Findings Of Fact Because of a 1984 Thanksgiving Day storm which inflicted damage in coastal areas, Barry Manson-Hing, an area engineer employed by the Department, issued emergency coastal construction permits from a temporary office in the Vero Beach Administration Building. On December 3, 1984, Respondent sought an emergency permit to allow him to place sand and sand-filled bags on his coastal property at 3755 Ocean Drive, Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent asked Mr. Manson-Hing if he could use sand from the beach to restore eroded areas. Mr. Manson-Hing said he could not, and told him that sand would have to be obtained from an upland source. Respondent replied that he had an available source of upland sand and would haul it by truck to the beach site. He also mentioned that he would remove an existing pine tree to allow vehicular access. On the next day, December 4, 1984, Mr. Manson-Hing issued an emergency coastal construction permit, #1R-127E, to Respondent. The permit allowed Respondent to place 1,500 cubic yards of sand fill material to restore eroded beach and dune areas at the site, and also permitted him to temporarily place sand-filled bags on filter cloth. In capital letters, the permit warned, "SCRAPING OF THE BEACH IS PROHIBITED." (Dept. Exhibit 4) On December 5, 1984, Lt. Raymond Barker of the Vero Beach Police Department, observed beach scraping activities being conducted on Respondent's coastal property. Respondent was present on the site. Beach sand seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line for Indian River County had been scraped and deposited at the face of the sand dune. The removal of the sand created depressions in the beach area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Lt. Barker ordered Respondent to cease the activity until it could be determined he had the required authorization. Respondent complied with Lt. Barker's order. The scraping of the beach and removal of sand below the coastal construction control line was accomplished without a permit from the Department. On July 17, 1985, the Department entered its "Final Order" assessing Respondent a $500 fine for unauthorized coastal construction activities in violation of Section 161.054, Florida Statutes (1985). Respondent requested a hearing; resulting in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department assess, impose, and collect an administrative fine of $500, to be paid within 30 days of final agency action. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings the 20th day of June, 1986.
The Issue Whether a permit should be issued to Petitioner Theodore B. Meadow to construct a dwelling on the Gulf Coast of Florida as requested in his application filed with Respondent Department of Natural Resources.
Findings Of Fact Having considered the evidence and argument of counsel, the Hearing Officer finds: In July of 1979 Petitioner filed an application for a permit to build a duplex dwelling seaward of the coastal construction setback line on a parcel of land bounded by the theoretical extension seaward of the north/south boundary line of Ponce de Leon Street in Yon's Addition to Beacon Hill on St. Joe Beach, Florida. The parcel of land is 70 feet in width and approximately 175 feet in depth to the high-water line of the Gulf of Mexico and lies between State Road 30 (US Highway 98) and the Gulf of Mexico at St. Joe Beach in Gulf County, Florida. The application, Department of Natural Resources File #79-P-283, was filed pursuant to Rule 16B-25.05, Procedure to obtain variance; application, Florida Administrative Code, which had been promulgated under the authority of Sections 161.052, 161.053 and 370.021(1), Florida Statutes. Attached to the application was a copy of a deed to subject property to Albert H. Hinman dated December 12, 1977; an undated authorization from the owner of the property to Petitioner Meadow to apply for a variance and if granted to construct a building on the property; a survey of the property; a floor plan of the building with a typical wall section; and a topographical plat of the lot involved. In response to Rule 16B--25.05(1)(d): "Statements describing the proposed work or activity and specific reasons why the applicant feels the variance should be granted." Petitioner stated, in part, "...the reason that the permit should be granted is because applicant does not have sufficient space on property he is purchasing from A. H. Hinman to construct said building outside of the DNR Coastal Construction Control Line." The survey shows that 14 to 15 feet of the property lies landward of the Department of Natural Resources' setback line. At the time of the hearing no purchase had been made, but there is no dispute regarding the authorization of the owner to allow Petitioner to build if a variance is granted. After filing the application Petitioner consulted with the staff of the Department concerning the construction seaward of the setback line. The Chief Engineer of the permitting section of the Bureau of Beaches and Shores, who is responsible for accepting, evaluating and making recommendations for permits for construction, inspected the site of the proposed structure on October 11, 1979. He took a copy of the plans and specifications for the structure, a plot plan, and the engineering statement which accompanied the plans to review on the site. After the inspection he made a determination that the structure was appropriately designed for the hazard environment and located in such a position as