Findings Of Fact On or about March 7, 1986, Petitioner submitted an application for a variance from the open space and rear set-back line requirements applicable to property located at 2612 U.S. 19 North, Clearwater, Florida. The subject property is zoned CC (commercial center). Petitioner's application requests a variance to provide 12.33% open space instead of 25%, and to construct a building 30 feet from the rear property line rather than 50 feet as required by the Land Development Code for property zoned CC. On or about April 24, 1986, the Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's application for a variance, and Petitioner timely appealed on May 6, 1986. The only evidence in support of its application offered by Petitioner was the testimony of Robby Tompkins. He testified that Petitioner's application is "unique" because Petitioner was 90% complete with its architectural plans for the renovation and modernization of the subject property when the current ordinance took effect, and Petitioner therefore urges that the current ordinance should not apply. Additionally, Petitioner argues that there will be no injury to the public as a result of the variance, and in fact the project will add 6800 square feet to its shopping center. Tompkins admitted that an increase in financial return was the primary reason Petitioner has sought the variance. Finally, he stated that if Petitioner complies with the 25% open space requirement, there will not be enough parking to meet Code provisions, and if sufficient parking is provided, there will not 25% open space.
The Issue This proceeding concerns an Intent to Issue a dredge and fill permit given by the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") to Respondent, Edmund Burke ("Burke"), for construction of a retaining wall and wooden pile-supported bridge crossing a portion of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida. The ultimate issues for determination are whether Petitioner has standing to challenge the proposed DER action, and if so, whether the proposed agency action complies with the requirements of Sections 403.91 through 403.938, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edmund Burke, on January 15, 1988, filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") application number 431441608 for a permit to construct a permanent, pile supported, wooden bridge approximately 80 feet long and 10 feet wide connecting the mainland with an island in the South Fork of the St. Lucie River in Martin County, Florida. The bridge was to span a 50 foot canal or creek ("channel") in the River. One of two retaining walls was to be located on the mainland peninsula. The other retaining wall was to be located on the island (the "initial project"). Between January 15, 1988, and April 28, 1989, the initial project was modified by Respondent, Burke, to satisfy DER concerns over potential impacts, including secondary impacts, relevant to the application. The width of the bridge was reduced from 10 feet to 6 feet. The retaining wall initially planned at the point where the bridge intersects the island was eliminated. The retaining wall on the mainland side of the bridge was relocated above mean high water. Sixty feet of the proposed bridge runs from mean high water to mean high water. An additional 10 feet on each end of the bridge is located above mean high water. The project remained a permanent, pile supported, wooden bridge (the "modified project"). The Intent to Issue, dated April 28, 1989, indicated that the modifications required by DER had been made, that the modifications satisfied DER concerns relevant to the initial project, and that DER intended to issue a permit for construction of the modified project. The elimination of the retaining wall obviated any necessity for backfill on the island. The reduction in the width of the bridge virtually eliminated the secondary impacts on the surrounding habitat, resulted in less shading of the water, and precluded vehicular traffic over the bridge. The final modification that was "necessary in order for [DER] to approve this application" was the reduction in the width of the bridge from 10 feet to 6 feet. Petitioner's Exhibit 17. DER's requirement for this final modification was communicated to Mr. Cangianelli in a telephone conversation on April 6, 1989 (Petitioner's Exhibit 18), and memorialized in a letter to Respondent, Burke, on April 14, 1989 (Petitioner's Exhibit 17). The final modification was made, and the Intent to Issue was written on April 28, 1989. Petitioner's Case. Property commonly known as Harbor Estates is adjacent to the site of the modified project. A constructed harbor and contiguous park are located within the boundaries of Harbor Estates. Both are used by residents of Harbor Estates and both are proximate to the site of the modified project. The harbor entrance and site of the modified project are located on opposite sides of a peninsula approximately 40 feet wide and approximately 125 feet long. Boats operated by residents of Harbor Estates that can navigate under the modified project need only travel the length of the peninsula, a distance of approximately 125 feet through the channel, in order to reach the harbor entrance. Boats operated by residents of Harbor Estates that cannot navigate under the proposed bridge must travel around the island, a distance of approximately 1800 feet in the main body of the St. Lucie River, in order to reach the harbor entrance. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that prior to the construction of the bridge the channel was navigable by boats not capable of passing under the bridge after the bridge was completed. Petitioner, Harbor Estates Associates, Inc., submitted no evidence to show facts necessary to sustain the pleadings in the Petition concerning the inadequacy of modifications required by DER. Of Petitioner's 26 exhibits, Exhibits 1-19, 24 and 25 were relevant to the initial project but were not material to claims in the Petition concerning the inadequacy of the modifications required by DER. Petitioner's Exhibit 20 was cumulative of DER's Exhibit 6B. Petitioner's Exhibits 22 and 26, respectively, concern a 1980 bridge permit and a Proposed Comprehensive Growth Management Plan for Martin County, Florida. Petitioner offered no expert testimony in support of the pleadings in the Petition including assertions that: the modified project will have a direct adverse impact upon water quality and the welfare or property of others; the channel is navigable by deep-draft motor vessels; the modified project will result in shoaling that will have to be corrected at the expense of Harbor Estates; the modified project will result in prohibited destruction of mangroves; or that the modified project will cause any of the other specific adverse effects described in the Petition. The testimony of fact witnesses called by Petitioner was not material to Petitioner's claims that modifications required by DER were inadequate. The testimony of Bob Nicholas was relevant to allegations of prior violations but was not dispositive of any issue concerning the adequacy of modifications required by DER. The testimony of William Burr was admitted as rebuttal testimony relevant to precedents in the general area of the modified project but failed to address the adequacy of modifications required by DER. Petitioner consistently demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the applicable law, the proper scope of the formal hearing, and the distinction between argument and evidence. Petitioner repeatedly attempted to establish violations of laws not relevant to the proceeding including local laws and other environmental laws. Petitioner attempted to establish issues by arguing with witnesses during direct and cross examination, and by repeatedly making unsworn ore tenus representations of fact. There was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact in this proceeding because Petitioner failed to show facts necessary to sustain the pleadings. Petitioner presented no evidence refuting Respondent, Burke's, showing that the modifications required by DER were adequate to assure water quality and the public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others. Evidence presented by Petitioner was not material to the issue of whether the modifications required by DER were adequate for the purposes of the law applicable to this proceeding. Therefore, Petitioner participated in this proceeding for a frivolous purpose, primarily to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or approval of the proposed activity. Respondents' Case. The island to be accessed by the modified project is approximately 2.5 acres in area and contains mostly wetland. The island is approximately 900 feet long. The portion of the island that is beyond DER permit jurisdiction is less than 200 feet long and less than 50 feet wide. The site of the modified project is located in Class III waters. Respondent, Burke, provided adequate assurances that portions of the modified project not extending over open water will be constructed upon property owned by him. The single retaining wall to be constructed at the southeastern terminus of the modified project will be constructed landward of DER jurisdiction. The modified project permits neither the installation of water or electrical conduits to the island nor any excavation, filling, or construction on the island. Respondent, Burke, must provide notification to DER before any such activity is begun. The bridge will accommodate no vehicular traffic larger or heavier than a golf cart. Golf cart access is necessary in order to accommodate a physical disability of Respondent, Burke. The modified project employs adequate methods to control turbidity, limit mangrove alteration on the island, and limit potential collisions with manatees. Vegetation, including mangroves, will not be removed. Incidental, selective trimming of vegetation will be allowed to create access to the island. The single retaining wall to be constructed on the mainland will be located landward of mangroves. Turbidity curtains will be used during construction to minimize short term water quality impacts. The modified project requires turbidity screens to be installed if there is any indication of sedimentation. No mechanical equipment will be located on the island during construction. No boats will be moored at the site of the modified project. The modified project will cause no significant downstream shoaling or silting. The site of the modified project is located approximately 15 feet from an existing fishing platform. No significant shoaling has been associated with that platform. The impacts associated with the modified project are similar to the impacts associated with single family docks in the area. No significant shoaling has been associated with such docks. The modified project is not a navigational hazard. The elevation is sufficient to accommodate small boats, canoes, and row boats. Reflective devices are required to alert night boat traffic of its presence. There is adequate clearance under the bridge to prevent obstruction. DER reviewed all applicable rules and criteria in considering the modified project. The modified project will have no adverse effect upon public health, safety or welfare, or the property of others. The modified project will not adversely impact the conservation of fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The modified project will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The modified project will not adversely impact fishing value or marine productivity in the area. The modified project will have no adverse impact upon recreational values in the vicinity. The modified project was reviewed in a manner that is customary for similar