Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On March 26, 1991 Venice applied to the Department for a CCCL permit to construct a 475 foot wooden retaining wall seaward of the coastal construction control line and to place a shell road immediately adjacent to, and landward of, the retaining wall from approximately 100 feet south of Granada Avenue to approximately 50 feet south of Ocala Street on Venice's right-of-way of The Esplanade in Venice, Florida. The Petitioners Roy B. and Patricia B. Olsen are residents of Venice, Florida and reside at 304 Ocala Street. They own Lot 1, The Esplanade, which is immediately east and south of the southern terminus of the proposed retaining wall. Petitioner, Nina Howard is a resident of Venice, Florida and resides at 721 Ocala Street. Ms. Howard's residence is located to the south and across Ocala Street from the site of the proposed retaining wall. Intervenors, Roger and Irene Fraley are residents of Venice, Florida and reside at 221 The Esplanade South, which is immediately landward (east) of the site of the proposed retaining wall. Intervenors, Howard and Evelyn Barbig are residents of Milton, Florida but are owners of lot 4, The Esplanade South, located north of the Fraleys' property and immediately landward (east) of the site of the proposed retaining wall. The Petitioners oppose the granting of the CCCL permit. The Petitioners have expressed their opposition to the granting of the CCCL permit based upon their belief that the construction of the proposed retaining wall will have adverse impacts to the beach dune areas and to the adjacent properties. Specifically, it is their belief that the construction of the proposed retaining wall will accelerate the erosion of the beach dune areas and the adjacent properties. The Petitioners disagree with the conclusion reached by the Department in the final order that, "the activities indicated in the project description are of such a nature that they will result in no significant adverse impacts to the beach dune areas or to the adjacent properties." Intervenors, Fraley and Barbig are in favor of the issuance of the CCCL permit because it will prevent seasonal erosion which results in exposure of, and damage to, the sewer line along The Esplanade, and will provide public access over the shell road within the right-of-way of The Esplanade for those properties between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street that do not have public access from time to time due to the seasonal erosion. On April 17, 1991 the Department advised Venice that the CCCL permit application was determined to be incomplete, and advised Venice of those things needed to make the application complete. Subsequent to this letter, the Department determined that, although the application was not an emergency, it did deserve "fast tracking", and assisted Venice in bringing the application to a "complete" status. On April 25, 1991 the Department issued a Final Order administratively approving CCCL permit number ST-820 for the construction of a wooden retaining wall and shell access road as described in Venice's application. On April 26, 1991 the Department issued a Notice to Proceed Withheld to Venice, which advised Venice not commence construction of the project authorized by the permit until certain permit conditions had been met. This notice also gave notice to those whose substantial interests would be affected by the proposed project of their right to a formal hearing. An engineering assessment was made for this project, and although not a formal written engineering assessment, the engineering assessment did consider all conditions of adverse impacts. In making this assessment, the Department considered and reviewed available aerial photographs, photographs taken of the area of the proposed project site and erosion tables concerning the area. A formal written engineering assessment is not required by statute, rule or Department policy. This assessment also indicated that there are severe impacts due to winter storm events which contribute to the seasonal profile changes. The seasonal beach profile is depicted by the build up of the beach (sand) during the summer months and the removal (erosion) of beach (sand) during the winter months. However, due to an inlet, a major rock-out cropping and the rock grain structures located in the vicinity of the proposed site, there is a limitation on the natural movement of sand along the coast which prevents natural renourishment and results in severe erosion in the area of the proposed site during the winter months. This erosion during the winter months causes the sewer pipes along The Esplanade to be exposed and sometimes broken, and prevents access over the right-of-way of The Esplanade to certain properties located along The Esplanade between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street. The wooden retaining wall is designed to retain sand just landward of the wall and allow a shell access road to be placed on the right-of-way of The Esplanade. The wooden retaining wall will be constructed as follows: (a) 8" x 20' wooden piling will be placed on 6' center and driven to an approximate depth of -14.00 (NGVD); (b) 2" x 8" planking will be attached to the landward side of the piling from the top of the piling (+7.0 NGVD) to a depth of appropriate 7 feet (0.00 NGVD); (c) with a filter "x" cloth covering the planking on the landward side. At the time of the application, the existing beach was +5.0 (NGVD) which would leave approximately 2 feet of the retaining wall exposed on the seaward side. The purpose of the retaining wall is to protect the shoreline in the immediate vicinity of The Esplanade and thereby protect the sewer line and access road which are landward of the seaward (west) right-of-way line of The Esplanade. The proposed wooden retaining wall is to be located as far landward as possible, and will be the minimum size and configuration to protect the sewer line and the shell access road along The Esplanade right-of-way. The retaining wall is designed to be temporary in nature in that its design will not allow it to survive under a major storm event. In that regard, the retaining wall comes within the definition of a minor structure as defined by rule and does not require a formal written review. The access road will enable Venice to establish a public road on public right-of-way for ordinary and emergency utilization by the residents and Venice. Previous attempts by Venice to protect the sewer line by "shoring up" the area with sand bags have proven unsuccessful. A wooden retaining such as the one proposed would be the next logical step to prevent the exposure and damage to the sewer line and still be consistent with the coastal armoring policy adopted by the Governor and Cabinet in December 1990. Dr. Al Deveraux, Bureau Chief, Control Engineering, personally viewed the site prior to approval of the project and waived compliances with certain provisions of the application. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that: erosion is occurring in the area of the proposed site without the presence of the proposed retaining wall; without the proposed retaining wall, Venice will be unable to prevent that erosion, particularly during the winter storm events, which will result in exposure and damage to the sewer line and lack of public access to certain properties located along The Esplanade between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street; and upon construction of the retaining wall, the beach dune area and the adjacent properties to the south of the proposed project will experience some increase in erosion above that presently occurring, but it will be minimal and will not have a significant impact on the area. The application submitted by Venice was processed and approved in accordance with statutes, rules and Department policy. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that granting CCCL permit number ST-820 and constructing the retaining wall and access road as set forth in Venice's application would be in the best public interest. The Petitioners' expert witness on coastal engineering concluded that there would be substantial erosion of the beach dune area and adjacent properties south of the proposed retaining wall as a result of constructing the retaining wall. However, this conclusion was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Special permit condition 1 requires Venice to provide the Department with a Sea Turtle Protection Plan approved by the Florida Marine Research Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida. This special condition takes into account the Department's policy for the protection of sea turtles as described in Rule 16B-33.005(9), Florida Administrative Code. The project is consistent with the thirty-year erosion projection and is not located seaward of that line.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, accordingly recommended that the Department enter a Final Order issuing CCCL permit number ST-820 to the City of Venice, Florida subject to all the special conditions contained therein, and adding one other special condition requiring the City of Venice, Florida to monitor the beach dune system and adjacent properties south of the project site on a semi-annual basis for a period deemed necessary by the Department, and report any accelerated erosion that might occur in that area to the Department for review and action. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1988 Harry B. Williams made application to the Department of Natural Resources for permission to construct a single-family dwelling with appurtenant structures at 2831 Ponte Verda Boulevard South, South Ponte Verda Beach, Florida. The permit sought was a coastal construction control line permit which would allow construction seaward of that line in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of that permit application may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 2. Associated with the permit application was a description of the plans related to the dwelling and other structures. This application was received by the Department February 11, 1988. Following a review of the permit application the Department deemed it complete as of February 22, 1988. A site inspection was made of the property and a report was prepared by an employee with the Department, a Mr. Partel. The report may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 4, which includes photographs of the prospective building site, together with the surrounding property to include dwellings to the north and south of the lot where the Williams home would be built. As commented on by Mr. Partel the applicant had intended at that time to construct a single-family dwelling a maximum of 75 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although this evaluator, Mr. Partel, felt that the applicant had requested the right to construct a dwelling which was in line with existing construction, he felt that it could be moved further landward and that it could be limited in deck size and that a cantilevened form of construction was preferable to the concrete called for in the plans set out in the application information. It was also suggested that the sea oats that were in the way of the construction should be relocated seaward on a dune face slope where a denuded area is found. In this connection, the Department is empowered to make suggestions to the applicant concerning the minimization of the adverse impacts on the beach-dune system. Following the site visit of February 26, 1988 the Department wrote the applicant on March 11, 1988 and indicated concerns about the proximity of the dwelling to the crest of the dune. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 5. In the correspondence the Department asked the applicant to move the proposed dwelling 10 feet landward and that the 10 foot wide concrete patio, on the seaward side, be modified to a 10 foot wide wooden deck. The letter told the applicant that the approval would be conditioned on the sea oats and other dune grasses that would be disturbed by the proposed structures being replanted seaward of the project in the denuded areas of the dune. The applicant agreed to these changes. The relocation of the structure 10 feet landward took it away from the beach- dune system. The modified site plan that was brought about by the suggested changes is found Department's Exhibit Number 6, a copy of that amended site plan. With the relocation the construction would be 66 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. An aerial photograph of the site location reference the basic design of the dwelling and the proximity to the relevant or existing coastal construction control line is found as Department's Exhibit Number 3. In responding to the suggestions to the change in location the modified site plan which moved the dwelling 10 feet landward was received by the Department on August 1, 1988. Under this arrangement the applicant had agreed to waive the requirements of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes pertaining to the obligation by the Department to review and decide its action of grant or denial within 90 days of date of receipt of the application. With the changes being made to the location of the proposed dwelling and associated structures and the type of construction materials used in the patio on the seaward side, together with the relocation of the plant life, the impact on the beach-dune system and adjacent property is acceptable. There is no adverse impact on the beach-dune system or on the adjacent properties. The location of the proposed dwelling and its associated structures as it relates to the 30-year erosion projection under the terms of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, in this instance, shows that the dwelling would be approximately 55 feet landward of the 30-year erosion projection and not at risk. Calculations related to this finding may be found within Department's Exhibit Number 7. The existing coastal construction control line dates from January 28, 1988. Although the original application referred to the previous line of 1978 in describing the site plan and survey, the reason for this was that the site plan and survey were prepared prior to the establishment of the January 28, 1988 line, as allowed. In the course of the hearing appropriate reference was made to the January 28, 1988 line as it relates to the anticipated location of the dwelling and other structures as modified at the instigation of the Department. As contemplated by Section 161.053(5)(f), the Department required the applicant to provide mitigation of the- effects of the construction as a condition to a grant of the permit. Those permit conditions may be found in the Department's Exhibit Number 8, a copy of a proposed final order. Included within those would be the requirements for erection of a temporary construction fence on the site to protect existing native dune vegetation from the impacts of that construction, in addition to the requirement of the dune vegetation relocation. This would involve the irrigation and application of fertilizer to those plants with the expectation that a certain percentage would survive over time as described in this special condition. This project will not pose a hazard to the sea turtle and its hatchlings and habitat for the sea turtles and hatchlings. Ms. Butler, Petitioner in this cause, has a beach home which is north of the Williams property separated by a 10 foot easement between those properties. In mid July, 1988 Ms. Butler offered a written statement in opposition to the placement and size of the proposed dwelling together with other remarks and asked that the Department provide her information and documents pertaining to the application under the authority of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. On August 10, 1988 the Department dispatched a letter of inquiry to surrounding property owners to include Ms. Butler and solicited remarks concerning the Williams application to be provided on or about August 20, 1988. Ms. Butler had received certain documents from the Department concerning the application sometime in the middle of August 1988. On August 18, 1988 Butler made known her objection to the project on the grounds that the concerns about the 30-year erosion line and the size and placement of the dwelling. On September 2, 1988 the Department informed Ms. Butler of the intent to grant the permit to Mr. Williams. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5. This led to a timely request for hearing by Ms. Butler stating her opposition to this project. The request was received in accordance with the Department's advice that the request must be filed by September 26, 1988. Based upon the prehearing conference and the discussion of those issues which would be allowed for consideration as stated in the request for hearing and the statement of particulars that attend the request for hearing, commented on by the hearing officer at the commencement of the final hearing, and found within the transcript and further stated in the issues portion to this Recommended Order, this case has been carried forward. The presentation made by the Petitioner, after the Department and applicant had offered their cases, was through her testimony and that of employees of the Department together with exhibits she offered. The testimony of the Department employees concerned the procedural techniques that the agency pursued in reviewing the application at issue. Ms. Butler described her concern for her property, and the area between her property and the Williams property. This is the 10 foot easement area which is sparsely vegetated and low. As a consequence she was concerned that her property might be destroyed with the advent of the Williams construction. She has no expertise in her own right nor did she present expert opinion from other witnesses which would tend to bear out her concern. She also expressed the concern that the Williams home, in its dimensions, was too large and that it should be relocated an additional 10 feet back from the adjusted placement following the Department's criticism of the original application. In effect, she would have the house placed 20 feet away from the sea as compared to the original site plan submitted with the application on February 10, 1988. Again, there is no competent evidence presented which would support her theory that this further relocation was needed. Her expression of concern for the sea turtles and their hatchlings and habitat was not well founded. Turtles are known to nest on the sandy flat beach area and the construction of the Williams property will not interfere with that area adjacent to the ocean.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order which grants a coastal construction control line permit to Harry B. Williams, Jr., based upon his modified plan required by the Department and upon the special permit conditions announced in the proposed final order, a copy of which is found as Department's Exhibit Number 8. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 27th day of April, 1989.