to offer the least potential adverse impact to the beach in the area. Recent topographic changes, topographic data including that submitted by Petitioner, and other historical information was used to assess and evaluate the project. Thereafter, the engineer consulted with the Executive Director of the Respondent Department and gave a favorable recommendation in terms of minimal impact. The Executive Director determined that the structure was designed and located to have the minimum adverse impact on the beach, and that the structure was adequately designed to resist natural forces associated with a hundred-year storm surge (Transcript, pages 52-56). At the formal hearing the Executive Director stated that he based his recommendation for approval by the Executive Board on the precedence of previous action of the Executive Board and because he found that the Petitioner had his application in order. Petitioner Meadow has followed the guidelines of the administrative rules and submitted all required information. He has provided his reason for requesting a variance and believes the information furnished compels the Respondent Department to grant the waiver inasmuch as no modification was requested and he cannot build the structure he desires on the 14 to 15 feet of land he is authorized to use which lies landward of the 1975 setback line. The immediate area involved in this proceeding is relatively undeveloped beach property approximately one (1) mile in length at St. Joe Beach, Gulf County, Florida some twenty-nine (29) miles to Panama City and six (6) miles to Port St. Joe. The real property has been divided into fourteen (14) lots more or less similar to the lot on which Petitioner seeks to construct a duplex (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Transcript, page 137). No structures except one multifamily dwelling have been constructed on any of the fourteen (14) lots. Most the construction along the nearby coastline was completed prior to March 21, 1975, the date the Respondent Department established a coastal setback line under the then applicable statutes and rules. Beacon Hill is a subdivision about a mile and a half from the subject area on the coastal western edge of Gulf County. The structures are close together, the majority of which were constructed prior to 1975 without a permit from the Respondent Department. Historically, the area would have had a similar topography and beach conditions to the subject area, but because of structures built on the beach vicinity the primary dune system has been eradicated, the beach is narrow in that vicinity, and there is virtually no vegetation (Transcript, pages 135-136). It has been found that any construction, particularly of a building, generally has an adverse impact on a beach dune system (Transcript, pages 149, 161). The "setback line" defined in the 1975 statutes and rules was established March 21, 1975 (Transcript, page 169). Thereafter, in 1978 the legislature amended Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and ordered the Respondent Department to establish a "coastal construction control line" to replace the setback line, but said line has not yet been established, although at the hearing a member of Respondent's engineering staff stated that a study was in progress. Neither Petitioner Meadow nor Mr. Hinman, the owner of subject property, requested the Respondent Department to review the setback line or establish a coastal construction control line prior to filing of the application in 1979 for a variance of the 1975 setback line (transcript, page 93). "Setback line" and "coastal construction control line" are not synonymous. The setback line set a seaward line for construction, and the coastal construction control line defines the impact of a 100-year storm surge or other predictable weather condition (Transcript, page 179). An engineer on the Respondent Department's staff who qualified as an expert was of the opinion that the coastal construction control line, when established, would be landward of the setback line established in 1975 (Transcript, page 198). There have been two (2) hurricanes which have impacted the Gulf Coast since the setback line was established, one in September of 1975 and one in September of 1979. These storms had relatively little visual impact on the subject beach area except for erosion of the fore dune, but the storms substantially impacted the accretion of the coastline (Transcript, pages 189- 195). At the final hearing Ms. Sally Malone, a resident living one block from the proposed structure of Petitioner Meadow, protested the proposed construction on the beach and in general the removal of trees. The evidence shows she has a legitimate concern for the effect through erosion the construction might have on the beach near her home. Petitioner Meadow and the Respondent Department submitted proposed findings of fact and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended by the Hearing Officer that the application of Theodore B. Meadow for a waiver or variance be denied without prejudice to his refiling an application after the coastal construction control line is established as required by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, supra. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire 413 Williams Street Post Office Drawer 98 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners are eligible for a permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in Broward County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1993, Vander Ploeg and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Paul Leto, Richard Meyer, and Berta Anderes (Petitioners) submitted an application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent) for a permit to perform construction on their property seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line. Respondent deemed their application complete on April 18, 1994. Petitioners proposed construction will be seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The proposed construction will occur on two adjacent lots in Broward County. Petitioner Leto is the owner of one of the lots described as Lot 19, Block 196, Hollywood Central Beach, Plat Book 4, Page 20, Public Records of Broward County. Petitioners Meyer and Anderes are the owners of the other lot described as Lot 20, Block 196, Hollywood Central Beach, Plat Book 4, Page 20, Public Records of Broward County. Petitioner Leto purchased his lot in September 1992 and Petitioners Meyer and Anderes purchased their lot in March 1993. The lots were platted in or around the 1920's. Both lots are seaward of the seasonal high water line, on a sandy beach with no frontal dune structure. They are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern most side and by a roadway (Surf Road) which is immediately adjacent to the lots on the western most side and landward of the lots. Approximately 200 feet north of the lots is an existing structure and approximately 800 feet south of this first existing structure is another existing structure. Petitioners topographical survey, which was submitted to Respondent in December 1993, showed that Lots 19 and 20, each measured 40 feet in a shore parallel direction and 80 feet in a shore normal direction, i.e., perpendicular to the shoreline. The proposed structure will be located directly on the sandy beach. The City of Hollywood, Florida has granted Petitioners a variance. Further, the proposed construction complies with the rules, zoning regulations, and ordinances of the City of Hollywood. Petitioners' application requests a permit for the construction of a single-family residence on the lots, which will house two families. However, the proposed construction is for a duplex, not a single-family residence. Petitioners are willing, and agreeable, to changing the design of the proposed structure to comply with Respondent's specifications for a single- family residence. Additionally, the proposed construction includes a riprap which will also be located on the sandy beach. A riprap is typically used for protective armoring. No structure presently exists for the riprap to protect. Furthermore, the riprap proposed by Petitioners is not adequately designed as a coastal protection structure, and if the proposed single-family residence is modified in accordance with Respondent's specifications, the proposed modified single-family residence would not be eligible for coastal armoring. The riprap structure is not an integral part of the structural design. Petitioners are willing, and agreeable, to eliminating the riprap structure. No other issues exist as to the structural integrity of the design of the proposed project. The lots on which the proposed structure will be located are a part of the beach-dune system. The natural function of the beach provides protection to upland property. The lots on which the proposed structure will be located are subject to normal storm-induced erosion. Tide and wave forces will impact the proposed structure during storms of minor intensity, including five-year storms. The proposed structure will induce greater erosion on the lots as a result of scour due to the interaction of the storm waves and currents with the proposed structure. During the storm, the normal storm-induced erosion combined with the scour erosion will form a breach or depression in the subject property. In turn, the upland property will be exposed to greater tide and wave forces, increasing the risk of erosion and damage to the upland property. The subject lots and surrounding properties have been subjected to unnatural forces which have added to the erosion. The Port Everglades inlet has inhibited the natural downdrift of sand. The City of Hollywood's beach maintenance division has been regularly pushing sand seaward and in the process, breaking down natural forming cliffs. Even though these unnatural forces are capable of being eliminated, the normal storm-induced erosion and the scour erosion would still exists. The existing developed structures to the north and south of the subject lots appear to create a reasonably uniform line of construction. However, the developed structures have been unduly affected by erosion. The proposed structure will be located within this line of construction. During a major storm along the shoreline, waves remove sand from the beach and dune area and deposit the sand in an offshore bar. After the major storm, a recovery of the beach and dunes takes place. Normal wave activity carries the sand from the offshore bar back to the beach, and the sand is then carried landward by winds and is caught and trapped by dune vegetation; thereby reforming a dune. Constructing the structure as proposed will not locate the structure a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system. As a result, the proposed structure will interrupt natural fluctuation in the shoreline and not preserve the natural recovery following the storm-induced erosion. The cumulative impact on the beach-dune system by the proposed structure