projects reviewed by DER. It is common practice for DER employees, as they did in this case, to rely upon opinions of other DER professionals in formulating an intent to issue. Other projects within DER jurisdiction in the general geographic area of the modified project and within the same region were considered in DER's review process. Other docks and marinas have been constructed and are proposed for construction within the South Fork of the St. Lucie River. Bridges including pedestrian bridges have been and are proposed to be constructed in Martin County. DER did not require a hydrographic study because the modified project was considered a minor project. DER review took into account the intended future use of the island property and DER's past experience with Respondent, Burke. As part of its review, DER reviewed a conceptual bridge to a single family residence on the island which would not require any fill or construction of retaining walls. In addition, DER considered previous violations on the island under Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.070, 17-4.160, and 17-4.530 in connection with an earlier permit that expired before the initial project was begun. Respondent, Burke, provided reasonable assurances that he is the owner of the site of the proposed project. Respondent, Burke, signed DER's property ownership affidavit and submitted a survey. DER's Intent to Issue does not authorize any construction in any area within the jurisdiction of DER other than the modified project. The Intent to Issue constitutes compliance with state water quality standards. DER has not received any requests for a jurisdictional determination in the general geographic area of the modified project. No enforcement action has been initiated by DER or at the request of a third party against Respondent, Burke, for alleged violations of DER rules.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order on the merits issuing the requested permit and awarding reasonable attorney's fees and costs in accordance with this Recommended Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of April, 1990. DANIEL MANRY 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 4th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Although most of Petitioner's proposed findings were cast in the form of "fact", they were in substance argument and rejected accordingly. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Included in part in Finding 1 Findings as to ownership are rejected as beyond the jurisdiction of the undersigned. Finding as to the late filed exhibit is rejected as irrelevant. 2-4, 10-12, Rejected as either irrelevant 16, or not supported by the record. 5 and 6, 37, 40 Rejected as unsupported by 42 the record. 7, 8, 15 Rejected as irrelevant 17, 21-29 and immaterial 9, 13, 14, 18-20 Rejected as immaterial 30-33, 35 and 36 37(a), 38, 39, 41, 48 20(A) Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial except the last sentence is included in Finding 13 34 Included in Finding 12 Rejected as not supported by the record, hypothetical and immaterial. Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent, Burke, has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Respondent. Burke's, Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 15 and 16 Included in Finding 1 17, 26, 27 Included in Finding 2 18, 48 Included in Findings 15 and 16 19, 30, 31, 42 Included in Finding 13 20, 21, 44 Included in Findings 4 and 14 22, 23, 25, 32 Included in Finding 17 24 Included in Finding 16 25, 36-38 Included in Finding 17 Included in Finding 18 Included in Finding 3 Included in Finding 10 Included in Finding 19 35, 39, 43 Included in Finding 20 40, 41 Included in Finding 11 45-47 and 49 Included in Finding 16 51 and 52 Included in Findings 6-8 54 Included in Finding 5 and 8 50 and 53 Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Respondent, DER, has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 and 2 Included in Findings 1 and 2 3 Included in Finding 10 4 and 5 Included in Finding 16 6, 9 Included in Finding 2 7 and 8 Included in Findings 9 and 11 10 Included in Finding 13 11 Included in Finding 15 Included in Finding 17 and 14 Included in Finding 16 COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Patricia E. Comer Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Patricia V. Bartell Qualified Representative 615 S.W. St. Lucie Street Stuart, FL 34997 J. A. Jurgens Jones, Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Findings Of Fact Respondent Felo McAllister and his wife Dorothy own a home and dock on Texar Bayou off Escambia Bay in Pensacola, Florida. A storm sewer with a diameter of 15 to 18 inches empties into the Bayou near the dock. The silt- laden outflow from the storm sewer has resulted in a sand bar or berm two or three feet wide paralleling the shoreline from the McAllisters' property line to the dock. This sand bar separates a ditch caused by the outflow from Texar Bayou. Over the years, silt has accumulated underneath the dock. The McAllisters originally applied for a permit to dredge boat slips at the dock. Andrew Feinstein, an environmental specialist II in respondent Department's employ, evaluated the original application and recommended denial, because he felt extending the dock was preferable to dredging. The McAllisters then modified their application so as to seek a permit for dredging at the mouth of the storm sewer in order that the silt already deposited there would not wash underneath the dock. Mr. Feinstein and Michael Clark Applegate, an environmental specialist III and dredge and field supervisor employed by the Department, testified without contradiction that the Department has reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not violate any applicable rules. The permit DER proposes to issue contemplates that the berm will not be breached. The bottom on which the dredging is proposed to take place belongs to the City of Pensacola. Although under water, it is a part of a dedicated roadway. The City itself does maintenance dredging to ensure the efficiency of storm sewers, but is glad for assistance from private citizens in this regard. J. Felix, City Engineer for Pensacola, is authorized allow dredging on this road right of way, and has done so. See also respondent's exhibit No. 2. The site proposed for placement of the spoil is a low area affected by flooding. Fill there would affect drainage onto neighbors' property.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent DER issue respondent McAllister the permit it proposed to issue in its letter of September 14, 1979, upon condition that the spoil be placed at least 100 feet from the water's edge. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Hyde, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Larry Jay Sauls and Ms. Harriett Tinsley Sauls 14 West Jordan Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Felo McAllister 2706 Blackshear Pensacola, Florida 32503
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a variance to permit an onsite treatment and disposal system should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The lot of land for which the Bank seeks a variance for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is located at 341 Compass Lake Drive in Jackson County, Florida. The lot is approximately 40 feet wide and 300 feet deep, with approximately 40 feet of frontage on Compass Lake. Prior to its severance in 2010, the lot was part of a larger parcel of land with an address of 343 Compass Drive in Jackson County. The larger parcel was owned by Charles Paulk and had substantial improvements consisting of a house, boathouse, and dock. In 2004, Mr. Paulk borrowed money from the Bank and gave the Bank a mortgage lien on the entire larger parcel to secure the loan. At some point, a survey was prepared which subdivided the larger parcel into two lots -- the first containing the substantial improvements, and the other consisting of the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot lot at issue, which is .28 acres in size, with no improvements. There is no indication that the survey was ever recorded in the public records. Later, in 2010, Mr. Paulk decided to sell the lot with the substantial improvements for $330,000. Because the Bank had a lien on the entire larger parcel, Mr. Paulk requested that the Bank release its lien on the lot with the substantial improvements. The Bank agreed to release its lien on the lot with substantial improvements and, after receiving what the Bank felt was a “sufficient pay-down” on the loan, shifted its lien to the smaller, unimproved lot that is at issue in this case. The sale and release of lien transaction “substantially reduced the loan versus the collateral value” that the Bank previously had. According to the Bank’s Senior Vice President, James Goodson, after the sale transaction, there was “not a lot of money left on the loan ” Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot and shift its lien to the remaining unimproved lot, it was unaware that a variance would be required for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system (septic tank) on the unimproved lot. The facts as outlined above, however, demonstrate that the Bank was an active participant and beneficiary of the transaction that ultimately resulted in the creation of the two lots, one of which was the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot unimproved lot at issue in this case. In 2012, Mr. Paulk experienced financial problems and was having difficulty paying back the loan to the Bank secured by the unimproved lot. Because it was easier than foreclosure, the Bank agreed to take a deed to the unimproved lot in lieu of foreclosure.1/ At the time of the Bank’s release of lien in 2010, as well as at the time of the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the 40- foot by 300-foot lot size of the unimproved lot was too small to meet the statutory requirements for a septic permit. Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank accepted the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Bank was aware that the lot was too small and would need a variance for a septic tank. He did not explain, however, why the Bank had earlier been unaware of the need for a variance when it agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot in 2010. After the Bank acquired title to the unimproved lot, a third party offered to purchase it on the condition that the Bank could obtain a permit. The Bank went to Jackson County to request a permit, knowing that its request would be denied because the lot size was insufficient for a septic tank without a variance. Nevertheless, the Bank believed that it would qualify for a variance on hardship grounds because it did not “intentionally” create the hardship. The Bank commenced the permitting process by submitting an application with the Jackson County Health Department on October 4, 2012. The County denied the application on the grounds that the lot was deficient in width and total area. Next, the Bank submitted a request to the Department for a variance. The request was considered by the Department’s Variance Review and Advisory Committee (Committee) on December 6, 2012. The Committee has only recommending authority to the State Health Officer. In a four to three vote, the Committee recommended approval of a variance. The members voting against a recommendation for approval were representatives of the State Health Office, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the County Health Department. Eight objections from adjacent property owners were provided to the Committee’s review and consideration. After considering the facts, including the decision of the County Health Department, objections filed by adjacent property owners, actions taken by the Bank, and the recommendations of all the members of the Committee, Gerald Briggs, Bureau Chief for Onsite Sewage Programs for the Department of Health, made the Department’s preliminary decision that the Bank’s variance request should be denied, concluding, among other things, that “[a]ny perceived hardship that [the Bank] might experience as a result of the obligation to meet established standards comes about as a direct result of your own proposed action.” Likewise, considering the facts and evidence as presented in this case, the undersigned finds, as a matter of fact, that the Bank intentionally participated in and benefitted from the transaction that resulted in the hardship posed by the small lot size that it now owns and for which it seeks a variance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying SunSouth Bank’s application for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2014.