The Issue Whether the permit application of Clifford S. and Maria Ray (the "Rays") meets the statutory and rule requirements for the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or the "Department") to issue to the Rays a permit to construct a multi- family dwelling and related structures seaward of the coastal construction control line ("CCCL") on their property in Brevard County?
Findings Of Fact Legislative Intent re: Beaches and Coastal Barrier Dunes The Legislature has declared that the beaches and the coastal barrier dunes in this state, subject by their nature to severe fluctuations, represent one of the most valuable resources of Florida. See § 161.053(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The Legislature has further declared that it is in the public interest to preserve and protect the beaches and dunes from imprudent construction because it can "jeopardize the stability of the beach-dune system, accelerate erosion, provide inadequate protection to upland structures, endanger adjacent properties, or interfere with public beach access." Id. The Legislature has therefore directed the Department of Environmental Protection "on a county basis along the sand beaches of the state fronting the Atlantic Ocean [and other salt water bodies]" to "establish coastal construction control lines." Id. The "Coastal Construction Control Line" A line of jurisdiction, rather than a line of prohibition, the Coastal Construction Control Line (the "CCCL or the "Control Line") is defined in Chapter 62B-331 of the Florida Administrative Code. The Control Line is: the line established pursuant to provisions of Section 161.053, F.S., and recorded in the official records of the county, which defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions. Fla. Admin. Code. R. 62B-33.002(12). The Department's Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems has regulatory authority to permit or deny construction seaward of the Control Line pursuant to statutory and rule criteria. This proceeding concerns the exercise of that authority in the form of issuance of a permit for activity seaward of the Control Line in Brevard County. Brevard County's Control Line The Control Line in Brevard County was established by the Department of Natural Resources, an agency of the state and a predecessor of DEP, in 1981 (the "1981 CCCL"). A second Control Line in Brevard County was established in 1986, again by the Department of Natural Resources. It is approximately 150 feet landward of the 1981 CCCL. It will be referred to in this order as "the CCCL" or "the Control Line." The line established in 1981 will be referred to as the "1981 CCCL," to distinguish it from the Control Line established in 1986, the Coastal Construction Control Line applicable to this proceeding. The Parties Mrs. Pope Petitioner, Carole C. Pope, owns with her husband James M. Pope, oceanfront property located at Wilson Avenue, Brevard County, Florida, where the Popes reside part time. The Popes' property has a Cocoa Beach mailing address, but is not within the city limits of Cocoa Beach. Littoral to the Atlantic Ocean, the Popes' property was identified in the pre-hearing stipulation in the Rule-related Cases (discussed in this Order's Preliminary Statement) as "Lot 11, Block 101, Avon by the Sea as described in Plat Book 3, page 7 [presumably the Official Records of Brevard County] and east to Ocean, except the west 13 feet of Lot 11." See Final Order, Pope v. Department of Environmental Protection et al., Case No. 03-3860RX, paragraph 7, page 9. The Popes have two duplex units on their property. Built in the 1950's, they consist of concrete foundations, block walls, and 10-foot-high flat roofs. Mrs. Pope and her husband have retained the native, salt-tolerant vegetation that surrounds the duplexes. Protective of the property because it serves to enhance and stabilize the primary/frontal dune, it also adds to Mrs. Pope's enjoyment and use of her property. She enjoys the native flora, an integral part of the habitat of native fauna (gopher tortoises and indigo snakes, for example) that she enjoys watching. She particularly enjoys feeding and interacting with the sociable scrub jay. The Department and its Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems The Department is responsible for the administration of Parts I and II of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act." § 161.011, Fla. Stat. The Act confers on the Department the authority "to adopt rules related to the following provisions of this section [§ 161.053]: establishment of coastal construction control lines; activities seaward of the coastal construction control line; exemptions; property owner agreements; delegation of the program; permitting programs; and violations and penalties." § 161.053 (21), Fla. Stat. Pursuant to its rule-making authority in Section 161.053 (together with other specific authority), Florida Statutes, the Department promulgated Rule Chapter 62B-33: "Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems - Rules and Procedures for Coastal Construction and Excavation (Permits for Construction Seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and Fifty-Foot Setback)." The Office is in the Department. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(11). Permits for construction or other activities seaward of the construction control line, such as the permit in this case, are issued pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, by the Program Administrator of the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources on behalf of the Department. See Respondents 1, Vol. 2, Tab 22. The Department has not delegated Chapter 161 permitting authority to Brevard County. The Rays Clifford and Maria Ray are the owners of the property adjacent to Petitioner's property and the holders of Permit No. BE-1083, preliminarily issued by the Department in its final order of September 19, 2003. The property consists of four 50-foot-wide lots, Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Avon by the Sea. Lot 12 is immediately adjacent to Mrs. Pope's property. Some of the native vegetation on the property has been disturbed by the planting of sod and installation of an irrigation system seaward of the Brevard County coastal setback line and the Control Line. The activity is the subject of administrative enforcement actions by the County and DEP. Although government claims of violations had not been resolved finally as of the date of hearing, the Rays have not resisted the claims. The Permit was issued to the Rays under the authority of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. It authorizes activities on the Ray property seaward of the CCCL. This activity includes the construction of an eight-story, multi-family dwelling, a swimming pool and deck, a wooden beach/dune walkway, a parking area, masonry wall and an exfiltration trench, as described in more detail in the section of the Permit entitled "PROJECT DESCRIPTION." Respondents Ex. 1, Vol. 2, Tab 22, Permit No. BE- 1083, p. 2-3. The Department was not aware of the claims of violations made against the Rays referred-to above at the time that Mr. Tammisetti, the engineer assigned to review the permit file initially, recommended that the permit be issued. Had Mr. Tammisetti been aware of the claims he still would have recommended issuance of the permit. Coastal Systems and Fixed Coastal Cells The term "Coastal System" is defined by the Department in its rules: "Coastal System" is the beach and adjacent upland dune system and vegetation seaward of the coastal construction control line; swash zone; surf zone; breaker zone; offshore and longshore shoals; reefs and bars; tidal, wind, and wave driven currents; longshore and onshore/offshore drift of sediment materials; inlets and their ebb and flood tide shoals and zones of primary tidal influence; and all other associated natural and manmade topographic features and structures. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(13). Within the coastal system are "fixed coastal cells," also defined by Department rule: "Fixed Coastal Cell" is a geomorphological component of the coastal system which is closely linked internally by active physical processes and is bounded by physical features which exercise a major control on refraction patterns or which compartmentalize or severely limit longshore sediment such as headlands or inlets. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(24). Within and adjacent to a fixed coastal cell of Florida's coastal system lie sea, shore, beach, dune system, vegetation, uplands and structures with which this proceeding is concerned. The Beach and Dune System within the Fixed Coastal Cell The Ray property and the Pope property are located in a fixed coastal cell that extends from Canaveral Inlet (north of R014, one of a series of coastal monuments installed by the state) southward to Monument R050. The community in which the property is situated is a "Coastal Uplands: Beach Dune" community characterized by a beach and dune system. There is one primary/frontal dune with a height at the top of the bank of about 13.4 feet NGVD seaward of the proposed project. The portion of property on which the project is sited is between 7.3 and 10.7 feet NGVD. The most recent DEP design wave height elevation for R015 is 14.2 feet NGVD, higher than the existing dune elevation at the Ray property. Much of the Ray property behind the dune is lower in elevation than the elevation of contiguous properties, the likely result of persistent cutting of native vegetation that acts to intercept wind-blown sand as it moves along the shoreline. Beach and Dune Data in DEP File BE-1083 In the application review process, Mr. Tammisetti submitted a memorandum dated May 24, 2001, to Mr. McNeal. The memorandum appears to have been a form with blanks into which information was inserted or handwritten close to the appropriate blank. For example, under Section I., of the form "PROPOSED PROJECT" is "A. Project Location:", followed by a description with blanks left for number of feet, direction (north, south, east, west) reference monument number, county and project address. Handwriting close to the blanks leads one to understand or gather that it intends to communicate the following statements: The location of this project is approximately 100 feet N to 103 feet S of the Department of Environmental Protection's Reference Monument R-15, in Brevard County. Project Address: Harding Ave, Cape Canaveral. This is within the local jurisdiction of Brevard County. Respondents 1, Vol. 2, Tab 13. The form also contains Section II., "CHARACTERIZATION OF BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM". The section calls for three categories of characterization: A., a general description; B., beach topography in terms of shoreline alignment, berm width in feet, berm elevation in feet (NGVD), direction of net littoral transport, volume of net littoral transport in cubic yards per year, and general conditions; and C., Primary Dune/Bluff Topography with dune width in feet. None of the information called for by this section has been filled in on the form. At hearing, Mr. Tammisetti testified2 that berm width was 220 feet and the berm elevation ranged from 3 to 10 feet NGVD. He testified that the direction of littoral transport was north to south but he did not know the volume of net littoral transport. He stated that the "general site condition" was an eroding shoreline. He estimated the dune width at between 30 to 40 feet. These facts and figures exist under an overarching consideration. The beach near R015 that fronts the Pope and Ray property is critically eroding.3 Vegetation on the Ray Property There is a sea grape cluster and numerous palm trees on the Ray property. The seaward most continuous line of native salt-resistant vegetation or the "vegetation line" is near the line at the toe of the slope of the dune bank depicted on the topographic survey drawing submitted as part of the application. Nanette Church, at the time an employee of Brevard County, visited the site on July 1, 2003. She documented the presence of fresh sod and a new irrigation system installed seaward of the County's coastal setback line, a line parallel to and 25-feet landward of the 1981 CCCL. Two days later, DEP Inspector Gene Verano conducted a site inspection and documented the placement of sod and the installation of an extensive irrigation system. On July 31, 2003, the Department under the signature of Jim Martinello, an Environmental Manager in the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources, issued a warning letter to Mr. Ray with regard to "POSSIBLE UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE." The letter reads, in part, Pope 3. [I]t appears that you have again been engaged in unauthorized activities on your property located approximately 100 feet north to 100 feet south of the Department of Environmental Protection's reference monument R-15, in Cocoa Beach, in Brevard County, Florida. The possible violation consists of the destruction/removal of native vegetation and placement of sod and an irrigation system seaward of the coastal construction control line without benefit of a permit from the [department.] The sod seaward of the CCCL has a negative effect on the stability of the dune system. A weakened dune system allows for storm surge and overwash to breach the dune and cause washout on the landward side of the dunes. Brevard County has not yet issued a land clearing or landscape permit to the Rays. A "Brevard County Land Development Site-Plan Approval" with an approval date of December 30, 2003, warned, "[i]t is the responsibility of the Owner/Engineer of Record to contact Office Natural Resources for a Land Clearing/Landscaping Permit." Respondents' 1, Vol. 1, Tab 12. The Rays are not contesting County or DEP enforcement actions relative to the land clearing, sod placement, and irrigation system installation. Project Description The project proposed by the Rays is to be located on their property in the unincorporated area of Brevard County known as "Avon-by-the-Sea," in the vicinity of Department monument R-015. The project is known by Brevard County as the Ray Condos and also as the Michelina Condominium. The location of the multi-family dwelling relative to the Control Line is "[a] maximum of 105.56 feet seaward." Id. Its exterior dimensions are "209.67 feet in the shore normal direction by 84 feet in the shore-parallel direction." Id. The type of foundation is "Pile." Id. There is no mention in the Permit of the height of the building. The swimming pool is described in the Permit in detail with regard to its dimensions and location (a maximum of 101.49 feet seaward of the control line), the type of construction and its maximum depth: six feet. Excavation/Fill for the project is described in terms of volume of excavation, its location, volume of fill as replacement, and location of fill. The Excavation/Fill description is subject to Special Permit Condition 6. Among other provisions of the condition, the fill is to be "from a source landward of the control line and shall consist of sand which is similar to that already on the site in both grain size and coloration." Id., p. 4. Other permitted structures and activities are listed and described in the Permit with reference to special permit conditions: A wooden beach/dune walkway structure of dimensions 174 feet shore-normal by 4 feet shore-parallel is to be located seaward of the control line. See Special Condition 7. A 4-foot to 14-foot swimming pool deck attached to the periphery of the swimming pool is to be located a maximum of 105.96 [feet] seaward of the control line. See Special Permit Condition 2.1. Paver-block parking area on the south side of the proposed dwelling. Masonry walls along the north and south property lines to extend a maximum of 105 feet seaward of the control line. See Special Permit Condition 2.2. An exfiltration system trench on the south side of the proposed dwelling. Among nine special conditions in the Permit are that no work can be conducted until a DEP "notice to proceed" has been received by the Rays. Another is that prior to the issuance of such a notice "two copies of detailed final site and grading plans and specifications" shall be submitted including two sets of landscape drawings. Id., p. 3, Special Permit Condition 2. See id., 2.3. The landscape plan must be submitted to Brevard County for approval under the Permit's special conditions. Given Brevard County's requirement that the Rays secure a Land Clearing/Landscaping Permit, there will be an ongoing process that poses the potential to ensure that the Rays' project will be designed to minimize the impact on native vegetation. The process also