would be severe, i.e., the effects on the beach-dune system by repeating this same proposed structure along the subject shoreline would be severe. There would be structure-induced scour and general degradation of the beach-dune system. Additionally, the recovery potential of the subject area following a major storm event would be threatened. Over the years, the beach of the subject property has been subjected to a re-nourishment project consisting of pumping sand from offshore. This method of re-nourishment may have negatively impacted the sand bar system immediately offshore affecting the hindrance of erosion. A sand bar system immediately offshore softens wave action on the shore and aids in inhibiting erosion. The proposed structure will hinder lateral public beach access. Currently, lateral beach access exists along the beach between the existing northern developed property and the existing southern developed property. The proposed structure will be located on the sandy beach, and the seaward face of the proposed structure will be within approximately one foot of the wet sand beach. At times, the proposed structure will be surrounded by water on at least three sides. No alternative beach access would be available. The proposed riprap will also be located on the sandy beach and will further hinder lateral public beach access. 2/ Loggerhead turtles, which are nesting marine turtles, engage in nesting activities along the stretch of beach where the subject property is located. They are a threatened species, i. e., close to extension. Although they do not nest every year, the turtles usually provide several nests in a single year. Typically, one hundred eggs comprise a turtle nest. In 1992, approximately 2,221 loggerhead turtle nests were in Broward County, with 22 of these nests located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Turtle nesting efforts have been observed in the beach area of the subject property. One nest was found within the subject property. Structures located on the sandy beach interfere with marine turtle nesting habits. If female turtles make contact with the structures, they often abort nesting attempts, which results in false crawls. Repetitive false crawls harms successful nesting, which may cause malformed egg chambers, impacting the successful incubation of the nest. Also, interaction with a structure can cause injury or death to a female turtle attempting to nest. Additionally, urbanization activity and lighting on the beach deter nesting. A loss of marine turtle nesting habitat will result if the proposed structure is constructed. Also, armoring, such as the proposed riprap, can result in nests being placed more seaward. 3/ Consequently, the nests would be threatened with tidal inundation, which would affect the mortality of the nest itself. As one nest has been located within the subject property, at least one nest or crawl per year would be affected by the proposed structure. Within 30 years, the proposed structure will be seaward of the seasonal high water line. The location of the proposed structure is seaward of the 30-year erosion projection for the subject property. Beach Defense Fund, Inc. (Intervenor) presented no evidence to show that its interest is different than the public at large and that it has substantial interest separate and apart from the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application of Paul Leto, Richard Meyer, and Berta Anderes for a permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1996.
The Issue The issue 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
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should approve Petitioner’s application for a coastal construction control line permit.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts2 Petitioner, Beach Group Investments, LLC (Beach Group), is a limited liability corporation under Florida law. Its address is 14001 63rd Way North, Clearwater, Florida 33760. On December 19, 2005, Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Tech) on behalf of Beach Group submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct 17 luxury townhome units in two four-story buildings, a pool, a dune walk-over, and ancillary parking and driveway areas (hereafter “the Project”). The Department designated the application as File No. SL-224. The property on which the Project is proposed (hereafter “the Property”) is located between the Department's reference monuments R-34 and R-35, in St. Lucie County. The Property’s address is 222 South Ocean Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Property is located seaward of the CCCL line established in accordance with Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62B-33. On April 21, 2006, the application was determined to be complete. By letter dated June 5, 2006, the Department notified Beach Group that the Project appeared to be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection of the seasonal high water line (SHWL), and that in accordance with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, the staff could not recommend approval of the Project since major structures are seaward of the estimated erosion projection. By letter dated July 7, 2006, and subsequent submittals, Beach Group requested a waiver of the 90-day time period for processing completed applications pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, until October 31, 2006. On August 30, 2006, Beach Group submitted a certified engineering analysis of the 