The Issue The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, is an active Florida, limited- liability corporation, and is the owner of submerged lands and adjacent upland property contiguous to Sarasota Bay. Petitioner is a closely held entity, the only members being Achim and Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including duties as a federally-approved state program for the implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, pursuant to authority conferred under section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota, City of Venice, Town of Longboat Key, and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) (collectively the “Applicants”) are responsible for certain existing stormwater point-source discharges to waters of the state from those portions of MS4 facilities owned or operated by one or more of the individual Applicants. The DEP issued a notice of proposed agency action to issue a renewal of an existing MS4 Permit to the Applicants. On January 30, 2013, Sarasota County arranged for the notice to be published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice provided as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Sarasota County, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34236 within its jurisdiction and including the following co- permittees: Florida Department of Transportation District One, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Sarasota, and City of Venice, for renewal of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] permit. Any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision of the Department may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.). The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station 35, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Petitions must be filed within fourteen days of publication of this public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition [or a request for mediation, as discussed below] within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person?s right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner, the Department Permit Number and the county in which the MS4 is located; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department?s action; A statement of how each petitioner?s substantial interests are affected by the Department?s action; A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; A statement of facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department?s action; A statement of which rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department?s action; and A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the final action of the Department may be different from the position taken by it in the notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the permit revision have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S. is not available for this proceeding. The permit application file and supporting data are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, at Department of Environmental Protection, NPDES Stormwater Section, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Room 560, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, phone number (850) 245-8430. Date of pub. January 30, 2013. Because a portion of the Town of Longboat Key extends into Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key arranged for the notice to be published in the Bradenton Herald, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Manatee County. The notice was published on February 4, 2013. The substance of the notice, except for the date of publication, was identical to that published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Neither Petitioner, nor its representatives, saw either of the published notices prior to the filing of the Petition. On or about February 8, 2012, as a result of the filing of a pre-hearing stipulation in related litigation involving an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), Petitioner became aware of the existence of the MS4 Permit. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt obtained a copy of the permit online, and on February 12, 2013, sent an e-mail to employees of the DEP Ft. Myers? office expressing her general concern with water quality from the disputed stormwater outfall. She expressed her belief that Sarasota County was in violation of the existing MS4 permit, and requested that the recipients of her e-mail “[p]lease be so kind as to look into this matter and let us know what could be done to prevent this unacceptable condition to continue unchecked like it did in the past.” The e-mail did not request any information regarding the MS4 Permit renewal application, nor did it request any information regarding notices or deadlines related to the application. On February 13, 2013, Christopher Wright, a consultant for Petitioner, called the DEP to gather information and do some “legwork” related to Petitioner?s challenge to the SWFWMD?s ERP. The purpose of the call was to determine if information submitted to the DEP in conjunction with the MS4 application, particularly drainage basin maps, could have been of use in the SWFWMD litigation. Mr. Wright spoke with DEP employee, Heather Ritchie, regarding the drainage basin maps that had been submitted to the DEP. During the course of their discussion, Ms. Ritchie advised Mr. Wright that a Notice of Intent to issue the MS4 Permit had been issued by the DEP. However, Ms. Ritchie did not know when Sarasota County had published the notice or when the deadline for challenging the proposed agency action was to run. In short, Ms. Ritchie expressed to Mr. Wright that “she didn?t know what the status of things were.” The discussion then went back to the primary substance of the call, which was watersheds and discharge points. Ms. Ritchie agreed to provide Mr. Wright with an electronic copy of a drainage map from the MS4 Permit file. At 12:43 p.m., on February 13, 2013, Ms. Ritchie sent a map to Mr. Wright via e-mail, and indicated that “[i]f you have additional questions or comments, you may call or e-mail me.” Later on the afternoon of February 13, 2013, Mr. Wright decided that he should ask Ms. Ritchie for a copy of the Notice of Intent. At 5:59 p.m., on February 13, 2013, after the close of business for the day, Mr. Wright wrote to Ms. Ritchie thanking her for her “rapid response to my inquiry today,” and providing her with comments on various basin areas and discharge structures. Mr. Wright concluded his e-mail by stating that “at this time I would also like to request a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit.” The next morning, February 14, 2013, Ms. Ritchie provided Mr. Wright with the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit as requested. Later that morning, Mr. Wright inquired as to the time for filing a challenge to the permit. Ms. Ritchie replied at 2:34 p.m. that afternoon that the MS4 Permit “was publicly noticed by the county on January 30th with a 14 day window. The window closed yesterday.” There is no evidence that Ms. Ritchie had any specific information as to the date of publication or the deadline for filing a challenge prior to that communication with Mr. Wright. Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2013. The disputes identified in the Petition were directed exclusively at a 46-acre drainage basin in downtown Sarasota, and a related discharge structure that discharges stormwater from the basin to Sarasota Bay just south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Fruitville Road. The disputed basin and discharge point are located in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, issue a final order dismissing Petitioner?s Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for FLS000004-004 on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent, Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, should be issued water use permit 204387.03, to withdraw groundwater from the wells on its property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, District, was the state agency responsible for the permitting of consumptive water use within its area of geographical jurisdiction. The Respondent, Hi Hat, is a family owned farming and ranching operation in eastern Sarasota County with water wells on its property. The Intervenor, City of Sarasota, is a municipality in Sarasota County which operates wells in the general area of those operated by Hi Hat, and which has an agreement with Hi Hat for the latter's use of treated wastewater pumped from the city's treatment plant to Hi Hat Ranch. The Petitioner, Wyatt S. Bishop, Jr., is a property owner and resident of Sarasota County whose property is located near the Hi Hat Ranch, and whose potable water is drawn from a well on his property which utilizes both the surficial and intermediate aquifers which are penetrated by the wells on Hi Hat Ranch. Hi Hat Ranch consists of 11,000 acres owned by Hi Hat Cattle and Grove, the family owned business which operates it, and an additional 3,227 acres leased from the City of Sarasota. Agricultural operations, including citrus farming, truck farming, sod farming, and grazing have been conducted on the ranch since the mid 1940's. In February, 1990, Hi Hat applied to the District for a permit to withdraw and use water from some 14 wells located on its property. It requested an annual average of 6,267,000 gallons per day, (gpd), and a peak monthly rate of 32, 668,000 gpd. Upon receipt by the District, the application was assigned a number, (204387.03), and was submitted for evaluation by the District staff for conformity with applicable District rules and policies. When the staff evaluation was completed, the District issued a staff report and proposed staff agency action in which it indicated its intention to issue a permit authorizing water to be drawn from the wells at a rate of 6,570,000 gpd, average annual, a peak monthly rate of 14,300,000 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 5,210,000 gpd. In conducting its evaluation, the District staff relied upon the District's Basis of Review For Water Use Permit Applications which contains within it the provision for use of a "water use model" in assessing the need and appropriateness of water withdrawal amounts. This model, known as the Blaney- Criddle Model considers numerous factors in the evaluation, including rainfall, soil characteristics, irrigation methods used, and proposed crop types, all in an effort to determine a reasonable estimate of the applicant's supplemental water needs. Hi Hat's application was evaluated primarily by Marie Jackson, a Hydrologist III employed by the District, and an expert in hydrology, who has, over the years, reviewed between 350 and 400 permit applications, of which approximately 90 percent have been for agriculture. She is, therefore, quite