may require a restoration plan, as well, for the impact to native vegetation caused by the sod and the irrigation system. The Rays have submitted such a plan to the County. Relationship of the Proposed Project to the Pope Property The proposed multi-family dwelling is sited 10 feet south of the northern property line (the line that serves as the southern boundary of the Pope property). Ten feet is the minimum setback from adjacent property allowed by the county. The duplexes on the Pope property are situated in a range from 3.5 to 4.5 feet from the property line (the border with the Ray property.) The project, therefore, is proposed to be as close as 13.5 feet of the Pope duplexes. If built, running the length of the duplexes, it would create a relatively narrow space between the proposed structure and the Popes' duplexes that ranges from 13.5 feet to 14.5 in width. The Application The Rays submitted their CCCL permit application to the Department through their agent, Joyce Gumpher. On January 24, 2003, Ms. Gumpher executed a certification "that all information submitted with this application is true and complete to the best of [her] knowledge." Respondents Ex. 6, APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE OR FIFTY-FOOT SETBACK. The application was received by DEP on January 27, 2003. Additional information was requested by the Department. On April 21, 2003, the Department deemed the application complete. During the application process, several plan sheets were revised. Revised plan sheets were submitted after the application was deemed complete (see Respondents' Ex. 6, July 29, 2003 plans and September 5, 2003 plans) and once prior to DEP's determination of its completeness. (see id., April 7, 2003 plans). Review of the Application On August 26, 2003, Mr. Tammisetti submitted a memorandum to Mr. McNeal that recommended approval of the application with special permit conditions. The memorandum, similar in form to the memorandum submitted on May 24, 2001, except for the lack of Part II., is entitled "Description of Beach and Dune System Fronting the Subject Property and an Analysis of Impacts to be Expected From the Proposed Construction." Respondents 1, Vol. 2, Tab 20. It describes the proposed project but, lacking Part II., it neither characterizes nor describes the beach/dune system. Nor does it analyze the impacts of the proposed project other than to provide the "final comment" that "[t]he proposed project is landward of line of construction and 30-year erosion project. Impactive shore- parallel coverage is approximately 72%." Id., p. 3. Under its rules, after reviewing all information required, the Department is mandated to: Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effect of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. * * * Require siting and design criteria that minimize adverse impacts and mitigation of adverse or other impacts. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(3). As found earlier, the file in BE-1083 does not contain any documentation that the Department conducted the impact assessments required by the rule. Nonetheless, the Department based its evaluation on the portion of the fixed coastal cell from just north of R013 to approximately 400 feet south of R017 depicted on Respondents' 7. Respondents' 7 Respondents' 7 is an aerial photograph of developed uplands and off shore waters of the Atlantic Ocean in between which is the shore line and a stretch of beach in Brevard County. The sandy beach in the photo runs from north to south from Monument R013 to approximately 400 feet south of Monument R017, five monuments in a series set by the state along the Brevard County coast. The photograph is data the Department reviewed to determine if existing structures established a "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line closer to the mean high water line than [the coastal construction control Line]." § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (This "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line" will be referred to as the "Construction Line" in this order.) The Pope property and the Ray property both straddle the Construction Line. The photograph shows four structures (the "Four Structures") that were determined by DEP to establish the Construction Line. Two are to the north of the Ray property; two are to the south. Of the two structures to the north, the closest is between 400 and 450 feet north of the northern boundary of the Ray property. It sits between Monument R015 and R014. The other structure to the north used to establish the Construction Line lies between Monument R014 and R013. Its southernmost corner is approximately 1200 feet to the north of the northern boundary of the Ray property. The roof of the closest of the Four Structures to the south, lying between Monument R015 and R016, viewed from the air above is rectangular indicating the structure to have a rectangular footprint. Positioned at an angle to the coast, its southeastern corner is along the 1981 CCCL. That corner is approximately 400 feet south of the southern boundary of the Ray property. The second structure to the south sits between R016 and R017. Its northernmost corner is roughly 850 feet south of the southern boundary of the Ray property. The Application Rule Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.008(4), entitled "Permit Application Requirements and Procedures" (the "Application Rule"), requires that the Rays' application contain certain specific information, including that identified in subsection (f): Two copies of a topographic survey drawing of the subject property. The topographic information depicted in the drawing shall be from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of the application. The rule further calls for the topographic survey drawing to include specific information such as "[t]he location of any existing vegetation line on the subject property." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(4)(f)9. The topographic survey drawing submitted as part of the application in January of 2003 reveals a survey date of "7/17/02." Respondent's Ex. 1, Sketch of Boundary and Topographic Survey, Lots 12-15, Block 101, Avon by the Sea, Brevard County, Florida. Other than the date of the survey, the evidence at hearing did not reveal when the fieldwork in support of the survey was conducted.4 In all likelihood the fieldwork was conducted close to July 17, 2002, but obviously prior to July 17, 2002. Whether the date of the application is considered to be the date of Ms. Gumpher's certification (January 24, 2003), or the date of its receipt by DEP (January 27, 2003), it does not depict "field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of the application." January 24, 2003, is six months and one week after July 17, 2002. January 27, 2003, is six months and 10 days after the date of the survey. The Vegetation Line The topographic survey drawing submitted as part of the application did not meet precisely the requirements of the Application Rule in several other ways. For one, it did not label the location of "any existing vegetation line on the subject property." At hearing, the Rays submitted a revised copy of the topographic survey drawing (still dated "7/17/02"). The revision labels a line indicated on the originally submitted topographic survey drawing as "TOE OF SLOPE" (within a few feet of the top of the dune bank) as "TOE OF SLOPE AND VEGETATION LINE." Thus, it is apparent that the originally submitted topographic survey drawing depicted the vegetation line; it merely failed in its labeling of the vegetation line. The Department, once it became aware of the omission of a reference to a vegetation line in the original submission, waived the requirement for one. At hearing, Mr. McNeal testified that the waiver was authorized by subsection (7) of the Application Requirements and Procedures Rule: The Department recognizes that the requirements specified in paragraphs 62B- 33.008(4). . . (f) . . ., F.A.C. may not, due to the project circumstances, be applicable or necessary to ensure protection to the beach and dune system. In such cases, the applicant shall, as part of the application, identify those requirements and state the reason why they are inapplicable. The Department shall waive requirements that do not apply. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(7). There is no evidence of record that the Rays informed DEP of a position that the "location of the vegetation line" on the topographic survey drawing was a requirement inapplicable or unnecessary to ensure protection to the beach and dune system.5 Nonetheless, construing its waiver authority to be broader than authority limited to cases in which identification of inapplicable and unnecessary requirements had been made by those seeking DEP waivers, the Department waived the requirement. The waiver was based on knowledge gained from the experience of DEP employees. The employees (Mr. Tammisetti and Mr. McNeal) knew that the vegetation line would be close to the top of the dune bank line and the toe of slope line, both of which were located on the topographic survey drawing.6 Respondents' 2 supports the Department's waiver since it labels the vegetation line where the Department roughly expected it to be. Complete Dimensions and Distance Perpendicular The Application Rule further demands that the topographic survey drawing contain: 15. Accurate dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any structures in the immediate contiguous or adjacent areas that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line if the permit is requested under the provisions of Section 161.053(5)(b) or 161.052(2)(b), F.S., and the distance perpendicular [the "Distance Perpendicular"] from the CCCL or 50-foot setback to the seaward corners of the foundations of any major structures . . . . Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(4)(f). The application contained the dimensions and locations of the two (2) duplexes located on the Pope property, that is, the adjacent area to the north of the Ray property. With regard to the adjacent area to the south of the Ray property, the application contained the seaward dimensions and locations of the major structure that makes up the Discovery Beach Resort structure. The topographic survey drawing did not contain the dimensions of the complete footprint of the Discovery Beach Resort. Nor did it contain the distance perpendicular from the CCCL or 50-foot setback to the seaward corners of the foundations of all major structures depicted. Mr. McNeal noticed that required elements were missing from the application. When he made the permitting decision, he waived them pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Delegations of Authority Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems The Director of the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems has delegated certain authority to subordinates in the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems with respect to the CCCL permitting program. The delegations, as reflected in a document entitled "Delegations of Authority, OFFICE OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS" (Pope Ex. 1), is to "the Director of Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems, or his/her designee." Id., 3.a. As the administrator of the CCCL program within the Bureau of Beaches and Wetlands Resources, Mr. McNeal has been delegated authority under Delegation "OBCS-9" (id., p. 14 of 24), to "[t]ake final agency action on permit applications . . . pursuant to Sections . . . 161.053 . . ., Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B-33, F.A.C., [subject to exceptions immaterial to this proceeding.]" Id. The authority so delegated is not without limitation. Among limitations enumerated and express in the Delegations of Authority document is that "[t]the exercise of any delegated authority shall conform with all statutes and rules applicable to the DEP." Id., 3.a. Waivers Pursuant to Delegated Authority Pursuant to the authority over final agency action on CCCL permit applications, Mr. McNeal, as the head of the CCCL Program in the Office of Beaches and Shores, waived the depiction of the location of the vegetation line on the topographic survey drawing, the full dimensions of the Discovery Resort in the adjacent area to the south of the Ray property and the notation of the Distances Perpendicular. He did so because the information contained on the topographic survey drawing was sufficient, in his view, to allow the Department to perform the calculations and analyses as part of the application process that would be served by a review of the topographic survey drawing. An example has been alluded to in this order. Based on years of collective experience, Mr. McNeal and Mr. Tammisetti concluded it was reasonable to assume the vegetation line would be very near the toe of the slope line in relation to the dune bank. Their assumptions were proved correct at hearing. The dimensions and locations of the major structures located immediately north and south of the proposed project (the Pope duplexes and the Discovery Resort structure) and the Distances Perpendicular were required to be included on the topographic survey drawing, but they were not intended by the Rays to establish a Construction Line. Establishment of any such line is governed by Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes: If in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area a number of existing structures have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line closer to the line of mean high water than the foregoing [the CCCL], and if the existing structures have not been unduly affected by erosion, a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line on written authorization from the department, if such structure is also approved by the department [and other conditions are met]. A Construction Line The Rays contend in their application and DEP agrees that the Four Structures establish a Construction Line. Once such a line is established provided the structures are not duly affected by erosion, the Department is conferred with the discretion to permit a proposed structure along the line seaward of the CCCL under certain circumstances. See § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. Among those circumstances, the permit "shall not contravene setback requirements or zoning or building codes established by a county or municipality which are equal to, or more strict than, those requirements provided [by statute.]" § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. Furthermore, by rule of the Department, written evidence from local government must be provided that the location of the proposed structure along a Construction Line seaward of the CCCL is consistent with the Local Comprehensive Plan. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62b-33. Written evidence that Brevard County regards the Rays' proposed site to be consistent with Local Comprehensive Plan and not contrary to local setback requirements or zoning codes was provided by Brevard County to the Department. Establishment of a Construction Line Whether a Construction Line can be established for a proposed project is unique to the project and its coastal location. To establish such a line, the Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems may rely exclusively on information provided by the applicant for a permit to construct along such a line. The Office may also refer to its own database of aerial photographs (as it did in this case) and other data with regard to the State's coastal systems. The Construction Line running across the Ray property accepted by DEP is nearly identical to the 1981 CCCL. In contesting the establishment of the Construction Line, Mrs. Pope makes a number of points, several of which are worthy of discussion. For one, in 1993, the Department considered an administrative challenge brought by Mrs. Pope to the CCCL permit for the construction of the Days Inn Tower (now Best Western) hotel (one of the structures used by the Rays to establish a Line of Continuous Construction). See, OR-1, Pope v. Department of Environmental Protection et al., Agency Final Order dated May 9, 1994, DOAH Case No. 93-4560 (the "1993 Pope Case.) The Pope duplex had been found to be three or four blocks north of the property for which the permit was sought. If her property had been found immediately adjacent to the Days Inn Tower property, Mrs. Pope would have been accorded standing to contest issuance of the permit to the Days Inn Tower applicant. The hearing officer had recommended that Mrs. Pope not be accorded standing under the rule because her duplex property was not "immediately adjacent" to the Days Inn Tower parcel. Since Mrs. Pope's parcel was separated by at least what has been identified in this proceeding as the Ray property and the property of the Discovery Resort, she did not qualify for standing under the DEP Rule. Nevertheless, Mrs. Pope was afforded the opportunity to acquire standing by proving that her substantial interests would be affected by issuance of the permit. The hearing officer concluded that her attempt in this regard failed.7 The Department accepted the hearing officer's recommendation that Mrs. Pope be determined to have no standing, in part because her property was not "immediately adjacent" to the Days Inn Tower property. Mrs. Pope also asserts that the Four Structures along the 1981 CCCL do not establish a Construction Line on the basis of the testimony of her witness, Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris opined that the structures to be used to establish the Line of Continuous Construction, if one exists, are not the four used by DEP that are in the area of the Ray property but the structures on the two pieces of property closer to the Ray property, that is, immediately adjacent: the Pope property to the north and the Discovery