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL for the Department's consideration pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024(1). Beach Group's analysis determined that the proposed major structures associated with the Project were located landward, not seaward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department also performed its own 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL, and determined that the proposed major structures were located seaward, not landward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department asserts that the proposed structures are located between 87 feet and 68 feet seaward of the Department's determination of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department disagreed with Beach Group's analysis because the analysis appeared to be inconsistent with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024, and the Department's own analysis. The Property is located just south of the Fort Pierce Inlet, and landward of a federally maintained beach restoration project that had approximately 14 years of life remaining under the existing Congressional authorization when the permit was submitted to the Department. By proposed Final Order dated November 1, 2006, the Department provided to Beach Group notice of its intent to deny the permit application. The proposed Final Order was received by Beach Group on November 8, 2006. Beach Group's petition for hearing was timely filed with the Department. Since the Department proposes to deny Beach Group's CCCL permit application, its substantial interests are clearly at issue, and it has standing to maintain this proceeding. On December 11, 2006, the Department issued an environmental resource permit for the Project. The Department denied Beach Group’s permit application because the Project extends seaward of the 30-year erosion projection calculated by the Department and because the Project’s impacts to the beach-dune system had not been minimized. The permit was not denied on the basis of the existence, or absence, of a line of continuous construction in the vicinity of the Project. The 30-year Erosion Projection (1) Background Fort Pierce Inlet (hereafter “the inlet”) was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1920’s. The channel of the inlet is protected by two jetties that extend several hundred feet into the Atlantic Ocean. The jetties act as a barrier to the littoral transfer of sand from the north to south that would otherwise occur along the beach in the vicinity of the Property. The jetties cause accretion on the beach to the north of the inlet and erosion of the beach to the south of the inlet. The inlet channel beyond the jetties also restricts the littoral transfer of sand in the area. The deepening and widening of the channel in 1995 likely contributed to the increased erosion observed south of the inlet in recent years. The beach to the south of the inlet, including that portion on the Property, is designated as a “critically eroded beach” by the Department. The inlet is the primary cause of the erosion. Congress first authorized beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1965. That authorization expired in 1986. Congress “reauthorized” beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1996. That authorization expires in 2021, but St. Lucie County has requested that the authorization be extended for “another 50 years.” The first “major” beach nourishment south of the inlet occurred in 1971. Subsequent “major” nourishments occurred in 1980, 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Another “major” nourishment is planned for 2007. There was a “moderate” nourishment of the beach in 1995, which included the placement of geotextile groins on the beach just to the north of the Property. “Small” nourishments occurred in 1973, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, and 1998. Cumulatively, the nourishments that occurred between the “major” nourishments in 1980 and 1999 involved approximately 419,000 cubic yards of sand, which is more than the volume involved in several of the “major” nourishments. Beach nourishment south of the inlet has been an ongoing effort since it started in 1971. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the nourishment project that is authorized through 2021 is a continuation of the project started in 1971 rather than a separate and distinct project. Various erosion control efforts have been used south of the inlet in conjunction with the beach nourishment efforts. For example, geotextile groins (which are essentially massive sandbags) have been installed and removed on several occasions since the mid-1990’s in order to “temporarily stabilize the shoreline until such measures could be taken to design, permit and construct a long-term solution”; concrete rubble and other riprap has been placed on the beach over the years (without a permit from the Department) to protect upland structures from erosion; and a "spur jetty" was constructed on the south jetty in an effort to reduce erosion south of the inlet. These efforts have not slowed the pace of the erosion or minimized the need for beach nourishment south of the inlet. Indeed, the need for and frequency of “major” nourishments south of the inlet have increased in recent years. Beach erosion south of the inlet will continue to be a serious problem so long as the inlet exists and the jetties remain in place. There is no reason to expect that the inlet or the jetties will be removed in the foreseeable