familiar with the specifics of agricultural water use needs. Her evaluation of Hi Hat's application was done in the same manner as the others she has done and utilized the same tests, measurements and factors for consideration in arriving at her conclusion. In its application, a renewal with modification sought to increase average annual quantities due to a change in crop plans, Hi Hat indicated that its criteria for water use was based on certain agricultural uses and application rates. These included: low volume under tree spray irrigation of 778 acres of citrus at an application rate of 17.2 inches/year plus one inch/year for frost and freeze protection. open ditch irrigation of 135 acres of sod at an application rate of 30 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 1,367 acres of improved pasture at an average application rate of 26.6 inches/year. overhead spray irrigation of 1,200 acres of improved pasture at an application rate of 20.3 inches/year. open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of spring peppers at an application rate of 30.0 inches/crop, and open ditch irrigation of 110 acres of fall peppers at an application rate of 45.2 inches/crop. Applicant also stipulated that the peak monthly quantities that it requested would be utilized for pasture, sod and citrus irrigation during the month of May. The proposed maximum quantities were for frost and freeze protection of citrus only. In January, 1989, Hi Hat entered into a contract with the City of Sarasota under which the City was obligated to deliver reclaimed water from its wastewater treatment plant to a "header" located on the ranch which thereafter distributes the water through pipes to "turnouts" located at various high points on the property. From these, the water is then discharged into a system of ridges and furrows for distribution of the water across the needed area. The reclaimed water is used to irrigate approximately 5,403 acres of ranchland. The Contract provides for minimum and maximum amounts of water to be delivered as well as for water quality standards which must be met. In periods of adequate rainfall, when irrigation is not required, any treated wastewater which is not needed is stored in a 185 million gallon holding pond on City property located adjacent to the ranch. When needed, water can be fed into the wastewater distribution system described above from the holding pond. This reclaimed water, whether from the pond or direct from the header, can also be utilized to irrigate citrus crops, but this requires a filter system which has not yet been able to operate properly. Therefore, no reclaimed water has yet to be utilized for citrus irrigation on the ranch. At an average annual flow of 6.2 million gallons per day, the pond has the capacity to hold enough treated water for almost 30 days. Not all wells on Hi Hat Ranch are active wells. Several of the wells are classified as standby wells which are intended to be used only to back up the reclaimed water delivery system and are located, normally, beside the "turnouts." In the event the reclaimed water is not available from the city, the standby wells can be utilized to provide water to the ridge and furrow system used to irrigate pasture land. The standby wells are numbers 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 15. Well number 5, also identified as a standby well in the staff report and in the draft permit was mistakenly so identified. The draft permit contains several special conditions which impact on the drawing of water under the terms of the permit. Significant among these is Special Condition 33 which prohibits the withdrawal of water from any of the standby wells unless the reclaimed water supply from the city is interrupted. Special Condition 27 requires the installation of a flow meter on any standby well that becomes active as a result of permanent discontinuance of the reclaimed water supply. With regard to flow meters, Special Condition 22 requires flow meters on all of Hi Hat's wells. Ms. Jackson, however, indicated this was in error and has recommended that the standby wells be deleted from that Special Condition. When that is done, only those wells actively producing water on a regular basis would require the installation of flow meters. In its analysis of the application for permit, the District staff considered several factors pertinent to the impact the well would have on the water supply in the area and its effect on other users. These factors include hydrologic impacts, well condition, the history of water use at the ranch, the reliability of the reclaimed water system and its ability to provide a uniform source, and the city's water reuse policy. Addressing each individually, and starting with the hydrologic impact of the withdrawal of the requested amounts, the District considered the nature of the existing wells and how they are constructed and maintained. The District assumed, because the data regarding the construction of the existing wells was incomplete and insufficient to properly disclose the status of casing on each well, that they were shallow cased. As a result, the calculations incorporating this assumption indicate a situation that would occur in its most aggravated form. The parties agreed that Hi Hat's wells are shallow cased and probably go no deeper than 90 feet. To determine, as much as possible, the projected drawdowns in the surficial and intermediate aquifers that might be expected if Hi Hat withdrew the amounts of water proposed, the District utilized the "MODFLOW" computer model which factors in simultaneous peak withdrawals from all 14 of the wells along with a 90 day no rainfall drought condition. This, too, contributes to a worst case scenario, and the resultant figures are considered to be conservative estimates of the hydrologic impact of the water withdrawal. Notwithstanding, the application of this computer model resulted in the indication that, as to the surficial aquifer, the drawdown at Mr. Bishop's property located approximately one half mile from the ranch border, would be no more than .055 feet. Since normal fluctuations in the surficial aquifer during the course of the year can be as much as 6 feet, the projected drawdown as a result of Hi Hat's withdrawals was considered insignificant. Applying the same assumptions and utilizing the same computer model as it relates to the intermediate aquifer resulted in an indication of a drawdown of no more than 2.3 feet at Mr. Bishop's property. Since annual fluctuation in the intermediate aquifer can range from 15 to 20 feet normally, the District considers that any reduction of less than five feet in the intermediate aquifer is insignificant. The permit held by Hi hat currently allows for the withdrawal of more water than would be withdrawn under the proposed permit as conditioned and is consistent with the proposed reduction in allowable withdrawals. Considering that factor, as well as the prohibition against withdrawals from standby wells as long as reclaimed water is available, the actual impact of the water withdrawals consistent with the proposed permit would be substantially less than the computed prediction which includes production from all wells. Drawdown contours are defined across the entire effected area. One of the levels is a 4 foot contour, and when a computer simulation indicates that the 4 foot contour includes a withdrawal previously or otherwise permitted, the District will generally conduct a cumulative impact analysis. In this case, however, since there was only one golf course well within the area circumscribed by the 4 foot contour line, and since this withdrawal was too small to have effected an evaluation, it was not done. The condition of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch has some bearing on whether or not the application for additional withdrawal of water should be granted. These wells are almost 30 years old, having been drilled in the 1960's. As a result, there is little information available regarding their construction detail. This is not necessarily unusual for agricultural wells, and there is evidence that there are many similar wells in use within the District. The reason for this is that at the time the wells were drilled, information regarding their depth, casing and other matters were not required to be kept or reported. However, there is no indication the wells are in any way violative of well construction criteria and their use has been authorized continuously since 1977. When he prepared Hi Hat's application, Mr. Turner included much the same information regarding the wells as pertains as to depth and diameter which he had previously submitted in earlier applications and which had been accepted. In each case, casing depths had been reported as unknown. Notwithstanding the information contained in some old well logs relative to only a few of Hi Hat's wells, this information is in no way definitive and it is difficult to describe anything specific with the majority of these wells. Nonetheless, as already found, it is stipulated that most are approximately 90 feet deep. It is reasonable to assume that the existing wells, however, are cased only to a shallow depth, and that in many cases, the existing casings have corroded away, either totally or in part. This can cause an intermixing of water from the separate aquifers, but whether this is in fact happening depends upon factors specific to that particular well. Petitioner did not present any evidence to show that as a result of the condition of Hi Hat's wells, any degradation is occurring in the more potable, surficial aquifer as a result of intermixing with water from the intermediate aquifer on or around the Hi Hat Ranch. In Ms. Jackson's opinion, and there appears to be no evidence to contradict it, the amount of drawdown which would occur as a result of maximum pumping at Hi Hat Ranch would not be sufficient to cause poorer quality water from the Floridan aquifer to percolate upward (upcone) into the better quality water of the two upper aquifers even during drought conditions. By the same token, there is no evidence that drawdown would encourage or permit salt water intrusion. Petitioner attempted to show by the records kept on the various Hi Hat wells that many of them have been abandoned and are no longer operative and should not be allowed to fall within the parameters of this permit. He testified clearly that over the years, the level of water in his potable water well has lowered and presumed that this was the result of increased water usage by other entities which draw from the aquifer into which his well is sunk. Water level, however, depends upon numerous factors, of which usage is only one. Others include recharging of the aquifer and the amount of rainfall and other recharge sources not only in the immediate area but across the large area which feeds the aquifer. Mr. Bishop did not present any evidence showing a causal connection between the lowering of the water in his well, or the degradation in water quality he claims to have experienced, and either the drawdown caused by Hi Hat's operation or by aquifer intermixing. He indicated, and it is not disputed, that within the past year, he has had to take measures to improve the water quality in his potable well, but, again, he has not presented any evidence to show this was caused by Hi Hat's ground water withdrawals. In its long range planning, the District intends to implement a program to rehabilitate old wells, and when that program is implemented, almost every agricultural well within the District may require recasing or redrilling. This program will not be implemented for several years, however. In an effort, however, to insure that all reasonable precautions are taken to see that approval of any petition