bow, for example, faced Lot 14 and the stern faced Lot 16. Mr. Patterson currently owns a 16-foot boat that he wants to moor at the marginal dock. However, he feels that it is unsafe to do so, particularly if Mr. Scully’s boat drifts. Meloche (Lot 14 to the north) has a fixed boatlift, which allows for the elevation of a boat out of the water, with the bow facing west toward and in front of the northern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. (JE 4). Mr. Scully moors his boat parallel to the shoreline of Lot 16 and perpendicular to Mr. Patterson’s 50-foot eastern seawall and property line. (JEs 4 and 6). Mr. Scully’s seawall intersects Mr. Patterson’s seawall such that when Mr. Scully’s 22-foot boat is moored at his seawall, it is also in front of the southern end of Mr. Patterson’s seawall. Id. When Mr. Scully’s boat is tightly moored at his seawall, it does not interfere with or block Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 6). However, when Mr. Scully’s boat is loosely moored, it drifts toward the center of the canal in front of Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock. (JE 4). With no boat moored at the marginal dock, Mr. Scully is able to freely maneuver his boat to his seawall with limited “backing” of his boat required (stern first). With a boat consistently moored at Mr. Patterson’s marginal dock, Mr. Scully would have to back into his area beside his seawall in order to avoid colliding with that boat. Mr. Patterson’s finger pier would enable him to safely moor a boat perpendicular to the marginal dock. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock is likely to make it easier for Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully to navigate to their respective mooring areas, depending on the size of the boats moored by Mr. Patterson and Mr. Scully. (The Department, in reviewing similar exemption requests, does not consider the type and size of the boat(s) to be moored at the proposed dock or adjacent mooring site.) It is preferable for the boats to be moored, in this location, stern first, with the bow facing down the canal from the wake of the boats traveling in the ICW. Centering the finger pier at the marginal dock and mooring Mr. Patterson’s boat on the north side of the finger pier is likely to enable Meloche, Mr. Patterson, and Mr. Scully to moor their boats parallel to each other and avoid collisions.1 Placement of the finger pier at the northern end of the finger pier, while favored over the proposed location by Mr. Scully, is likely to interfere with Meloche’s use of his property and boatlift. With the finger pier centered on the marginal dock and a boat moored to the north, Mr. Scully can maneuver his boat to his seawall by “backing in” stern first. An experienced boater can accomplish this task in two to three maneuvers. Mr. Scully is an experienced boater and has lived on the canal for approximately eight years. Shortening the finger pier from 16 feet to 11.8 feet will not affect Mr. Patterson’s ability to safely moor a boat on the northern side of the finger pier. The Challenge Mr. Scully contends that the placement of the wooden finger pier and the mooring of a sizable boat on the proposed finger pier will interfere with his ability to navigate in and out of the canal in or around his property, and necessarily interfere with his ability to moor his boat adjacent to his property. He also contends that the marginal dock and the finger pier are two docks, not one. Resolution of the Controversy Replacement of the existing marginal dock will consist of replacing the decking and using the existing pilings. The existing marginal dock is currently functional. Reconstruction of the marginal dock and construction of the finger pier will be done by a licensed marine contractor. The licensed marine contractor will use best management practices to avoid water quality problems in the canal during construction. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect flood control or violate water quality standards. The proposed project will not impede navigation. But see Endnote 1.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order concluding that Mr. Patterson’s proposed dock project, as revised, is exempt from the need to obtain an ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Tom Tona, owns the mortgage on the island consisting of Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, Elliots Point Subdivision, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Mr. Tona has taken steps to perfect his ownership of the island and holds a property interest sufficient to afford him standing to apply for a permit. Elliots Point Subdivision is a residential subdivision development surrounding a lagoon which opens into Santa Rosa Sound in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The island is located in the lagoon opening to Santa Rosa Sound. It has a large area of wetlands on the north shore. The wetlands function as a habitat for wildlife in the area. Water depths surrounding the island are shallow. The island currently acts as a barrier island for the property located on the shore of the lagoon. The barrier effect of the island helps to prevent the lagoon shore from erosion which would be caused by the wave action in the sound. However, the island, itself, is rapidly eroding due to the same wave action it protects the lagoon shore from. The evidence clearly demonstrated that unless this erosion