future and, as a result, beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue to be necessary. The Department has recognized the need for continuing nourishment of the beach south of the inlet, as reflected in both the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the St. Lucie Beaches and the Ft. Pierce Inlet Management Study Implementation Plan. Those plans acknowledge the long-term need for continued nourishment of the beach at a rate of at least “130,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis.” The plans do not, however, guarantee that future beach nourishment in the area will occur at that, or any, rate. (2) Rule Methodology Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 contains the methodology for determining the 30-year erosion projection, which is the projected location of the SHWL 30 years after the date of the permit application under review. Where, as here, the beach at issue is subject to an ongoing beach nourishment project, the methodology requires consideration of “pre-project” conditions -- i.e., the conditions that existed before the beach nourishment efforts started -- because those conditions are used to project how the beach will migrate landward in the periods over the next 30 years when there may not be any beach nourishment activity. The coastal engineering experts presented by the parties -- Michael Walther for Beach Group and Emmett Foster for the Department -- used essentially the same methodology to determine the location of the 30-year erosion projection. However, the variables that they used in each step of the methodology differed. Step 1: Locate the Pre-Project MHWL The first step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to locate the pre-project MHWL. If a pre-project erosion control line (ECL)3 has been established in the area, it is to be used as the starting-point for the determination of the 30-year erosion projection. Otherwise a pre-project survey of the MHWL is to be used as the starting-point. Mr. Walther used a 1997 ECL as the starting point for his analysis. Mr. Foster used a March 2002 survey of the MHWL as the starting point for his analysis because he did not consider the 1997 ECL to be an appropriate pre-project ECL. The March 2002 survey of the MHWL is not itself an appropriate starting point for the analysis. The survey is not a “pre-project” survey, no matter how the project is defined; the survey occurred more than 30 years after the nourishments started in 1971, and three years after the first “major” nourishment pursuant to the Congressional reauthorization of the project. Moreover, as discussed below, there is an appropriate pre-project ECL in the area. There are two lines that might be considered to be a pre-project ECL in this case -- (1) the ECL established in 1997, and (2) the South Beach High Tide Line (SBHTL) established in 1968. The 1997 ECL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL performed on May 5, 1997. The survey occurred two years after a “moderate” beach nourishment and the placement of the geotextile groins on the beach. There was also a “small” nourishment in 1997, but the record does not reflect whether that nourishment occurred before or after the survey. The SBHTL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL between 1966 and 1968, prior to the initial nourishment of the beach south of the inlet. It is approximately 65 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. The SBHTL is the functional equivalent of an ECL, and it roughly corresponds to the “best fit line” for the March 2002 survey used by Mr. Foster as the starting point for his determination of the 30-year erosion projection in this case. The Department contends that the 1997 ECL is not based upon a “pre-project” survey of the MHWL because the applicable beach restoration project south of the inlet began in the 1970’s and has been ongoing since that time. Beach Group contends that the applicable project is the current one that is authorized through 2021, and that the 1997 survey preceded the start of the nourishments authorized by that project. The Department has used the 1997 ECL as the starting- point for determining the 30-year erosion projection in several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project,4 and in an April 9, 1999, memorandum discussing the 30-year erosion projection in the vicinity of monuments R-35 and R-36, Mr. Foster stated that “the ECL represents the pre-project [MHWL].” Mr. Foster no longer considers the 1997 ECL to be the appropriate pre-project MHWL for purposes of determining the 30- year erosion projection south of the inlet. He testified that had he been aware of “the complete background” of the 1997 ECL and the extent of the nourishments in the 1980’s and 1990’s, he would have brought the issue to the Department’s attention so that the Department could consider whether the 1997 ECL or “an earlier prenourishment line” was the appropriate pre-project MHWL. Although it is a close question, the more persuasive evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that the 1997 ECL is not an appropriate pre-project MHWL because the applicable “project” includes the beach nourishment efforts started in 1971 that have continued through the present, even though those efforts were intermittent at times. Thus, the appropriate starting point for determining the location of the 30-year erosion projection is the SBHTL, not the 1997 ECL used by Mr. Walther or the March 2002 MHWL survey used by Mr. Foster. Step 2: Locate the