for withdrawal does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the water needs of the surrounding community, in its analysis of this application, and in all cases, the District makes certain assumptions when adequate empirical data is not available. In this case, pertaining to the unavailability of information regarding Hi Hat's wells, the District assumed that all wells were shallow cased, and this placed the application in the worst possible light. Shallow cased wells allow more upconing and aquifer intermixing. Nonetheless, the amount of water permitted to Hi Hat, even if not used, could impact on Mr. Bishop and other adjoining owner's use of additional water as a result of a possible change to their permitted quantities. However, to compensate for this, the District has also included a special condition, (#26), which requires Hi Hat to log all 14 of its wells within the term of the permit, (7 years), which will require at least 2 wells be done each year. The cost of that action will be between $800 and $2500 per well. Another condition, (#31), requires Hi Hat to look into any complaint from adjacent property owners regarding adverse impacts due to water withdrawal, to report the results of its inquiry to the District, and to mitigate, as much as possible, all adverse impacts due to its withdrawal. Mr. Bishop claimed, and introduced evidence purporting to demonstrate, that many of the wells on the Hi Hat Ranch, which are covered by the permit applied for here, are no longer in use and have been abandoned. In response, Mr. Turner, who has been actively engaged in the ranch's operations for at least the past four years, indicates from his personal knowledge, that all 14 wells included in the permit applied for have been operated within the past two years, and all are capable of producing water. It is so found. Not all wells, however, have been operated at all times. Crop rotation and a varying need for groundwater has resulted in some wells not being used at some times. This is, of course, commonplace in agriculture and to be expected as a result of crop planning programs. Admittedly, an accurate figure for the amount of water which has been withdrawn from the 14 wells cannot be established because these wells do not have, and were not required to have, flow meters. Two of the wells were fitted with hour meters in January, 1989, but because the capacity of the pumps on those wells is variable, a precise estimate of volume pumped cannot be determined. The meters measured only the number of hours the pumps were in operation and not the amount of water passed through the pumps. Evidence was presented, however, to show that wells have been utilized at the ranch since the 1960's, and in 1977, some 14 years ago, following District implementation of a consumptive water use permit program, the ranch first applied for water withdrawal permits. These permits have been renewed as required and all water usage since the implementation of the program has been permitted. Turning to the reclaimed water supply, the delivery system, incorporating a program to pump reclaimed water from the treatment plant all the way back out to the ranch site, is subject to material failure and operator error, and either one can occur at any number of places along the system route. Each could result in interruption of the delivery of the reclaimed water to the ranch. The system is far more complex than would be the use of on-site wells for delivery of ground water. One two week shutdown in the system was occasioned by a major pipe failure as a result of pressure building up in the pipes. Were it not for the fact that a contractor was already at the ranch with replacement parts on hand to effect expeditious repair of the system, the shutdown could have lasted considerably longer than it did. This is not the only interruption, however. Several main line leaks and valve problems have caused the system to be shut down on several occasions for short periods of time. The filter system required for the water destined for the citrus area is problematical, and so far this area of the ranch has not received any reclaimed water in the 10 months the system has been in operation. Mr. Bishop argues that the wet weather holding pond is a solution to the reliability problems with the pipe line, but the pond has had problems of its own. Sand in the water, which comes from the holding pond, has been the primary difficulty in the filter system for the citrus area, and algae growth in that pond has the potential to create other filter problems. Delivery of the water from the pond is not accomplished by a gravity system, but instead, requires the use of pumps powered by an electric motor. In the event of a power failure, this source would be unavailable. Discounting all of the above, however, and assuming, arguendo, that all systems were in top operating condition, the fact remains that the delivery system from the pond to the distribution system is not adequate to supply the amount of water that would be necessary to have an effective freeze protection program. In any case, the reclaimed water supply is not the panacea for all water shortage problems experienced at Hi Hat Ranch. In the first place, the quality of the reclaimed water is generally lower than that of the groundwater which would come from wells on the ranch. Also, the City's treatment process does not remove from the water all the pollutants that are of concern to the farm operators. For one thing, total dissolved solids in the reclaimed water are considerably higher than in the ground water, and high dissolved solid levels can be harmful to citrus crops. In fact, the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences recommends that citrus irrigation water not exceed total dissolved solid ranges of from 1000 to 1500 milligrams per liter, (mpl). Testing done on the reclaimed water delivered to Hi Hat Ranch showed it averaged between 1200 and 1500 mpl. Though within recommended parameters, it was toward the high end. Further, reclaimed water is not totally interchangeable with ground water for all agricultural purposes. It cannot, by law, be applied to certain types of ground crops such as melons, nor can it be used for overhead citrus irrigation. There is also a restriction on the use of reclaimed water for pastures on which dairy cattle will be grazed. This all results in a restriction on the options available to the farmer who chooses to use reclaimed water in his irrigation plan. As a result, many farmers try not to use reclaimed water if they have access to adequate amounts of groundwater from on- site wells. Notwithstanding all the above, the parties agree that the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposed is in the public interest. The District encourages it but nonetheless concedes that even with the availability of reclaimed water, a farmer should have access to wells on his property, in a standby capacity, as an alternative source of water to support his farming activities. Not only that, the agreement between the City and Hi Hat provides for Hi Hat to maintain its water use permit even while receiving reclaimed water from the City. Hi Hat is not the only farm operation with whom the City has negotiated in a effort to expand its wastewater distribution program. It has found in those negotiations, that most farm producers are not willing to rely totally on reclaimed water for all their irrigation needs, and it has concluded that were it mandatory that a farmer give up his on-site ground water withdrawals in order to utilize reclaimed water for a part of his needs, most would be reluctant to use it at all. This would seriously interfere with the City's ability to dispose of its surplus reclaimed water consistent with its policy. Even though Hi Hat's property lies within the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Cautionary Area, the rule pertaining thereto is inapplicable to Hi Hat because Hi Hat filed its application for permit, which was deemed complete, prior to the adoption of the rule. Nonetheless, water use officials agree that the proposed permit is consistent with the rule emphasis on the use and reuse of reclaimed water, and the District does not object to backup wells being permitted as supportive of the District's desire to keep ground water within the ground.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Hi Hat Cattle and Grove be issued water use permit No. 204387.03, within the limits of the authorized quantities as indicated in the intent to issue, subject to conditions contained therein; except that the permit be amended to show well No. 5 as a non-standby well, and to delete standby wells from the terms and requirements of Special Condition 22. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 17th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 11. Accepted. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. She testified that Condition 28 of the permit provides this. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 36. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence except that the method permitted was the method being used. - 40. Accepted. Ms. Jackson indicated she "assumed" some wells were drilled into the Florida aquifer. Rejected. Accepted as qualified by the comment, "depending on the respective potentiometric heads." - 47. Accepted. Accepted but incomplete. This is because they did not feel it was necessary under the circumstances. - 51. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Redundant. - 61. Accepted. - 66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. More a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact Accepted and incorporated herein. & 71. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 74. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Second portion rejected since cited case involves active wells versus standby, as here. The comparison made is accepted. The conclusion drawn as to validity is rejected. & 79. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENTS AND INTERVENOR: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 27. Accepted. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. - 33. Accepted and incorporated herein. 34. - 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38. Accepted. 39. Accepted. 40. - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein, & 45. Accepted. 46. & 47. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Wyatt S. Bishop 5153 Tucumcari Trail Sarasota, Florida 34241 Bram D.E. Canter, Esquire Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A. 306 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Barbara B. Levin, Esquire de la Parte & Gilbert 705 East Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations and special provisions set forth in the staff report (attached thereto). Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of November, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 3rd day of November, 1975. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Fury Management, Inc., is entitled to an environmental resource permit under chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ and a sovereignty submerged land lease under chapter 253, Florida Statutes, for a proposed project in the waters off the coast of Key West, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Last Stand is a corporation formed in 1987 to protect, promote, and preserve the quality of life in Key West and Monroe County "with an emphasis on the environment." Last Stand has 235 members. The president of Last Stand, Mark Songer, said that members use the "back country" area off Key West, which includes the proposed lease area, for boating, fishing, swimming, and bird watching. He was not specific about the number of members that do so. Petitioner George Hallorhan, a member of Last Stand, named nine members of Last Stand that use the back country area for recreational activities. Hallorhan is a natural person residing at 16B Hilton Haven Drive in Key West. Hallorhan has used the waters that include the proposed project site for sailing, fishing, boating, snorkeling, and nature observation. The Department is the state agency charged by statute with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in waters of the state. The Department has also been delegated authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") to review applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities that will preempt the use of sovereignty submerged lands. Fury is a Florida corporation that is in the "water attraction" business and has been operating in Key West for 17 years. It currently operates a recreational site similar to the proposed project nearby.2/ Fury owns no riparian uplands. The Affected Waters and Water Bottom The proposed lease area is approximately .6 miles offshore of Key West and is 17,206 square feet in size (0.39 acres).3/ The site is within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water. Outstanding Florida Waters are waters designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission as worthy of special protection because of their natural attributes. See § 403.061(27), Fla. Stat. The proposed lease area is close to the Key West National Wildlife Refuge. It lies between two shallow landforms known as Pearl Bank and Frankfurt Bank. The closest upland is Wisteria Island, which is undeveloped. The water depth at the site is about ten feet. The Department and Fury contend the bottom beneath the proposed floating structures is rocky and mostly denuded, with no seagrasses and only scattered sponges and octocorals (soft corals) that do not constitute a "benthic community." They found turtle grass growing between the denuded areas and beyond the project site. "Benthic communities" are defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(12) as areas where "associations of indigenous interdependent plants and animals occur," such as grass beds, algal beds, sponge beds, and octocoral patches. Petitioners' experts said there are seagrasses, octocorals, sponges, and algal species beneath the proposed structures that compose a benthic community. The marine biologists employed by the Department and Fury spent more time investigating the resources at the site than did Petitioners' biologists. In addition, Fury's consultants determined with greater precision the location of the benthic resources in relationship to the proposed floating structures than did Petitioners' consultants. The more persuasive evidence regarding the benthic resources and their locations was the evidence presented by the Department and Fury. The Proposed Activities Fury proposes to permanently moor a registered vessel consisting of two connected, floating platforms. It was sometimes referred to as a "barge." One floating platform would support up to ten jet skis, and the other would support up to ten kayaks. The structure would be used to moor the catamaran that brings customers to and from the site. There would also be three floating, inflatable water toys moored at the site: a trampoline, a climbing wall, and a slide. The area between the floating platforms and water toys would be roped-off to create a central swimming area. The platforms and the water toys would be secured to the water bottom with permanent anchors. The floating platforms would remain moored at the site (except when a hurricane is approaching), but the water toys, jet skis, and kayaks would be brought back to an upland location each night. The proposed project would be part of the "Fury Ultimate Adventure," a six-hour tour in which customers are taken to a reef for three hours in the morning to snorkel and, then, to the floating platforms for three hours in the afternoon to swim, ride jet skis and kayaks, and play on the water toys. Fury would provide an educational program for its customers to inform them about the importance of the marine environment, including seagrasses, mangroves, marine turtles, manatees, corals, whales, and fishes. Educational documents would also be made available to Fury's customers. Impact Assessment in General In assessing the potential impacts of the proposed project, consideration must be given to the fact that Fury currently operates the same activities only 500 feet away. The proposal is to move the activities to the new site where they will be subject to regulation for the first time. Fury's existing operations do not require an environment resource permit from the Department because Fury uses a structure that has been registered as a vessel and uses conventional anchors. Generally, vessel operation and mooring are not subject to Department regulation because they do not involve construction in waters of the state. Fury's existing operations do not require a lease from the Board of Trustees because the activities are being conducted over private water bottom, not sovereignty submerged land. There are two similar, competing operators near Wisteria Island. The competing operators do not have leases from the Board of Trustees or permits from the Department because they are operating as vessels, using conventional anchors, and moving every day. Fury's existing operations and the operations of its competitors are not subject to the conditions that can be imposed in a sovereignty submerged lands lease and environmental resource permit to protect the environment. Environmental Impacts The floating platforms and water toys would be secured to helical screw anchors installed into the bottom at locations where there are no seagrasses, sponges, or octocorals. The proposed anchors and anchor lines are designed to avoid the damage to seagrasses and other benthic resources often caused by conventional vessel anchors and chains that can drag across the bottom. The ten-foot water depth at the project site ensures that activities on the surface, such as boating and swimming, will not impact the bottom. The proposed project would cause some shading to submerged resources, but the shading would be minimal and would not cause the loss of seagrasses or other benthic resources. There would be no pollutant discharges associated with the proposed project. The catamaran that transports customers to the site has two Coast Guard-approved restrooms. The jet skis would not be fueled at the site. Fury is required to monitor water quality at two sampling sites, one within the lease area and a second 300 feet away to represent background conditions. Fury's operations would be subject to a sewage handling plan, a waste management plan, a fueling plan, and an emergency spill response plan that address these potential sources of environmental pollution. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission was informed of the proposed project, but made no objection to the Department. Navigational Impacts The proposed site lies between Pearl Bank and Frankfurt Bank, which are about 1,500 feet apart. The proposed project is 107 feet wide at its widest point, leaving adequate space for navigation around the anchored platforms and water toys. The water depth in the remaining space between the banks varies from six to 12 feet, which is sufficient water depth for the vessels that use the area. There are no marked channels in the area. Arnaud Girard, a salvage boat operator, said there is an unmarked "nine- foot" channel between the banks that is used by commercial and recreational boaters. Girard's testimony about boats using the nine-foot channel and why he opposes Fury's proposed project was confusing. Girard seemed to indicate, for example, that Fury's existing operation is a greater impediment to the use of the nine-foot channel than Fury's proposed project. Fury's customers would be using watercraft around the project site for only three hours each day. Only seven jet skis would be out at any one time, six ridden by customers and one ridden by a Fury safety guide. Fury would not be adding more jet skis into the area because jet skis are already using the area as part of Fury's existing operations. The jet ski-riding area would be marked off with four red buoys permanently anchored to the bottom. The guide would accompany the customers to the ride area to monitor the jet ski use and keep the customers inside the riding area. The riding area (about 19 acres) is not a part of the area to be leased. Other vessels are not excluded from the riding area. The floating platforms and water toys will have Coast Guard-approved lighting. The Coast Guard does not believe the structures would cause hazards to public safety or navigation if they are adequately lighted. It is in Fury's financial interest to provide safe navigation for its customers. Numerous live-aboard vessels anchor in these waters. Navigation in this area already requires a careful lookout for anchored obstacles. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the proposed activities would not create greater challenges for vessels attempting to navigate through the area or greater potential for collisions than exist currently. The proposed activities do not create a navigational hazard. Impacts to Public Use The proposed project would exclude the public from 17,206 square feet of sovereignty land, which takes into account the overlying floating platforms, moored catamaran, and floating water toys as well as the central swimming area. This exclusion would be offset in part by the public's access to the waters where Fury currently anchors its vessel and water toys. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the application and is satisfied that Fury's use of buoys to mark the jet ski-riding area will prevent jet skis from entering the wildlife refuge, where jet skis are prohibited. Aesthetic Impacts Petitioners contend that the aesthetic values of the proposed lease area would be significantly diminished. The assessment of aesthetic values is often subjective and, to avoid subjectivity, requires consideration of all vistas, human activities, and structures that make up the current aesthetics of the area. It is noted, for example, that Hallorhan testified that he does not visit the area anymore because of existing "jet skis and noise." See also Fury Exhibit 1. On this record, the evidence is insufficient to show that the existing aesthetic values in the area would be diminished by the proposed project. Secondary Impacts The proposed project would have minimal impact. There are few places in the general area with a hard bottom and no seagrasses or benthic communities that would be adversely affected, making it difficult for any future applicant to demonstrate minimal impact. Petitioners failed to prove that there would be significant secondary impacts associated with the proposed project that require denial of the environmental resource permit. Public Interest/Environmental Resource Permit To obtain a permit for construction activities in an Outstanding Florida Water, it is necessary to show that a proposed project would be "clearly in the public interest." Section 373.414(1)(a) directs the Department to consider and balance the following criteria as part of this determination: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. Fury's proposed activities would not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. The proposed activities would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed activities would not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The proposed activities would not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activities would be of a permanent nature. The proposed activities would