Resort property to the south. The easternmost point of the structure on the Pope property is approximately 50 feet landward of the 1981 CCCL and extends approximately 100 feet seaward of the Control Line. The structure on the Discovery Resort property to the south is along the Control Line. See Respondents' 7. The line that Dr. Harris would establish does not run parallel to the shore line, the 30-year erosion line, the 1981 CCCL or the Control Line. It would run at an angle of approximately 15 degrees from the easternmost point of the Pope duplexes (the "point of beginning") about 425 feet to the easternmost point of the Discovery Resort structure. The point on the Discovery Resort structure (at the end of the line) is approximately 100 feet seaward of the point of beginning. If these structures are to be considered in the determination of whether a Construction Line exists as Mrs. Pope argues, then continuing the line to include the Four Structures would yield broken lines rather than a reasonably "uniform" and "continuous" line. The Department did not consider the structures in the property immediately adjacent to the Ray property to break the line it determined is established by the Four Structures. It ignored other structures as well between the northernmost and the southernmost of the four structures. Mrs. Pope, therefore, describes the Construction Line established by the Department as "imaginary" and without a factual basis. This point is one of opinion. The Construction Line is neither imaginary nor without a factual basis. It has a factual basis in precisely the data used by DEP: the aerial photograph that shows four major structures between Monuments R013 and R017, Respondents' 7, along the 1981 CCCL. The disregard for the Pope duplexes and the Discovery Resort structure as well as other structures in the areas north and south of the Ray property is a matter that falls within professional opinion and Department expertise. The establishment of the Construction Line is justified by the data DEP examined: Respondents' 7 (on which the Four Structures were identified and circled by Mr. Tammisetti at hearing.) The greater weight of the evidence is that DEP's determination of the establishment of the Construction Line should not be disturbed. It is, moreover, not surprising that such a line exists. One would expect that structures built after 1981 but before 1986 would be located along the 1981 CCCL and that structures that followed (such as the Discovery Resort structure) would be built along that Construction Line. Post-establishment of a Construction Line Establishment of a Construction Line does not entitle an applicant to a permit to build along that Construction Line. After a Construction Line is accepted by DEP as established, an applicant must satisfy three remaining sets of conditions expressed in Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes. Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes A discretionary exercise Once a Construction Line is established, an application for a permit to allow a proposed structure is subject to the discretion of the Department: "a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line on the written authorization of the department, if such structure is also approved by the department." ii. Local Requirements The Department has no such discretion, however, if the construction or activity would "contravene setback requirements or zoning or building codes established by a county or municipality which are equal to, or more strict than . . . requirements [in chapter 161]." Id. To this list, the Department, by rule, has added consistency with state-approved Local Comprehensive Plans. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.008(4)(d). Before exercise of department discretion and inquiry into compliance with local requirements, there is a more fundamental condition that must be demonstrated by the applicant: the existing structures that establish the Construction Line must not have been unduly affected by erosion: If in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area a number of existing structures have established a [Construction Line], and if the existing structures have not been unduly affected by erosion, a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line . . . [h]owever, the department shall not contravene [local requirements] . . . equal to, or more strict than, those requirements herein. § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. Unduly Affected by Erosion The parties differ in their view of the testimony and evidence introduced at hearing with regard to whether structures that establish the Construction Line "have not been unduly affected by erosion." Id. Neither DEP employees nor the Rays' witnesses visited the shoreline between R0-13 and R-017 to evaluate the four structures that establish the Construction Line and the effects of erosion, if any.8 Mrs. Pope asserts in her Proposed Recommended Order, "[n]o evidence or testimony was offered as to whether the structures considered by DEP were affected by erosion." Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order, p. 24. In contrast, Respondents cite to the testimony of Mr. Boehning and Respondent's 7 with the assertion, "[t]he existing structures, which form the line of continuous construction, have not been unduly affected by erosion." Respondents' 7 supports the claim of Respondents. It reveals a distance perpendicular from the Construction Line to the dark, wet sand along the shore to be approximately 275 feet. This distance encompasses white sandy beach that is approximately 175 feet and a vegetated area that is approximately 100 feet. The finding that the structures that establish the Construction Line are not unduly affected by erosion does not mean that there are not erosion problems in the area. In fact, as found earlier in this order, the beach depicted on Respondents' 7 is "critically eroding." The stretch of beach depicted in the aerial photograph that is Respondents' 7 has undergone considerable fluctuation since 1963 through erosion and beach nourishment. From 1972 to 2002, for example, the location of the mean high water line at R-015, the monument closest to the Pope and Ray properties, has varied by 206 feet from a low in September of 1972 to a high of 369.3 feet in April of 2001. Dr. Harris wrote this in a report introduced into evidence: The beach profile data show that at R-15 the beach and dune are subject to erosion. From 1972 to 2002 the variation in the MHW shoreline position was 206 feet. Beach nourishment and inlet sand by-passing operations were performed between some of the time periods, and are largely responsible for the periodic beach and dune widening. Even with the beach nourishment project, dune erosion continues to be a problem, and although the recent beach nourishment project greatly widened the beach, the position of the dune remained the same. The FDEP design wave height elevation for a 100-year storm is 14.2 feet NGVD for R-15, which is higher than the existing dune elevation. This means that the upland properties would experience storm surge, flooding and wave action during a 100-year storm. Pope 16. Projects of beach nourishment (placement of sand through human activity) were performed in 1972, 1986 and 2001. The need for beach nourishment and re-nourishment reinforces the status of the beach near R-015 as "critically eroding" and underscores the importance of protecting as much of the dune system as possible. That the beach is critically eroding is not inconsistent with a finding that the structures that establish the Construction Line are not unduly affected by erosion. Whether or not due to the 1986 and 2001 nourishment projects, the evidence of record is that, despite the status of the beach as critically eroding, the structures that establish the Construction Line are not unduly affected by erosion. Not Contrary to Local Requirements On December 30, 2002, a site-plan approval was issued by Brevard County with regard to "RAY CONDOS aka MICHELINA CONDOMINIUM" with a site address of "420 Harding Avenue, Cocoa Beach, FL 32931." Respondents' 1, Vol. 1, Tab 12, second page. Signed by the designee of the Director, Permitting and Enforcement, the development order is entitled, "BREVARD COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT SITE-PLAN APPROVAL" and contains the following: The site plan to which this approval is attached has been reviewed by affected County divisions, departments and agencies and has been determined to comply in general with the Brevard County Code of Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan Elements. * * * It is the responsibility of the Owner/Engineer of Record to contact Office of Natural Resources for a Land Clearing/landscaping Permit Two (2) sets of As-Built drawings must be provided to Land Development prior to the Issuance of a C.O. Id. The development order concludes with a statement related to the vested right of the Rays to develop in accord with the site plan: If a Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued for the principal structure by Dec. 30, 2005 the three (3) year vesting period, beginning with the date of site development plan approval, expires and said site plan shall become Null and Void. Only those phases of the development that have an active and valid building permit may be completed after the three-(3) year time period. Id. The reference in the site-plan approval to the "Brevard County Code of Ordinances" does not include building codes. The reference covers local setback requirements and zoning codes. Mrs. Pope appealed the issuance of the site-plan approval to the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board"). Her appeal was heard over three meetings of the Board on May 6, 2003, June 8, 2003, and August 12, 2003. At the conclusion of the August 12, 2003, proceedings on the appeal, the Board voted unanimously to accept the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. An unnumbered resolution of the Board "DENYING THE APPEAL OF JAMES AND CAROLE POPE . . . PERTAINING TO THE MICHELINA CONDOMINIUM SITE PLAN" was produced by Mrs. Pope at the hearing together with the following statement of a Deputy Clerk for the Board: This is to advise that the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners does not have any correspondence indicating a copy of the Findings of Fact on Michelina Condominium was forwarded to Mr. or Mrs. Pope. Pope 7. The resolution is signed by the Chairperson of the Board. Immediately below the signature block there appears the following: "(As approved by the Board on August 12, 2003)." Pope 8. The document is not stamped received by the Clerk of the Board or the County Clerk's Office, nor is there other clear indicia that the order has been rendered through a filing with the Clerk's office. On its face, however, appears an undated attestation of a deputy clerk under a seal of Brevard County that appears to attest to the Chairperson's signature. As of the dates of the final hearing in this proceeding, Mrs. Pope had not sought judicial review of the decision of the Board. At hearing, on the strength of the signed resolution denying Mrs. Pope's appeal of the site-plan approval and the site-plan approval, itself, and the apparent finality of the approval, Mrs. Pope was ruled estopped from presenting evidence that the Permit contravened local setback or zoning requirements or was inconsistent with the Local Comprehensive Plan. The establishment of a Construction Line, that the structures establishing the line are not unduly affected by erosion, and the collateral estoppel of Mrs. Pope's claim that construction or activity seaward of the Control Line along the Construction Line is contrary to local requirements, clears the way for the exercise of Department discretion as to whether to issue the permit. Department Discretion The Department's exercise of discretion must, of course, take into consideration the beach and dune system within the fixed coastal cell in which Ray property and the Pope property are located. No other conclusion could be gathered from the statements of legislative intent and the statutory scheme. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the Department has codified its policy statement on such matters: (1) The beach and dune system is an integral part of the coastal system and represents one of the most valuable natural resources in Florida, providing protection to adjacent upland properties, recreational areas, and habitat for wildlife. A coastal construction control line (CCCL) is intended to define that portion of the beach and dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations caused by a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other forces such as wind, wave, or water level changes. These fluctuations are a necessary part of the natural functioning of the coastal system and are essential to post-storm recovery, long term stability, and the preservation of the beach and dune system. However, imprudent human activities can adversely interfere with these natural processes and alter the integrity and functioning of the beach and dune system. The control line and 50-foot setback call attention to the special hazards and impacts associated with the use of such property, but do not preclude all development or alteration of coastal property seaward of such line; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005, Department Policy Statement on Permits. The exercise of this discretion is guided by criteria under rule. Among those criteria are those found in 62B- 33.005(4)(g): The construction will not cause a significant adverse impact to marine turtles, immediately adjacent properties, or the coastal system unless otherwise specifically authorized in this rule chapter. Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code, defines the term "Impacts" to include separate definitions for the terms "Adverse Impacts," "Significant Adverse Impacts," "Minor Impacts," and "Other Impacts": "Impacts" are those effects, whether direct or indirect, short or long term, which are expected to occur as a result of construction and are defined as follows: "Adverse Impacts" are impacts to the coastal system that may cause a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the system. "Significant Adverse Impacts" are impacts of such magnitude that they may: Alter the coastal system by: Measurably affecting the existing shoreline change rate; Significantly interfering with its ability to recover from a coastal storm; Disturbing topography or vegetation such that the system becomes unstable or suffers catastrophic failure; . . . * * * (d) "Other Impacts" are impacts associated with construction which may result in damage to existing structures or property or interference with lateral beach access. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(30). Minimization of Impacts and No Significant Adverse Impacts The site selected on the Ray property for the proposed project poses impacts to Mrs. Pope's duplexes during a storm event such as a 100-year storm. Because of the shore- parallel dimension of the proposed structure (84 feet), storm- generated waves and storm surge would be concentrated into the relatively narrow gap between the proposed structure and the duplexes. The resulting hydrodynamic load would cause scouring of the foundations of the duplexes. The proposed project has "frangible" or "breakaway" ground level walls. They would pose the potential for generating waterborne missiles that, hydro-dynamically propelled, would damage the duplexes. The proposed project was designed in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers 7 Code ("ASCE-7") and most pertinently (since referenced in the Construction Line Statute), the Florida Building Code. But the Building Code does not take into consideration a proposed structure's design or proposed site on an adjacent property or the adjacent property's structures. The proposed project, moreover, is not designed and sited to mitigate aerodynamic loading on Mrs. Pope's duplexes. During high-wind conditions, there will be a number of wind effects on the duplexes caused by the proximity of the proposed project: gust loading, high turbulence shedding, and vortex shedding among others that can be reasonably expected to cause structural impacts to the duplexes such as suction loads on roofs and eaves, flying debris and window breakage. The proximity of the proposed structure to the Pope property will have a shading effect that will cause adverse impacts on the growth of native coastal vegetation on the Pope property. As a result, there will be a reduction in the interception of wind-driven sand by the vegetation that enables it to develop healthy, deep root systems that add to dune stability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: an impacts assessment be conducted as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 33.005(3)(a); that the proposed project be re-sited to mitigate the impacts that its siting now poses to the Pope Property and the Popes' duplexes; that the proposed project be permitted to be constructed up to the Construction Line, provided that the permit is supported by both the impacts assessment and a re- siting of the proposed project to mitigate wind, water and shading impacts; and if the proposed project is not supported by an adequate impacts assessment, or if it cannot be re-sited to mitigate the impacts to the Pope Property, that the permit be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue a permit to the Browns authorizing construction on their property, which is seaward of the coastal construction control line.