is stopped the island will completely wash away along with the habitat, including wetlands, it now provides to wildlife and no longer protect the lagoon shore from the erosion it otherwise would experience without the presence of the island. The subdivision appears to be almost completely developed along the lagoon with single family dwellings. A canal consisting of two vertical seawalls runs in between the island and Elliots Point. The canal leads to a public boat ramp within the subdivision. The vertical sea wall of the canal along with the boats that pass through it is causing erosion to occur within the wetlands adjoining the seawall. It is this 55 foot area of the wetlands that Respondent proposes to construct part of the riprap revetment. Petitioner, Audrey Dickason, owns property on the far side of the lagoon from the island. Petitioner's property does not adjoin the island, but is close enough to the island to be within view of the island. On March 6, 1991, the applicant submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a dredge and fill permit to construct a riprap revetment around the entire island. This was Mr. Tona's first application with the Department and at the time of filing Mr. Tona was very inexperienced in completing dredge and fill applications. The application was completed to the best of Mr. Tona's knowledge. Additionally, as happens with any form document, this application did not entirely fit the fact that this was an island project and the type of property interest Mr. Tona was asserting over the island. The application as originally filed did not list any adjacent property owners. Mr. Tona did not believe there were any adjacent property owners since an island was involved. Regardless of whether Mr. Tona should have listed any property owners of the subdivision, the failure to list any such property owners was not done to deceive or defraud the Department or the island's neighbors and in reality had no impact on the notification of parties who may have been interested in Mr. Tona's application. The owners of the property directly across from the island testified at the hearing and voiced their concerns to the Department during the processing of the application. Moreover, as indicated earlier, Petitioner's property does not adjoin the island. Since Petitioner's property does not adjoin the island, she was not entitled to be listed in Mr. Tona's application for the dredge and fill permit. The evidence simply did not establish that this debatable issue justifies the denial of Mr. Tona's application for a dredge and fill permit. The application filed by Mr. Tona also had the box indicating that he owned the property checked. The other box which could have been checked was that he would acquire an interest in the property. Neither box quite fit Mr. Tona's circumstances since he already had an interest in the property. The Department advised that it would be sufficient to check the ownership box and attach a copy of the mortgage assignment which gave Mr. Tona his interest. Mr. Tona followed the Department's advice. Again, the information as to ownership was not submitted to deceive or defraud the Department or the island's neighbors and in reality had no impact on the application process. In fact, the necessary information to determine Mr. Tona's interest was submitted to the Department. Again, there is nothing in the information submitted by Mr. Tona in the application which would justify denying that application as it has since been amended. As indicated above, after consulting with the Department, Mr. Tona amended his application so that the riprap revetment would only be constructed on a 55 foot strip along the northwest corner of the island immediately adjacent to the vertical seawall and on a 322 foot stretch of the island shore, beginning at the intersection of the vertical seawall and the southwest shore of the island and extending along the shore of the island to the edge of the wetland marsh on the north side of the island. The riprap would consist of clean limestone and would extend into state waters. The fill would not impede the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. In fact, the purpose of the revetment is to stop the rapid erosion of the island which is currently taking place and preserve the wetland habitat which exists on the island. The evidence did not demonstrate that the type fill the applicant intends to use in the construction of the revetment would cause any significant pollution or water quality problems or adversely affect fish or wildlife. The evidence demonstrated that the placement of the fill would create more habitat for fish and wildlife. The revetment is intended to be a permanent structure. After evaluating the application for consistency with the relevant pollution control standards, the Department determined that the proposed revetment met departmental standards for water quality and the public interest and issued an Intent to Issue with a draft permit authorizing the construction of the riprap revetment described above subject to several standard permit conditions. The modifications of the application along with the permit conditions provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards as provided in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the historical evidence the Department has gained through observing the impact of other riprap revetments in a similar environment on water quality