not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activities would not be diminished. It is in the public interest to regulate Fury's activities, which are now unregulated. Fury's proposed project is clearly in the public interest. Mitigation Under section 373.414(1)(b), if an applicant cannot eliminate potential adverse impacts, the Department must consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects. Initially, the Department determined that all of the potential adverse impacts of Fury's proposed project would be remedied through avoidance and minimization, and, therefore, mitigation was not required. Later, "in an abundance of caution," the Department decided to require mitigation "to offset the minimal adverse impacts" which were identified as being associated with the screw anchors installed in the substrate and the permanent nature of the project. However, at the final hearing, Tim Rach, chief of the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources, said he did not think mitigation was needed. Fury proposes to pay $4,000 to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Foundation ("Foundation"), a 501(c)(3) corporation, for the Foundation's Key West mooring buoy program. Similar donations to benefit the buoy program have been accepted in the past by the Department as mitigation. The purpose of the mooring buoy program is to provide a place to moor vessels so that conventional vessel anchors do not have to be used. The buoys are permanently located near or above areas of coral reef or other sensitive benthic communities within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary to prevent damage by vessel anchors. Petitioners contend that Fury's proposed donation to the Foundation is unacceptable because it was not made for an "environmental creation, preservation, enhancement or restoration project" as required by section 373.414(1)(b)1. The Department considers the buoy program to be a preservation project because it preserves environmentally-sensitive benthic communities. Petitioners contend that the monetary donation is also improper because the buoy program is not an environmental project formally "endorsed" by the Department. The Department has accepted donations to the mooring buoy program several times in the past and states that it endorses the program as a preservation project. Public Interest/Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) requires that activities on sovereignty submerged lands not be contrary to the public interest. Rule 18-21.003(51) defines public interest in this context as: demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action. Therefore, to obtain authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands lease, an applicant must create a net public benefit. Regulating Fury's proposed activities by issuing the permit and lease creates a net public benefit because such regulation allows the Department to ensure that the currently- unregulated activities do not adversely affect environmental resources. Fury's proposed project would not affect any riparian rights. Traditional Recreational Uses Petitioners contend that the proposed project would conflict with rule 18-21.004(2)(a), which requires that all sovereignty lands "shall be managed in essentially their natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming." Petitioners assert that the proposed water toys are not traditional recreational uses that are allowed under this rule. Swimming is a traditional recreational use, as is the use of personal watercraft. Floating "waterparks" and inflatable water toys are recent and uncommon uses. Such uses, far from shore, are not traditional uses.4/ However, the rule also allows "[c]ompatible secondary purposes and uses which do not detract from or interfere with the primary purpose." The Department views Fury's primary uses as swimming and boating and the other uses as compatible secondary uses. Water-Dependent Activities Rule 18-21.004(1)(g) limits activities on sovereignty lands to "water dependent activities" unless the Board of Trustees determines that it is in the public interest to allow an exception as determined by a case-by-case evaluation. A water-dependent activity is defined in rule 18-21.003(71) to mean an activity that can only be conducted on, in or over water because it requires direct access to the water body. Inflatable water toys like the ones proposed by Fury are relatively new products, and the question whether they are water dependent has only recently been considered by the Department. The Department determined they are water dependent and has authorized two similar operations in other parts of the state. Petitioners claim that rock climbing, jumping on a trampoline, and sliding are not activities that require direct access to the water, and, therefore, the water toys are not water-dependant activities. It is an erroneous analysis to consider whether jumping, climbing, and sliding can also be done on land. These activities are transformed when the medium into which a person jumps, slides, or falls is water. Many people enjoy jumping, sliding, and falling into water. To experience this kind of recreation, one needs water. Past Violations Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(2), the Department must consider a permit applicant's past violation of any Department rules adopted pursuant to sections 403.91 through 403.929 or any District rules adopted pursuant to part IV, chapter 373. Petitioners contend that a 2009 Department enforcement case against Fury shows Fury is incapable of providing reasonable assurance that it will comply with all applicable permit requirements. The Department issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Fury on July 14, 2009, for "Unauthorized structures and activities on or over Sovereignty Lands," which was identified as a violation of section 253.77 and rule 18-21.004(1)(g). The NOV did not involve a violation of a rule adopted pursuant to chapters 403 or 373. Therefore, rule 40E-4.302(2) is inapplicable. There is no similar rule of the Board of Trustees that requires it to consider past violations of rules adopted pursuant to chapter 253 when reviewing an application to use sovereignty submerged lands. The enforcement case against Fury was satisfactorily resolved. The violation does not indicate that Fury should be refused a sovereignty submerged lands lease.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands be issued by the Department; The permit should direct that Fury's monetary donation for mitigation shall be paid to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Foundation for use in the Florida Keys Mooring Buoy Account 30.4.4.6.; and The lease should be modified to show the area to be leased is 17,206 square feet. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have an administrative penalty imposed, take corrective action, and pay investigative costs for allegedly maintaining a sewage treatment plant in violation of applicable rules and statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Since 1969, Respondent, an active Florida corporation, has owned and operated a relatively small mobile home park (with around 55 mobile homes) at Two Tropic Wind Drive, Port Orange, Florida, known as Double D Mobile Ranch. In conjunction with the mobile home park, Respondent owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant (facility) for its residents. The facility is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department. Respondent's president is John D'Hondt, who is the only certified operator for the facility. On June 8, 2001, a Department representative inspected Respondent's facility and noted that Respondent had violated a number of statutes and rules. In accordance with Department protocol, on September 26, 2001, the Department sent Mr. D'Hondt by certified mail a "Noncompliance Letter" (First Letter), which identified the various violations and requested that Respondent respond within 14 days with a schedule of corrective action. Mr. D'Hondt received the First Letter but did not file a response. On February 27, 2002, a Department representative conducted a routine follow-up inspection of the facility. Mr. D'Hondt was present during the inspection. During the course of the inspection, the representative noted the following violations, some of which were repeat violations from the earlier inspection: Count I. The logbook on-site was not bound with numbered pages, and it did not contain the signature of the operators, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 602.650(4). Count II. A copy of the operation and maintenance manual was not on-site, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.410(4)(f). Count III. A copy of the certified operator's license was not on site, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-620.350(8). Count IV. Respondent failed to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports from May 2001 through January 2002, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-601.300(1)(b). Count V. After effluent samples were collected and tested, the tests revealed that the Total Suspended Solids were 185 milligrams per Liter (mg/L), which exceed the permit limit of 60 mg/L for a single sample, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-600.740(1)(b)1.d. Count VI. Advisory signs were not posted at the facility indicating the nature of the project area, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-610.418(1) and 62-610.518(1). Count VII. The percolation pond located adjacent to the plant had less than one foot of freeboard, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-610.516. In addition to the foregoing charges, by its Count VIII, the Department seeks to recover investigative costs totaling not less than $750.00, which the Department claims were incurred during the investigation and processing of the Notice. On April 2, 2002, the Department sent Mr. D'Hondt by certified mail a second Noncompliance Letter (Second Letter) outlining the various violations and requesting that he respond within 14 days after receipt of the Second Letter with a schedule of corrective action. Although Mr. D'Hondt received the Second Letter around April 20, 2002, he failed to file a response. On July 1, 2002, the Department sent another letter (Third Letter) by certified mail to Mr. D'Hondt requesting a reply to the Second Letter previously sent in April. The Third Letter advised Mr. D'Hondt that if he wished to avoid an enforcement action, he should file a response within 7 days from receipt of the letter. Mr. D'Hondt received the Third Letter around July 20, 2002, but he failed to respond to either the Second or Third Letters. On January 15, 2003, the Department issued its Notice alleging that Respondent had violated various statutes and rules (as described in Finding of Fact 3) in seven respects. After an informal conference failed to resolve the matter, Respondent eventually filed an Amended Petition on February 18, 2004, contesting the validity of the charges. The Charges Because Respondent has acknowledged that the allegations in Counts I-VI are true, no further proof as to those matters is necessary. Accordingly, it is found that the charges in those Counts have been established. In Count VII, Respondent is charged with having "a freeboard of less than one (1) foot" in its percolation pond, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-610.516. ("Freeboard" refers to the area between the top of the water in the pond and the top of the surrounding berm.) Under that rule, "[p]ercolation ponds . . . shall be provided with an emergency discharge device to prevent water levels from rising closer than one foot from the top of the embankment or berm." This means that a facility operator must maintain at least one foot of separation between the water level in the treatment pond and the top of the berm. The purpose of maintaining this amount of separation is to prevent an overflow of treated liquids in the event of an extremely heavy rainfall or a catastrophic event. This is especially important here since Respondent's percolation pond (which is used to dispose of treated liquids from the facility) appears to be no more than 30 feet or so from several mobile homes. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Testimony by the Department inspector established that when the inspection occurred, there was less than one foot of separation on the right side of the pond, as corroborated by, and reflected in, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, a digital photograph of the pond taken during the inspection. Respondent's contention that a separation of at least one foot existed in the pond at the time of inspection has been considered and rejected in light of the credible contrary evidence. Therefore, the charge in Count VII has been established. The evidence supports a finding that the Department incurred at least $750.00 in investigative costs while conducting the inspection, performing tests, attempting to informally resolve the case, and issuing the Notice. This amount is based on the cost of the field and laboratory tests, the hourly compensation of the inspector, and the hourly compensation of the supervisor who reviewed the inspector's work. It also includes the time expended by Department personnel in attempting to informally resolve the matter and later issuing the NOV. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Therefore, the charges in Count VIII have been sustained. Under the statutory scheme in place, the violations in Counts I through VII call for an administrative penalty in the amount of $5,750.00. The derivation of this amount is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 7, which is a penalty computation worksheet. Mitigating Evidence Although he was given an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence at the final hearing, Mr. D'Hondt failed to present any evidence that the violations were caused by circumstances beyond his control or that they could not have been prevented by due diligence. While Mr. D'Hondt did testify at final hearing that he has reduced the occupancy rate in the mobile home park to 70 percent to satisfy Department flow capacity requirements, this by itself is insufficient to warrant a reduction in the penalty.
The Issue The issue is whether Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC (Vista), should be issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 04-2012-0013G authorizing the construction of an earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound stormwater runoff from a proposed commercial development in the City of DeFuniak Springs (City), Walton County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District has regulatory jurisdiction over the construction of certain types of impoundments within its boundaries. If an impoundment is at least ten feet high but less than 25 feet in height and has an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, a general permit is required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista, a limited liability corporation, owns an odd- shaped parcel in the City on which it intends to build a small commercial development consisting of a 17,000-square foot building, a parking lot, and related amenities. The vacant parcel abuts the north side of U.S. Highway 90 just east of 18th Street and is approximately 1.66 acres in size. The property is partially wooded and has a small wetland area on its northeastern corner. In conjunction with the proposed commercial development, Vista intends to construct an impoundment to control stormwater runoff from the project. Because the impoundment will be ten feet high and have an impounding capacity of at least 50 acre-feet, Vista is required to obtain a general permit. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.041(1). Vista filed a permit application with the District on June 8, 2012. On August 8, 2012, the District gave notice that it intended to issue a surface water management permit to Vista. The permit allows the construction of a stormwater retention basin. A mitigation plan for impacts to 0.23 acres of wetlands was also approved but is not at issue in this proceeding. As described in the District staff report, the project will encompass one earthen embankment dam and impoundment to impound the storm runoff. It will operate as a dry stormwater retention basin designed to impound water only during rainfall events. The facility will utilize a pipe and riser spillway system, and the basin outfall will be protected by a rip-rap lined plunge pool. Due to space restrictions, an engineered retaining wall will be incorporated into the embankment's north side slope. The stormwater will discharge through controlled overflow structures into a nearby wetland area that lies northeast of Vista's property and will then be integrated into an existing channel that eventually forms the headwaters of Sandy Creek to the north. Petitioner has resided on her property since around 1932. Her odd-shaped parcel, described as being between five and seven acres in size, lies immediately to the north of Vista's property. A small wetland is located on the southeastern corner of her property. The two parcels share a common boundary line, appearing to be no more than a hundred feet or so. Because the boundary line is lower than the highest part of each owner's property, a "trench" has formed along the line. Wabash Avenue, a platted but un-built roadway that begins on U.S. Highway 90, runs to the northwest through the wetland area and along the eastern boundaries of both properties. As alleged in the Second Amended Petition, Petitioner is concerned that the project will cause flooding on her property. In a broader sense, she appears to be opposed to any commercial development on Vista's property. The back side of the Vista parcel slopes downhill to a recessed area that is adjacent to both properties. Although some fill has already been placed on the property in preparation for the development, the applicant intends to add "a lot" more fill to the entire parcel to create a gradual slope down to the edge of Wabash Avenue. A basin or pond around 0.20 acres in size will be formed within the fill area and a retaining wall consisting of multiple segments will be constructed around the basin. The wall will be separated from Petitioner's property by a 20-foot buffer, while at its closest point the basin will be "35 feet or so" from her property line. The plans submitted by the applicant demonstrate that the system will be built in accordance with all District standards and should operate in a safe manner. Before construction can begin, the District must approve the retaining wall design specifications. During rain events, the first inch of water will be retained on site for treatment. Additional water will be stored in the basin and then slowly allowed to discharge from the basin into the wetlands. The point of discharge from the basin is at a location a minimum of 20 feet south and east of Petitioner's property line. To ensure that the retention system will not discharge runoff at a higher rate than was discharged before development, Vista performed hydrologic calculations demonstrating pre- and post-development runoff. According to accepted models developed by the United States Department of Agriculture and its predecessor, the Soil Conservation Service, the current peak runoff from the Vista property is 2.46 cubic feet per second (CFS) during a two-year, 24-hour storm event. After development, the volume of water will be reduced to 0.74 CFS. During a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, the volume of runoff post-development is anticipated to drop from 12.59 CFS to 6.51 CFS. Finally, during a 100-year, 24-hour storm event, post- development runoff will be slightly reduced from 19.64 CFS to 18.99 CFS. Therefore, as sited, sized, and designed, the project will reduce runoff during all anticipated storm events. The foregoing calculations were not credibly contradicted and satisfy the requirement that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause an increased flow such that it will endanger downstream property in times of flood with respect to state or frequency. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A-4.301(2)(f). They also confirm that water in the impoundment will not be raised to a level that could be harmful to the property of others. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40A- 4.301(2)(c). Thus, the potential for flooding on Petitioner's property will be reduced if the project is constructed as permitted. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently repairing the drainage system on U.S. Highway 90 in front of the Vista property. Stormwater from that project drains into the wetlands through an easement deeded to the City at the rear of the Vista property. Petitioner pointed out that after the DOT project began, and fill was added to the Vista property, she has experienced an increase in water on her property. Whether the DOT project is responsible in any way for this hydrologic change is not known. However, accepted testimony by two professional engineers supports a finding that Vista is not responsible for any hydrologic changes on Petitioner's property. Vista was not required to take into account any runoff from the DOT project in making its hydrologic calculations because the amount of runoff from its own property will actually be reduced by the retention system. At hearing, Petitioner contended that a fence she built on the common boundary line with Vista sometime after 1990 was illegally removed by Vista in order to construct the basin. According to Mr. George, who first surveyed the property line in 1990 and then surveyed it a second time a few years ago, the fence was built a few feet beyond Petitioner's property line and lies within the buffer zone between the basin and her property. Petitioner argues that even if this is true, the doctrine of adverse possession applies and she is now the owner of the property on which the fence was built. This type of dispute, however, can only be resolved in circuit court, and not in an administrative forum. See § 26.012(2)(g), Fla. Stat. The District has examined the property records and is satisfied that Vista has ownership of the property on which the impoundment will be built. Notably, the basin will not be located within the 20-foot buffer where the fence once stood and which is dedicated to the City as an easement. Finally, through cross-examination at hearing, Petitioner suggested that any project designed by humans carries with it the remote possibility that it will fail and create a catastrophic situation on her property. In the unlikely event that the design and operation of the retention basin threaten the safety of adjoining property owners, section 373.429 and rule 40A-1.205 enable the District to revoke, suspend, or modify a permit to protect the safety of others.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Northwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 04-2012-0013G to Vista. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathon Steverson, Executive Director Northwest Florida Water Management District 152 Water Management Drive Havana, Florida 32333-4712 Helen J. Crenshaw 61 North 18th Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-9547 Kevin X. Crowley, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 James Busby Vista of Fort Walton Beach, LLC Post Office Box 760 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32549-0760