Findings Of Fact Property Descriptions (1) The Browns’ Property The Browns own Lots 5, 6, 7, 15, and 16 of a platted subdivision known as the First Addition of Anna Maria Beach Subdivision, Block 35 (the Subdivision). The Subdivision is on Anna Maria Island in the City of Anna Maria, which is in Manatee County. All of the Browns’ lots are seaward of the CCCL established by the Department for Manatee County. The parties stipulated that the construction authorized by the permit at issue in this proceeding is landward of the 30- year erosion line. Indeed, according to the analysis of the permit application prepared by the Department’s staff, the 30- year erosion line is approximately 111 feet seaward of the proposed construction. See Browns’ Exhibit 6, at 3. Lot 5 is the most landward lot owned by the Browns. Lot 6 is adjacent to and seaward of Lot 5, and Lot 7 is adjacent to and seaward of Lot 6. Lots 15 and 16 are seaward of Lot 7, and they are separated from Lot 7 by a 10-foot wide “vacated alley.” The Subdivision was platted in 1912. The plat of the Subdivision, Exhibit P6, shows the seaward edge of Lots 15 and 16 bordering on a road named Gulf Boulevard, which appears to be some distance inland from the Gulf of Mexico.2 Gulf Boulevard no longer exists, and all of Lots 7, 15, and 16 are now located on the sandy beach between Lot 6 and the Gulf of Mexico. The seaward edge of Lot 6 is approximately 176 feet landward of the mean high water line (MHWL) of the Gulf of Mexico. See Exhibit P5B. There are no structures or improvements located on Lots 7, 15, or 16. There are also no structures or improvements located on Lots 8, 9, and 10, which are to the north of Lots 7, 6, and 5, respectively. See Exhibit P4. Lot 10 was the subject of a CCCL permit application denied by the Department in 2000 based upon the Recommended Order issued in DOAH Case No. 99-3613, which is referred to by the parties as “the Negele case.” See Exhibit P30. There is an 850-square-foot single-family residence on Lots 5 and 6 that was constructed in the 1920’s and is used by the Browns as a vacation home. The property’s address is 104 Pine Avenue. All of the enclosed living area of the residence is on Lot 5. A wooden deck attached to the residence extends approximately 17 feet onto Lot 6, and at its most seaward point, the deck is 262.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. See Browns’ Exhibit 9. There are no structures on Lot 6 other than the wooden deck. More than half of Lot 5 has been previously disturbed. In addition to the Browns’ residence, there is a small wood “tool shed” located on that lot. The disturbed areas on Lot 5 between the residence and the shed and between the shed and Pine Avenue (see Exhibit P5C, areas marked with a yellow “1” and “2”) are used by the Browns for, among other things, parking and storage of boats. Those areas have very little vegetative cover. The northwest portion of Lot 5 is undisturbed and, as more fully discussed below, that area is densely vegetated with sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants. (2) Schrutt’s Property Schrutt owns Lot 4 of the Subdivision, which is adjacent to and immediately landward of the Browns’ Lot 5. The property’s address is 108 Pine Avenue. There is a two-story single-family residence on Lot 4 that Schrutt uses as a vacation home. Schrutt’s vacation home extends farther to the northwest than does the residence on the Browns’ lot. As a result, Schrutt currently has an unimpeded view of the Gulf of Mexico over the Browns' shed and across the undisturbed portion of the Browns’ lot from her second-floor deck. See Exhibits P2F and P5A. (3) The Youngs’ Property The Youngs own Lot 3 of the Subdivision, which is adjacent to and immediately landward of Schrutt’s lot and approximately 50 feet landward of the Browns’ Lot 5. The property’s address is 110 Pine Avenue. There is a three-story single-family residence on Lot 3 that the Youngs use as a vacation home. The Young’s vacation home is set farther back from Pine Avenue than are the residences on the Browns’ lot and Scrutt’s lot. As a result, the Youngs currently have an unimpeded view of the Gulf of Mexico across Schrutt’s lot and the undisturbed portion of the Browns’ lot (as well as across Lot 10) from their second- and third-floor decks. See Exhibits P2F and P5A. The Proposed Project and its Permitting History On March 30, 2004, the Browns submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit to allow them to construct an addition to their existing residence on Lots 5 and 6 (“the Project” or “the proposed construction”). The Project will include the renovation of the existing residence, additional residential space in an elevated structure on a pile foundation that will be connected to the existing residence, an elevated swimming pool and deck on a pile foundation, and a driveway made of pavers. There will be a concrete slab under a portion of the new elevated structure in the vicinity of the existing shed that will be enclosed and used as a two-car garage. See Browns’ Exhibit 14, sheet 9; Transcript, Volume 2, at 163-64. The finished floor elevation of the garage slab will be 7.0 feet above sea level/NGVD,3 which is slightly lower than the 8.4-foot finished floor elevation of the Browns’ existing residence. The elevated portions of the proposed construction will be 19.2 feet above sea level/NGVD, with a finished floor elevation between 20.2 and 20.7 feet. The “footprint” of the proposed construction is predominately on Lot 5, but it does extend 10 to 15 feet onto Lot 6. See Exhibit P5B, blue cross-hatched area. The seaward extent of the Project is in alignment with the existing residence and deck on the Browns’ property. After completion of the Project, the Browns’ vacation home will include approximately 2,500 square feet of enclosed space. The Browns’ permit application did not mention Schrutt, whose lot is adjacent to the lots on which the Project will be located, even though the application form requires the applicant to list “[t]he name and mailing address of the owners of the immediately adjacent properties . . . .” The reason for this omission is not entirely clear. The permit application included a letter from Kevin Donohue, Building Official, on the letterhead of the City of Anna Maria, which states that “[a] review of the proposed activity described in the seventeen-page plan package for an addition and alternation to an existing single family dwelling does not contravene the City of Anna Maria Code of Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan, and the Florida State Building Code.” The “seventeen-page plan package” referenced in Mr. Donohue’s letter is the same set of plans that the Browns submitted to the Department with their application. Those plans were received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 14. The parties stipulated that the City of Anna Maria building and zoning codes require structures to be set back at least 10 feet from the property line. The site plan for the Project shows the new elevated portion of the Browns’ residence exactly 10 feet from Schrutt’s Lot 4, and exactly 10 feet from the “alley” that runs between Lot 5 and Lot 10 to the north.4 Mr. Brown testified that the City prohibits on-street parking on Pine Avenue, which explains (at least in part) why the Project includes driveway pavers and a concrete slab/enclosed garage under a portion of the new elevated structure for parking. There have been no material modifications to the Project since the date of Mr. Donohue’s letter and, as discussed below, no material modifications will be necessary for the Project to satisfy the special permit conditions imposed by the Department. Thus, it is appropriate for the Department to continue to rely on the letter as proof that the Project does not contravene the applicable local codes. The survey submitted with the Browns’ permit application was dated September 4, 2002, which is approximately 18 months before the date of the application. The survey identified a “vegetation line” along the seaward edge of Lot 6 behind an area designated as “rocks,” and its also included the notation “sea oat existing” in the area between the vegetation line/rocks and the Browns' existing home as well as in the area of the Project. Neither the survey, nor any other information provided to the Department with the permit application showed the extent of the vegetation and dune features in the area of the Project with the same level of detail as is shown on Exhibits P5A, P5B and P5C and the Browns’ Exhibits 30A and 30B. By letter dated April 21, 2004, the Department requested additional information about the project, including a “topographic survey drawing of the subject property . . . from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of the application.” By letters dated May 3, 12, and 13, 2004, the Browns provided additional information about the Project pursuant to the Department’s request. They did not provide a more current survey than the September 2002 survey included with the application, although they did provide a signed and sealed copy of the 2002 survey. Notwithstanding the Browns failure to provide a more current survey, the Department apparently considered the Browns’ application to be complete because on July 29, 2004, the Department advised the Browns that their CCCL permit application for the Project was approved. The Browns’ failure to comply with the technical submittal requirements relating to the survey is not material as a result of the more current and more detailed survey information presented at the final hearing. The Department’s approval of the Browns’ permit application was subject to the general permit conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.0155, as well as a number of special permit conditions, including: No work shall be conducted under this permit until the permittee has received a written notice to proceed from the Department. Prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the permittee shall submit two copies of revised site plan depicting the swimming pool and deck extending a maximum distance of 265 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. (Italics in original). * * * All vegetation located seaward of the coastal construction control line shall be preserved except for that disturbance which is necessary for dwelling construction. Prior to completion of construction activities authorized by this permit, the permittee shall plant a mix of a minimum of three native salt-tolerant species within any disturbed areas seaward of the authorized structures. Plantings shall consist of salt-tolerant species indigenous to the native plant communities existing on or near the site or with out native species approved by the Department . . . . As permitted, the various components of the Project are to be located as follows: the new elevated portion of the residence, a maximum of 259.4 feet seaward of the CCCL; the addition to the existing residence, a maximum of 249.4 feet seaward of the CCCL; and the elevated swimming pool and deck, a maximum of 265 feet seaward of the CCCL. On August 16, 2004, the Browns provided a revised site plan to the Department in purported compliance with special permit condition No. 2. The revised site plan was received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 9. The revised site plan does not comply with special permit condition No. 2. It continues to show the pool and deck extending 268.41 feet seaward of the CCCL and it also shows a “pool security fence” extending 272.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. By letter dated August 25, 2004, the Department advised the Browns that the distances shown on the revised site plan were not consistent with the special permit conditions, and directed the Browns to “fulfill the conditions as per the approved [permit].” The location of the Project shown on the revised site plan (Browns’ Exhibit 9) is identical to the location of the Project on the original site plan (Browns’ Exhibit 14, sheet 3). The only difference between the two site plans is that the revised site plan includes two measurements not included on the original site plan showing the seaward corners of the new elevated deck 258.41 feet and 268.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. In order to comply with special permit condition No. 2, the plans will have to be revised to eliminate those portions of the Project that extend more than 265 feet seaward of the CCCL. The Project cannot be shifted farther landward because it already abuts the 10-foot setback line. The necessary revisions to the plans can be done without shifting the Project landward by eliminating a relatively small area of the deck and portions of the pool security fence. The Browns’ ability to satisfy the Department's special permit conditions by making minor modifications to the Project and not encroaching into the 10-foot setback distinguishes this case from the Negele case.5 Dunes, Generally A dune is a mound of sand lying upland of the beach that has been deposited by natural or artificial means and that is subject to fluctuations in configuration and location. It is not necessary for a mound of sand to be covered with vegetation to be considered a dune. However, vegetation promotes the growth of dunes and helps to stabilize dunes by trapping wind-blown sand. The expert testimony in this case (e.g., Transcript, Volume 1, at 147-48, and Volume 3, at 26-28) identified three different types of dunes -- significant, primary, and frontal -- and described each type consistent with the statutory and rule definitions quoted below. A “significant dune” is a dune that has “sufficient height and configuration or vegetation to offer protective value.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(a) (emphasis supplied). A “primary dune” is a significant dune that has “sufficient alongnshore continuity to offer protective value to upland property.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(b). A “frontal dune” is the “first [dune] which is located landward of the beach and which has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value.” § 161.053(6)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis supplied).6 Thus, a primary dune need not have vegetation so long as it has sufficient height, configuration, and continuity to offer protective value, but a frontal dune must have vegetation in addition to height, configuration, and continuity that offers protective value. The Browns’ contention to the contrary (e.g., Browns’ PRO, at 18) is rejected based upon the unambiguous statutory and rule language. Dunes in Southwest Florida are generally lower in height than are dunes in other parts of the state. However, the dunes on Anna Maria Island, including the dunes on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property, are substantial for Southwest Florida. The Beach-Dune System on and in the Vicinity of the Browns’ Property The beach on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property has been relatively stable over at least the past several decades. In recent years, the stability of the beach is due in part to several beach nourishment projects undertaken by Manatee County pursuant to a shore protection plan authorized by the federal government in 1975 for Anna Maria Island. The most recent project, completed in 2002, included the beach on the Browns’ property and advanced the MHWL approximately 200 feet seaward. The shore protection plan is scheduled to continue through 2025, which will help to ensure the continued stability of the beach on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property. It is undisputed that a primary dune runs across the Browns’ property. The parties disagree, however, as to whether that dune is also the frontal dune. The location of the primary dune on the Browns’ property is best shown on Exhibit P5B by the highlighted yellow lines. The seaward toe of the dune is in the vicinity of the six-foot contour line on Lot 6, and the landward toe of the dune is in the vicinity of the six-foot contour line on Lot 5. The dune is several hundred feet in length. It continues to the north of the Browns’ property onto Lot 10, and it continues to the south of the Browns’ property seaward of Pine Avenue. See Exhibit P5C and the Browns’ Exhibit 30B. The dune runs in a more northwesterly direction than does the shoreline. As a result, the portion of the dune that is seaward of Pine Avenue (to the south of the Browns’ property) is further seaward than the portion of the dune on the Browns property, which in turn, is further seaward of that portion of the dune on Lot 10. Id. The width of the dune varies. In the area of the proposed construction on the Browns’ property, the dune is 20 to 45 feet wide. The dune’s highest point on the Browns’ property is 7.8 feet. Its highest point on Lot 10 is 8.3 feet, and its highest point in the area seaward of Pine Avenue is 9.4 feet. The dune is vegetated with sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants, all of which are native salt-tolerant species. The vegetation on that portion of the dune on the Lots 5 and 6 is dense and mature. It is undisputed that the dune, in its current state, offers some protective value to upland properties, including the Petitioners’ properties. The evidence does not quantify the extent of the protection currently provided by the dune or the degree to which that protection will be diminished after the Project is constructed on the dune. Neither Petitioners’ expert coastal geologist nor the Browns’ expert coastal engineer did any modeling regarding the level of storm (e.g., 5-year, 10-year, etc.) that the dune provides protection against. The experts agreed, however, that the dune would likely not provide any significant protection against a 25-year or 50-year storm, which would have storm surges that exceed the height of the dune. There are dune features on the Browns’ property seaward of the primary dune described above. Those features, which were characterized as "incipient dunes" by Petitioners' expert coastal geologist, are delineated with red shading on the Browns’ Exhibit 30B and can be seen in several of the photographs received into evidence (e.g., Exhibits