provides strong support for the above conclusion and in itself is a reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be adversely impacted by the construction of this riprap revetment. For similar reasons, the evidence demonstrated that the proposed revetment would not be contrary to the public interest. In essence, the evidence demonstrated that the revetment would not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, the current condition or relative value of the area surrounding the proposed project, the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, or involve historical or archaeological resources. In fact, the evidence demonstrated that the only effect on the environment the proposed revetment would cause would be a beneficial effect. Petitioner's fear that the grant of this permit will allow Mr. Tona to build a house on the island and thereby destroy her view is not the type of factor which may be considered in determining whether a dredge and fill permit should be granted or denied. See Miller v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 504 So.2d (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Petitioner's concerns for the revetment's affect on the wildlife of the area were not established by any evidence. The evidence did demonstrate that Petitioner's concerns for the wildlife using the island were simply feinted by her and are belied by the fact that if the island is not preserved from erosion there will be no habitat for any wildlife to use once the island erodes away. Based on all the evidence, Mr. Tona's application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a riprap revetment should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing a dredge and fill permit to construct a riprap revetment as sought by Tom Tona in his permit application as amended and subject to the permit conditions contained in the Department's Intent to Issue. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-3872 The facts contained in paragraph 1 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph 5 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are immaterial. The facts contained in paragraph 2 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, except for the finding relating to notice which was not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mead P.O. Drawer 1329 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 William Stone P.O. Drawer 2230 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549 Candi Culbreath Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The Jupiter Inlet District, a special taxing district located in northern Palm Beach County maintains that the definition of "public navigation project" found in Rule 18-20.003(26), Florida Administrative Code, is invalid. It reads: "'Public navigation project' means a project primarily for the purpose of navigation which is authorized and funded by the United States Congress or by port authorities as defined by Section 315.02(2), Florida Statutes." The term public navigation project is substantively used in Rule 18- 20.004(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes management policies, standards and criteria used by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund when deteremining whether to approve request for activities on sovereignty lands in aquatic preserves. That rule states that: "(e) A lease, easement or consent of use may be authorized only for the following activities: a public navigation project; maintenance of an existing navigational channel..." Other portions of the rule provide that eligible requests for a lease, easement or consent of use will be evaluated according to stated social, economic and environmental benefit criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Jupiter Inlet District is a special taxing district in Palm Beach County created in 1921. It is authorized to "construct and thereafter to maintain an inlet connecting the mouth of Jupiter River with the Atlantic Ocean, and ... to deepen Jupiter River in said district and thereafter to maintain same." Section 8, Ch. 8910, Laws of Florida (1921). The legislation found the deepening of the river was a "public purpose and necessary for the preservation of the public health and for the public use of shipping and transportation, and for the extension of commerce of the State of Florida." The district is specifically authorized: "[T]o clean out, straighten, widen, change the course or flow of or deepen any other water course, natural stream or body of water that may be found to be necessary by said board in order to facilitate the opening and maintenance of said inlet or waterway ... or necessary to maintain a sufficient depth of water in said Jupiter River." Section 9, Ch. 8910, Laws of Florida (1921). The district's powers further include the authority to: "Construct and maintain canals, ditches, revetments, jetties and other works," construct bridges, roads, acquire property, and construct and maintain "docks, wharves, buildings and other improvements upon any of the properties which may be acquired by virtue of this act." Id. It is not a port authority as defined in Section 315.02(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The Legislature revised the District's enabling legislation in 1979. That statute contains a finding that the District is "a responsible local agency, entrusted by statute with maintenance of certain waters of the State within its