P2C and P2L, and Browns’ Exhibit 17L). Those dune features do not qualify as frontal dunes because they are sparsely vegetated (if at all), small in height (generally six inches or less), lack continuity, and offer no real protective value. Because the primary dune described above is the most seaward dune on the Browns’ property that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to provide protective value, it is the frontal dune.7 Assessment of the Project’s Impacts An applicant for a CCCL must demonstrate that the impacts of the project have been minimized and that the project will not destabilize a primary or frontal dune or cause a “significant adverse impact,” as that phrase is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.002(31)(b). The proposed construction at issue in this proceeding will be located on the frontal dune and will result in the removal of all of the existing vegetation on that dune within the “footprint” of the new structure. The evidence was not persuasive that the removal of that vegetation, although extensive, will destabilize the dune or result in a “significant adverse impact” to the beach-dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. Indeed, there will still be dense vegetation seaward of and to the north and south of the new structure, and any vegetation outside of the “footprint” of the Project that is impacted by construction must be mitigated in accordance with the special permit conditions quoted above. The Project, as permitted, will not interfere with the beach-dune system’s recovery from coastal storms or cause the dune to become unstable or suffer a catastrophic failure such that its protective value to upland properties is significantly lowered. Indeed, there was no credible evidence that the Browns’ existing on-grade residence, which has existed since the 1920's on the same dune that the proposed structure will be located, has adversely impacted the recovery of the beach-dune system or the dune’s protective value. It is not necessary to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Project because there was no evidence of any similar projects in the vicinity of the Browns’ property that have been permitted or for which a permit application is pending. Indeed, the only credible evidence related to this issue involved the Department’s denial of a permit for construction on the adjacent Lot 10, which generates no cumulative impact concerns and does not establish “precedent” in this case because the Department evaluates each CCCL permit application on its own merits. The Project, as permitted, will not result in a net removal of in situ sandy soils from the beach-dune system. The 33 cubic yards of soil that will be excavated for the Project will be spread on the Browns’ seaward lots and, therefore, will remain in the impacted beach-dune system. The Project will be elevated above the projected 100- year storm surge height and will meet applicable building code requirements. As a result, structure-induced scour will be minimized and will not cause any significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system or the upland properties. The Project will be constructed in accordance with the Florida Building Code, which will minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles. The depth of the swimming pool is limited to 4.5 feet and its bottom elevation will be 3.8 feet above sea level/NGVD, which will minimize the amount of excavation necessary for the pool. The permit requires the excavated material to be placed “[i]n and around the proposed swimming pool area,” so there will be no net loss of material from the immediate area of the pool. Even though the proposed construction will be located on the frontal dune (rather than a sufficient distance landward of it), the Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the stability of the beach-dune system or preclude natural shoreline fluctuations. Indeed, the fact that the Browns’ existing residence has apparently not adversely impacted the stability of the beach-dune system or natural shoreline fluctuations over the past 80 years undermines Petitioners’ contentions regarding the potential adverse impacts of the proposed structures. The line of continuous construction identified by the Department during its review of the Browns’ permit application was 244 feet seaward of the CCCL, which is consistent with the findings in the Negele case. See Exhibit P30, at 14. The line of continuous construction is not a line of prohibition, but rather it is only a factor that must be considered in conjunction with all of the other permitting criteria in the statutes and the Department’s rules. There is evidence indicating that the line of continuous construction is more than 244 feet seaward of the CCCL. For example, the aerial photograph received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 18A shows that the existing structures on the adjacent properties (particularly those to the south of Pine Avenue and those to the north of Elm Avenue8) are farther seaward than the Browns’ residence, which itself is more than 244 seaward of the CCCL. Consistent with the aerial photograph, the Browns’ Exhibit 30A depicts what is referred to as the “existing line of construction established by major structures in the area” seaward of the Browns’ deck, which as note above, is approximately 262 feet seaward of the CCCL. The Project, as permitted, extends to a maximum of 265 feet seaward of the CCCL and, as reflected on Exhibit P5B, a majority of the proposed construction is seaward of the 244-foot line. However, the Project (as proposed and as permitted) is landward of the line depicted on the Browns’ Exhibit 30A. The location of the proposed construction is not contrary to the Department’s rules even if the 244-foot line identified by the Department is correct because the Project is in alignment with the Browns’ existing residence and because there was no credible evidence that the existing residence has been unduly affected by erosion. The native salt-tolerant vegetation (e.g., sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants) impacted by the Project are dense and mature, and the degree of disturbance is significant. However, as noted above, there will still be dense vegetation seaward of and to the north and south of the proposed construction that will not be impacted and that will continue to provide protective value for the dune system and upland properties. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(11) requires disturbances to the existing native salt-tolerant plant communities to be “limited.” That rule also requires construction to be located “where possible” in previously disturbed areas. Locating the Project in the previously disturbed areas of Lot 5 rather than on the frontal dune would not increase adverse impact to the beach-dune system and, indeed, may reduce the impact by limiting disturbances to the existing native salt- tolerant plant communities. However, the Project could not be relocated into the disturbed areas because those areas are considerably smaller than the “footprint” of the proposed construction, particularly when the set-backs required by the local code and the on-street parking restrictions are taken into account. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that despite the its location on a portion of the densely vegetated frontal dune, the Project satisfies the permitting criteria in the Department’s rules and will not result in “significant adverse impacts” to the beach-dune system or upland properties. In making the foregoing findings, the undersigned did not overlook the contrary opinions of Petitioners’ expert coastal geologist. However, the undersigned found his testimony regarding the impact of the Project on the beach-dune system to be less persuasive the testimony of the Browns’ expert coastal engineer on that issue. Other Considerations The Project will not interfere with the public's lateral beach access, nor will it interfere with public access to the beach from Pine Avenue. The parties stipulated that the Project does not raise any concerns relating to sea turtles. The Project will effectively block Schrutt’s view of the Gulf of Mexico from her vacation home, and it will impair the Youngs’ view of the Gulf of Mexico from their vacation home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order approving the Browns’ permit application subject to the general and special permit conditions referenced in the Department’s July 29, 2004, letter and permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 2005.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact The record presented consists of a transcript of the proceedings before the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board considering allegations against Ronald Pintacuda and a portion of the exhibits presented to that Board during the proceedings. The record does not contain the Administrative Complaint or other charging documents upon which the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board proceeded against Ronald Pintacuda. The allegations against Pintacuda are summed up in a statement by Mr. Flynn, prosecuting attorney for the Board on page 6 of the transcript. The prime contention of the prosecution and the proceeding before the local board was that Pintacuda was guilty of aiding and abetting an unlicensed company to avoid the provisions of the building code by virtue of a specific agreement referred to throughout the transcript but which was not made a part of the evidentiary record presented to the Hearing Officer. Mr. Ciklin, counsel for Mr. Pintacuda, refers on page 5 to three charges outstanding against Pintacuda before the local board, and in his summation at page 38 outlines these as follows: Willful and deliberate disregard of the applicable building codes or law; Combining or conspiring with an uncertified or unregistered person (by allowing one's certificate or registration to be used by any uncertified or unregistered person with the intent to evade the provisions of this part); and Acting in the capacity of a contractor under someone else's certificate except for the name of the certificate holder. In the absence of a charging document or a statement of charges having been read into the record, Mr. Ciklin's outline of the charges considered by the local board against Ronald Pintacuda are taken as true and accurate. The critical element in consideration of this case is the time sequence of the events. The sequence of events between Ronald Pintacuda and Ralph Howell began in 1974, when Howell approached Pintacuda about forming a construction business. C Pinta & Howell, Inc., was created in a corporate reorganization from an inactive corporation, Martin & Pinta, Inc., in January, 1975. Martin & Pinta, Inc., was a corporation formed by John Martin and Ronald Pintacuda in which John Martin was president and Ronald Pintacuda vice-president. John Martin, a Canadian, ceased participation in the business upon his return to Canada, and the corporation went into an inactive status. In January, 1975, Ralph Howell approached Ronald Pintacuda about forming a construction corporation. This resulted in the formation of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Because of domestic problems, Ralph Howell's father, Alexander Howell, served as president of Pinta and Howell, Inc. Ralph Howell was construction superintendent of this corporation and was the primary manager of the Howell interests in the corporation. Pintacuda participated actively in the business affairs of Pinta & Howell, Inc., from January, 1975, until December, 1975. Although it is not explicitly stated in the transcript, it is apparent that Pintacuda decided to cease his active role in Pinta & Howell, Inc., in December, 1975. At that time Pintacuda entered an agreement with Alexander Howell which was the basis of an allegation of combining or conspiring with an uncertified or unregistered person by allowing one's certificate or registration to be used by any uncertified or unregistered person with intent to evade the provisions of the law. Although this agreement is not a part of the exhibits presented to the Hearing Officer, a portion of that agreement was read into the record by Mr. Pintacuda at page 29 of the transcript. That portion of the agreement provided as follows: Agreement between Ronald Pintacuda and Alexander Howell--That Ronald Pintacuda and Alexander Howell, officers of Howell & Pinta, Inc. stipulate that Howell & Pinta, Inc. shall not conduct any business unless both parties agree in writing to such business. This includes, but is not limited to, the signing of any contracts or financial obligations. The basis of the complaints upon which the prosecution of Pintacuda was based, arose in early 1970, when Ralph and Gerald Howell accepted contracts in behalf of Tri-County Marine Construction, Inc., and pulled permits from local authorities in the name of Pinta & Howell, Inc. In addition, Ronald Pintacuda is charged with obtaining four building permits in the name of Pinta & Howell, Inc., for construction contracts taken by Tri-County Marine Construction, Inc. (Tri-County Marine). After the formation of Pinta & Howell, Inc., Ralph Howell who was an officer in Tri-County Marine suggested to Pintacuda that Tri-County Marine be made, an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Pintacuda concurred in this, and Howell had the advertising, letterhead, contracts, and yellow page advertisement for Tri-County Marine altered to reflect that Tri-County Marine was an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Documentary evidence concerning the corporate status of Pinta & Howell, Inc., and Tri-County Marine which was presented to the local board was not made a part of the exhibits presented to the Hearing Officer. However, testimony of witnesses at the proceeding based upon those exhibits indicate that there was no record in the Secretary of State's office of any corporate interrelationship between Pinta & Howell, Inc., and Tri-County Marine, Inc. The testimony of Pintacuda and the contracts presented in support of the Board's case do show that Tri-County Marine represented itself to the public and functioned as an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. This affiliation was even recognized by the Board's prosecuting attorney, Mr. Flynn, at page 6 when he stated ". . . Tri- County Marine Construction, Inc. is an affiliate of Pinta & Howell, Inc." Initially, efforts in January, 1976, to contact Pintacuda by local Board authorities and investigators of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board were unsuccessful. From the testimony of Mr. Verner, investigator for the Construction Industry Licensing Board, many telephone and personal messages left with Mr. Ralph Howell and his secretary were not passed on to Mr. Pintacuda. When Mr. Pintacuda was eventually contacted by Mr. Verner, Mr. Pintacuda was cooperative, forthright, and took immediate steps to deregister as qualifier for Pinta & Howell, Inc., in an effort to prevent further abuses by Ralph and Gerald Howell. The Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board did not find Ronald Pintacuda guilty of any of the three allegations charged. The action to revoke the license of Ronald Pintacuda was on a motion by Mr. Barrett at page 41 of the transcript which does not recite a finding regarding Pintacuda's guilt of any of the allegations against him. It was this motion which was seconded and passed by the Board. The local board therefore revoked the license of Ronald Pintacuda without a finding of guilt on any of the complaints against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and review of the proceedings before the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board against the license of Ronald Pintacuda. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Alan J. Ciklin, Esquire Post Office Box 3704 Professional Plaza West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-785 RONALD PINTACUDA dba TRI-COUNTY MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., CG C005834, 6561 Katherine Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern pursuant to Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, and 380.07, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding and to DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI, Petitioner, Fred Snowman, owned the real property known as Lot 75, Matecumbe Ocean Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in Monroe County, Florida (the subject property). A building permit issued by Monroe County, described below, for this property was the subject of DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI (the underlying proceeding.) The lot is approximately 100 feet wide and, at different points, between 200 and 225 feet deep. The subject property is bounded on the landward side by U.S. 1 and fronts the Atlantic Ocean in an area known as Matecumbe Beach. Matecumbe Beach is a known resting and nesting habitat for marine turtles. This building permit constituted a development order on property within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On September 30, 1993, Monroe County issued to Mr. Snowman, as the owner and general contractor, building permit number 9330008850, which authorized the construction on the subject property of a single-family residence containing 2,472 square feet of heated and cooled area, 1,568 square feet of porches, 1,435 square feet of storage enclosure below base flood elevation, and a swimming pool. The authorized construction was to be consistent with the building site plan, which was also approved by Monroe County. On November 18, 1993, the Department timely appealed the subject building permit to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. FLWAC referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI. A formal hearing was conducted in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI in Key West, Florida, on June 30, 1994. Following the formal hearing, the parties were afforded the opportunity to file post-hearing submittals. Thereafter, a recommended order was entered which recommended that FLWAC enter a final order that dismisses the Department's appeal. After the entry of the recommended order, the Department voluntarily dismissed its appeal. FLWAC subsequently entered a final order of dismissal. Petitioner, Fred Snowman, was the prevailing party in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI. SMALL BUSINESS PARTY The issue as to whether Petitioner is a "small business party" as defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, was disputed by the Department in this proceeding. The parties stipulated that Mr. Snowman meets the remaining criteria contained in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, for an award of attorney's fees and costs. The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner was the sole evidence pertaining to the number of employees of the Petitioner: Could you tell us a little bit about your business? What's the nature of your business? Primarily I'm a speculation - spec builder and general contractor in the Florida Keys, and have been since 1973. Q. How many employees do you maintain on a regular basis? A. I mainly have subcontractors. Occasionally when I have a job, I hire for that particular job. But I'm the sole proprietor and I'm the employee. (Transcript, page 9, lines 12-22.) While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner was the sole proprietor and sole employee of his business, it does not establish that Petitioner had fewer than 25 employees in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. 1/ The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner pertains to his net worth: Q. What is your net worth? Let me ask you this. Does your net worth exceed a million dollars? A. No. Q. Less than a million dollars? A. Yes. (Transcript, page 9, line 23 through page 10, line 3) The following testimony elicited by Respondent's counsel of the Petitioner on cross examination also pertains to his net worth: Q. When you're identifying your net worth, what exactly are you considering? A. Well, net worth is all my assets minus my liabilities. Q. All of your personal assets? A. Which are far and few between (sic) today. Q. Do you have business assets? A. No. Q. Do you own any property? A. Lot 75. Q. Any property other than Lot 75? A. I own three lots, small lots in Plantation Key. Q. Are they developed or undeveloped? A. No, they're undeveloped. Q. Do you know how much they're worth? A. They're valued at fifteen thousand per lot. Q. They're not on the water? A. Not on the water. Q. Lot 75, do you know what that property's worth? A. That property is worth about a hundred and seventy-five thousand. Q. Without the house on it? A. Without the improvements, yes. Q. How about in its improved condition? A. I would say, in the improved condition, with this home, it would be about five hundred thousand. Q. Okay. Other than the real estate, do you have any personal or business investments, stocks or -- A. No. Q. No? A. Just my condo. (Transcript, page 10, line 8 through page 11, line 13.) There was no other evidence presented as to Petitioner's net worth. While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner had a net worth of less than two million dollars, it does not establish that his net worth was below that figure in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION The Department's appeal initially raised several issues. All issues in the underlying proceeding but one were voluntarily dismissed by the Department either prior to the hearing or at the hearing. The only issue litigated at the formal hearing in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI was the appropriate setback from the portion of the beach-berm complex located on the subject property known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9.5-345(3)(f), Monroe County Code, provides: f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds; There was no dispute in Case 93-7165DRI that the turtle nesting setback applied to Mr. Snowman's property. The dispute was how to apply the setback. There was a bona fide factual dispute as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property that should be considered to be "beach berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles" within the meaning of the setback ordinance. The Department established that it followed its standard procedures in deciding to appeal the subject development order. The Department maintains a field staff in the Florida Keys that routinely reviews development orders issued by Monroe County for consistency with the land development regulations, the Monroe County comprehensive plan, and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. The permit package typically reviewed, and reviewed in this case, includes the permit, a permit conditions sheet, surveys, and site plans. The Department staff usually reviews a biological survey or habitat evaluation index, reviews the County's entire file, reviews aerial photographs and conducts a field assessment. In this case, the Department also looked at records of the Department of Natural Resources and of the Save A Turtle volunteer environmental group. In this case, the Department conducted a field assessment of Mr. Snowman's lot and measured the point it considered to be the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Kate Edgerton, an experienced biologist employed by the Department, measured the point the Department asserted was the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Ms. Edgerton made a good faith assessment of the beach berm complex and considered the property to contain one beach berm complex. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93-7165DRI, page 166, line 17.) Ms. Edgerton testified in the underlying proceeding that she considered herself bound by the definitions in the Monroe County land use regulations and that she believed herself to be applying the pertinent definition when she measured the setback line. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93- 7165DRI, page 163, lines 20-23.) Following field staff review, a report is prepared and forwarded to Tallahassee for review by additonal staff, including the Department's administrator of the critical state concern program. Department staff in Tallahassee review the field staff report and participate in formulating a recommendation as to whether to appeal the permit. The appeal decision is then made either by the Department Division Director or by the agency head. Each material step in the Department's customary practice of reviewing permits was followed in reviewing the subject permit. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition of the term "beach berm" that was found to be pertinent to the underlying proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. The term "berm" is identified in the Monroe County comprehensive plan as . . . a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. A berm is higher in elevation than both the beach and the area landward of the berm. At the formal hearing in the underlying appeal, there was conflicting evidence as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property. The Recommended Order found that there were two distinct ridges located on the subject property. The issue of whether both ridges could be considered part of the "beach berm complex" was one of first impression. Succinctly stated, it was the position of the Department in the underlying appeal that both ridges were in an area of potential habitat on a beach that is known habitat and it asserted the position that both ridges should be considered to be one beach berm complex. The Department asserted the position that the setback should be measured from the landward extent of the second ridge (the more landward of the two ridges). Monroe County had measured the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge. Mr. Snowman agreed with the County's determination of the setback. Mr. Snowman presented evidence that the County had, for several years, applied the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge and argued that, based on the foregoing definitions each ridge should be considered to be a separate beach berm, but that only the first should be considered to be a beach berm. The Department presented evidence that the County had applied the setback provision in an inconsistent manner by measuring from the crest of berms in some cases and measuring from the landward extent of berms in other occasions. The Recommended Order rejected the Department's position and concluded that the definition of "beach berm" contained in Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, and the description of "berm" in the comprehensive plan were unambiguous. Although the Department argued that other provisions of the code and comprehensive plan supported their construction of the setback requirement, it was concluded that the issues should be resolved based on the unambiguous definition of "beach berm". It was also concluded that no deference should be afforded the Department's construction of the term "beach berm" because there is a plain and unambiguous definition of the term that is a part of the Monroe County Code. It was observed that "[w]hile a greater setback may better serve the goals of the comprehensive plan, as argued by the Department, the imposition of a greater setback requirement should come from a change in the Monroe County Code." This observation was made because the Department had found support for its interpretation of the setback requirement from other parts of the code and comprehensive plan. This case involved bona fide disputed issues of material fact and legal issues that were of first impression. It is found that those issues, although resolved against the Department following the formal hearing, were of sufficient merit to substantially justified the Department's actions in initiating the underlying appeal.
The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: 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 section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, 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 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The issues for consideration in this case concern separate notices to show cause placed against the named Respondents alleging violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), and Chapter 7C, Florida Administrative Code. These notices date from January 25, 1991. The notices to show cause seek to impose fines against the corporation and the Nelsons.
Findings Of Fact On May 14, 1990 Windy Shores Trading Post Inc. conveyed property at 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, to Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. That latter corporation is the Respondent in DOAH Case No. 91-0681. Again for ease of reference Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. shall be referred to as "the corporation." The Respondent corporation is a Florida corporation. No one identified as having appropriate authority to request a hearing for the corporation either on an expedited basis or pursuant to the normal notice time prescribed by Section 120.57(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes, has asked that the corporation be heard in defending accusations made in the notice to show cause pertaining to DOAH Case No. 91-0681. The hearing request described in the preliminary statement made by Eric Nelson does not constitute a legitimate request for hearing by the corporation. This determination is made based upon the record established at hearing both in testimony and documentary evidence. All that has been established concerning the corporation's position is that, according to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16 in DOAH Case No. 91-0681, the corporation through certified mail return receipt requested was served with the emergency order and associated notice to show cause. At all times relevant to the inquiry, a building a 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, was operated as a seven unit, transient rental, public lodging establishment. The last license of record for that property had been issued in the name of Roy E. Midkiff, d/b/a Layton Apartments under license no. 74-01494H-1. This license was issued under the authority of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Neither the corporation nor the Nelsons have ever sought or been issued a license pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, which would allow those Respondents to operate the public lodging establishment at 30 South Grandview Avenue. It can be inferred that the property in question passed from Midkiff eventually ending up with the Respondent Corporation after the conveyance from Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. on May 14, 1990. By history, the City of Daytona Beach became aware of the subject property and its problems back in March, 1990. In particular, the City of Daytona Beach through its Code Enforcement Division was concerned about the addition of a living unit at the premises without appropriate permission. Concerns about this were addressed to Carol E. Nelson at 2036 South Ocean Shores Boulevard in Flagler Beach, Florida by certified mail return receipt requested dated March 26, 1990. A copy of this notice of violation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. This was followed up by an affidavit of violation and notices of hearing addressed to Carol E. Nelson, who in this affidavit of violation and notices of hearing was referred to as President, as she had been in the March 26, 1990 correspondence. This description of the violation of adding a living unit and other matters related to that from the point of view of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Daytona Beach may be found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2. These documents under Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2 run from April, 1990 to January 29, 1991. In would appear that the presidency which was being attributed to Carol Nelson was that affiliation with Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc., the former corporate owner of the subject property. The violation concerning the addition of an unauthorized living unit at the subject facility remains pending before the City of Daytona Beach. When the tax records were prepared for 1990 the City of Daytona Beach became aware of the change in the ownership of the subject property as described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 listing the corporation as the owner and the corporate headquarters as 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. Fred Holmes of the Daytona Beach Code Administration Division and Inspector/Supervisor for that Division, in his testimony, addressed the history of the property from the point of view of the City of Daytona Beach. When he was on the property on January 29, 1991, the persons who were on the property other than tenants were the Nelsons. Holmes is also aware that on January 30, 1991, an application for an occupational license to operate the subject property was made with the City of Daytona Beach and was signed by Carol Nelson in the interest of the corporation. A copy of this occupational license application can be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. It points out that the property is owned by Winifred L. Nelson of 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, which has been shown to mean 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard in Flagler Beach, Florida. The record on balance supports the fact that Winifred L. Nelson, who is Eric Nelson's mother, owns the corporation. The application and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence refers to a transfer of ownership of the subject property from Windy Shores Trading Post to the corporation. On January 29, 1991, the City of Daytona Beach communicated with Petitioner in the person of Barbara Palmer, Director, notifying the Petitioner that effective January 25, 1991, the City had placed the property in question off limits by notice that it was unsafe and its use or occupancy prohibited. A reinspection on January 29, 1991, pointed out that the violations about which the City, as well as the Petitioner, were concerned related to safety and occupant welfare had not been corrected. The correspondence of January 29, 1991, from the City to the Petitioner found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 speaks of those matters. A list of deficiencies found by the City corresponds in many respects to allegations in the notices to show cause. According to Fred Holmes an inspection was made on February 1, 1991 to speak to the application for occupational license and the results of that inspection were not known at the point of hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence related to the City of Daytona Beach and its inspection dated January 11, 1991, points out deficiencies that are common to the concerns in the notices to show cause. Notice of these deficiencies was provided to Carol and Eric Nelson at the time of this January 11, 1991 inspection. Inspector Holmes was of the opinion that the apartment building would not have met local code requirements of the City of Daytona Beach. The City was continuing to express concerns about the unauthorized occupancy of the one apartment added without permission. The City at that point expected corrections to be made and the removal of that improvement, i.e. the additional apartment. Inspector Holmes is unaware of any changes over time in persons who are responsible for the conduct of the business at the property in that he has no documentation in his records concerning such changes. In particular, he is not aware of