territorial boundaries." Section 1, Ch. 79-532, Laws of Florida. The Legislature then required the Department of Environmental Regulation to seek and take into account recommendations or suggestions by the governing board of the Jupiter Inlet District on any applications for permits for activities in the waters within the Jupiter Inlet District. The territorial boundaries of the district overlap and include a portion of the Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve. The Loxahatchee River was formerly known as the Jupiter River. Before 1980, the Board of Commissioners of the Jupiter Inlet District constructed navigation channels and performed other dredging within the boundaries of the Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve. The district is applicant for consent for use of sovereignty lands to dredge a new channel in a portion of the Loxahatchee River located within the preserve. The Florida Aquatic Preserve Act was adopted in 1975. It directs that state-owned submerged lands in areas which have exceptional biological, aesthetic and scientific value be set aside forever as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries. Section 258.36, Florida Statutes (1985). The Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve is created in Section 258.39(10), Florida Statutes (1985). Under Section 258.40(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the following areas are excluded from aquatic preserves: "Any publicly owned and maintained navigation channel or other public works project authorized by the United States Congress designed to maintain or improve commerce and navigation shall be deemed excluded from the aquatic preserves established under this act." The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is charged with the maintenance of aquatic preserves. Under Section 258.42(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), the trustees are instructed that: "No further dredging or filling of submerged lands shall be approved by the trustees except the following activities may be authorized pursuant to a permit: Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may be authorized for public navigation project.... 4. Such other maintenance dredging as may be required for existing navigation channels. " The Board of Trustees is empowered by Section 258.43, Florida Statutes (1985), to enact: "[R]easonable rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this act and specifically to provide regulation of human activity within the preserve in such a manner as not to unreasonably interfere with lawful and traditional public uses of the preserve, such as sport and commercial fishing, boating and swimming." The Legislature also authorized the trustees to permit other activities in aquatic preserves, stating: "Reasonable improvement for ingress and egress, mosquito control, shore protection, public utility expansion, surface water drainage, installation and maintenance of oil and gas transportation facilities, and similar purposes may be permitted by the trustees subject to the provisions of any other applicable laws under the jurisdiction of other agencies." Section 258.44, Florida Statutes (1985). There are numerous special act inlet districts in Florida, e.g. St. Lucie Inlet District and Port Authority created by Ch. 9631, Laws of Florida (1923); Lake Worth Inlet District (now the Port of Palm Beach District) created by Ch. 7081, Laws of Florida (1915); Daytona, New Smyrna Inlet District created by Ch. 14503, Laws of Florida (1929); Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port district created by Ch. 21614, Laws of Florida (1941); Port Orange Special Road and Bridge Inlet District created by Ch. 13492, Laws of Florida (1927); Vero Beach Inlet District created by Ch. 11263, Laws of Florida (1925); Sebastian Inlet District created by Ch. 78-440, Laws of Florida; Hillsborough Inlet Improvement and Maintenance District created by Ch. 73-422, Laws of Florida; and South Lake Worth Inlet District created by Ch. 7080, Laws of Florida (1915). Each district has been subject to special acts amending its organic legislation. The Board of Commissioners of the Jupiter Inlet District filed a petition with the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to Section 120.54(5), Florida Statutes (1985), seeking amendment of the rule at issue here to include in the definition of public navigation projects not only those authorized and funded by Congress and by port authorities, but also those of special districts. That petition was assigned Case No. 86-001 and was denied by the Department of Natural Resources in an Amended Final Order entered August 28, 1986, introduced into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. No evidence was taken in that proceeding. The Amended Final Order consists mostly of the Department's explanation of why it does not believe amendment of the rule in the manner sought by the Jupiter Inlet District is appropriate. Except for the holding that the Department of Natural Resources will not institute proceedings to amend the rule defining public navigation projects, the Amended Final Order is entitled to little weight. For example, the statement in its Findings of Fact that the Jupiter Inlet District is not within the boundaries of the Loxahatchee Aquatic Preserve (see paragraphs 1 and 11) is simply wrong. There is no evidence that the Jupiter Inlet District operates any sort of port facility.