any permission from Winifred Nelson to Eric Nelson allowing him to act in her behalf. At the hearing Holmes was unaware that Winifred Nelson was the authorized agent for the corporation. Charles Casper, Environmental Health Specialist for the Petitioner, made an inspection at the premises on June 8, 1990, and found certain deficiencies which are set out in the Composite Exhibit No. 7. Among the highlights of this inspection was the identification of the fact that the property was being rented without being properly licensed and that an additional unit had been installed under the building without city approval or permits as described before in the remarks attributable to Inspector Holmes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 is a composite exhibit and it also contains a complaint by J. Young made on June 29, 1990, concerning a security deposit about which she had requested reimbursement on moving out of the apartment at the subject premises effective May 5, 1990. Within that exhibit is found a copy of a memorandum dated May 2, 1990, from Carol E. Nelson signed as d/b/a Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. releasing Ms. Young from lease obligations as a tenant. The contents of the Young lease may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It includes the agreement under the terms of the lease related to the security deposit. Back in June, Casper was attempting to get Carol Nelson to seek a license from the Petitioner to operate the premises. He made Ms. Nelson aware of the problems that he had identified at the premises to include the lack of a license. If Carol Nelson should arrange for the purchase of a license for the benefit of the corporate operator the obtaining of that license, according to Casper, would take care of the complaint about a lack of license. He reminded Carol Nelson that if the corporation as opposed to Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. operated the premises, it would need a license and that if during certain relevant times the two corporations operated the premises separately that the proprietors would be paying for licenses twice within a license period. During this conversation Carol Nelson told Casper that when problems were experienced they were responded to by changing to a new corporation. Carol Nelson told Casper that Carol Nelson and Eric Nelson operated the property in question. When Casper made his June inspection he understood the name of the premises to be Layton Apartments. This was based upon the records of the Petitioner associated with the earlier licensed operator Mr. Midkiff. J. M. Young had entered into the lease that has been described through Volusia Realty Associates, Inc. as agent for Midkiff. Four or five months later Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. bought the property from Midkiff, to Young's understanding. This is confirmed in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, correspondence from a representative of Volusia Realty to Petitioner in which Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. in this May 17, 1990 correspondence is identified as the new owner. Ms. Young had been made aware of that change on January 24, 1990 in correspondence from Volusia Realty to J. Miller setting out that Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. was now the owner of the property in question. Carol Nelson and her husband are the owners of Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, which contains the January 24, 1990 correspondence sets out the fact that Ms. Young's security deposit had been transferred to the new owners, the Nelsons. After the change in ownership from Midkiff to Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc., Young would pay Carol and Eric Nelson her rent and would get a receipt from Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. Following certain problems, which brought about Young's departure, she got the release from the requirements of her lease from Carol Nelson as has been described. Eric Nelson told Ms. Young that she would get her security deposit back as did Carol Nelson. The security deposit has not been returned. This has not been arranged even though Ms. Young has continued to contact Eric Nelson to get the deposit money. No notice has been given to Ms. Young concerning a claim against the security deposit made by Eric Nelson. Ms. Young was never made aware of a transfer of the ownership of the subject property to the corporation. Dennis Steinke is a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with Petitioner. On December 20, 1990, he performed an inspection at the premises in question. This inspection together with an inspection of January 22, 1991, forms the basis of the charges in the notices to show cause. The findings in the Steinke inspection are part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 10 in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. A legal notice was given of the findings of that inspection. That led to a notice to show cause dating from January 15, 1991, directed to Eric and Carol Nelson trading as Layton Apartments. This notice to show cause predates the notices to show cause which are under consideration in the present cases. The prior notice to show cause of January 15, 1991 is part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 10 in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. It carries with it the same nine violations which are spoken to in the subject notices to show cause. Again, the Nelsons do not contest the findings set out in the legal notice which followed the inspection by Steinke and as identified in the present notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 attached as an appendix and as restated from the January 15, 1991 notice to show cause. The January 15, 1991 notice to show cause was served on the Nelsons. No one availed themselves of the opportunity for an informal conference on January 24, 1991 that the January 15, 1991 notice to show cause made available. At the time Steinke made his December 20, 1990 inspection and made the findings reported in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 he was unaware that the corporation owned the premises. Steinke's findings of December 20, 1990 were based upon the inspection of three or four units within the licensed premises. Another Inspector with the Petitioner who had a knowledge of the premises is Arthur Begyn. He took certain photographs of the premises on January 25 and 29, 1991, found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11 showing the state of disarray at the licensed premises and further confirming observations that had been made by Inspector Steinke in his December 20, 1990 inspection. Begyn had been to the property in mid-November based upon a complaint about operations there. His purpose was to inspect the property but no one was available for such inspection. He tried to find out who the owner of the property was by calling a number that was located on the building. That telephone number is found in one of the photographs in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. He made contact through that telephone number and presented himself as a possible future tenant. The person who spoke to him on the phone was a lady. She stated that someone would come and make contact with him at the property. As a result of this telephone conversation he met with Carol Nelson who said she was representing Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. which was the name in a recorded message eminating from the telephone number that had been found on the building. In other words, the telephone answering device said that the caller had made contact with Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. When the contact was made with Carol Nelson at the property, Begyn made the remark that "you must be the owner of the building", to which Carol Nelson replied "yes, I am". That comported with what certain tenants had told Begyn, that is to say that Carol Nelson and her husband owned the building. Carol Nelson in the course of the conversation with Begyn told him that he should pay her or her husband Eric Nelson the rent money. It was not clear whether the payment would end up with an individual or a corporation. Among the highlights of the photographs of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 are those which show that the basement apartment has a door shorter than that of Mr. Begyn how is 6' 1 1/2" tall. There is one photograph that shows a smoke detector ripped from a wall and his inspection of the seven units demonstrated that the individual units did not have smoke detectors. There was a smoke detector in the hall which worked. A rear entrance door on the first level appears to be rotting and in that same area the wood had been disturbed and there were rodent droppings in evidence. There was a leak in an apartment bathroom. There was tile that had been ripped up and not repaired. There was loose electrical wiring hanging down in a certain area. One door which normally has a window was missing a window. A junction box showed where a wire had touched the metal and had a charred appearance with exposed wiring. There was a large hole in the ceiling leading up into an attic. These items were of the nature found by Steinke in his December 20, 1990 inspection. On January 25, 1991, when Begyn was at the property around 6:25 p.m. the Nelsons arrived and removed certain notices that had been placed by the Petitioner in Daytona Beach which prohibited the occupancy of that building. At one point Eric Nelson yelled out to Begyn to, "stay the f off by mf property." Begyn served and read the order and notice related in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 to Carol Nelson on January 25, 1991. This pertains to the emergency order and notice to show cause. These items are seen in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence. Chester Cole who is the District Director for Petitioner in the Orlando, Florida area, in his testimony, identified the fact that the Petitioner became aware that the property in question was operating without the appropriate license contemplated by Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The records of the Petitioner indicated that Midkiff was the last license holder. Someone contacted the Petitioner and said that he was taking over the property, that person claimed to be Eric Nelson. Eric Nelson indicated that he was the owner of the property and made no mention of a corporation. Nelson was sent an application in which he could point out the change in ownership and get a new license. That application was never returned by Eric Nelson. Mr. Cole was not made aware through any notice from the Nelsons or anyone else who the owner was beyond the Midkiff ownership. As of January 14, 1991, Cole was of the opinion that the Nelsons owned the premises in question. Cole became aware of the tax roll information found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which showed that the corporation owned the property in question. Cole was also aware through information from the Secretary of State, carried forward on a computer printout of the Petitioner that the corporation had a corporate address of 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida, and the registered agent was Winifred Nelson whose address is 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. This is found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence which carries a date of January 25, 1991 and another date referred to as a "filed date" of May 2, 1990. As alluded to before, Carol Nelson was served with the emergency order and notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. Her husband was also served on January 25, 1991. Both parties were served at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. Corroboration of service on the corporation by certified mail in DOAH Case No. 91-0681 was made in remarks from Eric Nelson to Mr. Cole in which Nelson identified that the service was perfected by certified mail and the return receipt dispatched. The corporation's address and that of the Nelsons at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida is the same. Based upon the remarks by Eric Nelson in his testimony, the property in question was never owned in his proper person or by his wife. He did acknowledge that at one time Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. owned the property in question and that ownership in the Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. was held with his wife. Nelson points out that he and his wife never did business as Layton Apartments. From Eric Nelson's testimony and other matters presented it appears that Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. took ownership from Mr. Midkiff. In turn the transaction of May 14, 1990, took place in which Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. sold out to the Respondent corporation. Eric Nelson in his testimony said that he and Carol Nelson his wife do not work for the corporation or have any "statutory" tie to the corporation. He says in his testimony that he and his wife divested association with the corporation through the change of ownership of May 14, 1991. He describes himself as an independent subcontractor for the corporation as it relates to the building in question. Eric Nelson states that he has not collected rent at the property. He reiterates that his wife is not an employee of the property. He makes the comment that his mother had asked his wife to collect rent for the mother until the mother had returned from her trip to Canada. He indicates that some other "agent" collects rent for the mother on the property in question. He identified the fact that on January 25, 1991, that his mother was in Florida the latter the part of the afternoon and was at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard between 10 a.m. and noon briefly and as he describes it "in and out." Eric Nelson identified that he sleeps at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard at times and that the corporation gets mail there. Contrary to Eric Nelson's protestations, he and his wife during the relevant times associated with the December 20, 1990 and January 22, 1991 inspections referred to in the notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 were serving as managers, and appointed agents of the corporation, as defined at Section 509.013, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Eric Nelson in his behalf and that of his wife conceded to the factual observations of the January 22, 1991 inspection performed by Joseph Pitrowski and found within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence. They coincide with the earlier inspection of December 20, 1990 by Mr. Steinke. Testimony of Mr. Pitrowski was given as it relates to accusations made against the corporation at a time where counsel for Petitioner had announced that the Pitrowski testimony would relate to the corporation and not to the Nelsons. Under the circumstances, Mr. Nelson as representative for himself and his wife departed the hearing room before Pitrowski testified. Therefore, with the exception of the written report rendered by Mr. Pitrowski found within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence and related to an inspection of January 22, 1991, it would be inappropriate to find facts against the Nelsons based upon the Pitrowski testimony. Likewise, that testimony by Mr. Pitrowski related to the corporation has no utility in that the corporation has never requested a formal hearing to contest the accusations placed against it when examining the present record.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which absolves the Nelsons of the allegations under Item no. 1 in the appendix; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $1,000 for the violation established in Item no. 2; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 3; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $1,000 for the violation established in Item no. 4; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 5; absolves the Nelsons of the violation alleged in Item no. 6; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $500 for the violation established in Item no. 7; absolves the Nelsons of the violation Item no. 8 and fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 9. No disposition is suggested concerning the corporation, it having been concluded that the corporation has not requested a formal hearing. In that respect the case is returned to the referring agency for disposition in DOAH Case No. 91-0681 without commenting on the merits of the allegations made against the corporation. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of March, 1991, 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 4th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0681 The following discussion is made of the Petitioner's proposed fact-finding. Paragraphs 1 and 2 with the exception of the last sentence of Paragraph 2 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence of Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 10 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the discussion of the violations as they pertain to the corporation which alleged violations have not been challenged by the corporation. Concerning Paragraph 12, remarks attributable to Inspector Pitrowski are rejected because they were made outside of the presence of the Nelsons at a time when counsel for Petitioner had announced that the case related to the Nelsons had been concluded. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Palmer, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Emily Moore, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Eric Nelson 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136 Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136 Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