Pre-Project SHWL The second step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the location of the pre-project SHWL. Mr. Walther located the pre-project SHWL 26.4 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. That is the surveyed distance between the MHWL and SHWL in June 2005. Mr. Foster located the pre-project SHWL at the most landward location that the SHWL was surveyed in March 2002. The line is between 50 and 75 feet5 landward of the “best fine” line used by Mr. Foster as the pre-project MHWL, and it is as much as 25 feet landward of the surveyed location of the SHWL in some areas. Mr. Foster used “an average [of] 50 feet” as the MHWL- to-SHWL distance in his analysis of several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project.6 Mr. Foster testified that the distance between the MHWL and SHWL in this area varies “from the 20s in the immediate post-nourishment situations . . . all the way up to 70-some feet” and that the “the averages gravitate towards 40 feet.” Consistent with that testimony, the distance between the surveyed locations of the MHWL and SHWL depicted on Department Exhibit 6 is approximately 40 feet, on average. The MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther is not a reasonable projection of the pre-project distance because it was based upon survey data taken immediately after a “major” beach nourishment when the shoreline was unnaturally steep and, hence, not representative of “pre-project” conditions. The SHWL located by Mr. Foster is also not a reasonable projection of the pre-project SHWL because it was based upon a March 2002 survey (which is clearly not "pre- project"); because it used the most landward surveyed location of the SHWL rather than a “best fit” line or an average of the distances between the surveyed MHWL and SHWL; and because it runs across areas of well-established dune vegetation. In sum, the MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther (26.4 feet) is too low, whereas the distance resulting from Mr. Foster's siting of the SHWL based on the March 2002 survey (50 to 75 feet) is too high. Those distances are essentially endpoints of the range observed in this area, as described by Mr. Foster. A more reasonable estimate of the pre-project MHWL-to- SHWL distance is approximately 40 feet. See Findings 51 and 52. Thus, the pre-project SHWL is located 40 feet landward of and parallel to the SBHTL. That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37, it roughly corresponds to a straight line between the points where the red- dashed line intersects the Property’s north and south boundaries. Step 3: Calculate the Erosion Rate The third step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to calculate an erosion rate. The erosion rate used by Mr. Foster was -7 feet per year (ft/yr). That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monument R-35 for the period from 1949 to 1967. The rate would have been higher had Mr. Foster averaged the rates for the nearby monuments.7 The erosion rate used by Mr. Walther was -4.9 ft/yr. That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monuments R-34 to R-39 over the period of 1930 to 1968. An erosion rate of -7 ft/yr south of the inlet was referenced in permit applications submitted by Mr. Walter’s firm, Coastal Tech, for several shore protection structures south of the inlet; was used by Mr. Foster in his review of several prior CCCL permit applications south of the inlet; and was included in reports on the inlet prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers over the years. An erosion rate of -3.3 ft/yr was used and accepted by the Department in its review of another permit application in the general vicinity of the project.8 That erosion rate was based upon data from the period of 1972 to 1994, which is after the beach nourishment started south of the inlet. It is not entirely clear why Mr. Foster chose to use a data set starting in 1949, particularly since his report stated that the “1928-30 survey already shows significant erosion occurring south of the inlet.” His testimony did not adequately explain the choice of that data set. The use of a longer data set is typically more appropriate when calculating a historical rate. In this case, however, the use of the shorter period of 1949-68 is reasonable because the 1930-49 erosion rate was considerably lower than the 1949-68 rate,9 which has the effect of skewing the erosion rate calculated for the longer period of 1930-68. The higher erosion rate calculated by Mr. Foster also better takes into account the increased frequency of the nourishments in recent years as well as the continued need for shore stabilization in the area. In sum, the higher erosion rate of -7 ft/yr calculated by Mr. Foster using the 1949-68 data set better reflects the historical post-inlet, pre-nourishment erosion rate than does the lower erosion rate calculated by Mr. Walther. Step 4: Determine the Remaining Project Life The fourth step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the “remaining project life” of the “existing” beach nourishment project. It was stipulated that there are 14 years remaining until the currently authorized federal beach restoration project expires. It is reasonable to expect that beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue well beyond the expiration of the current federal project, but there were no other funded and permitted projects in place at the time Beach Group’s permit application was filed. Potential future beach nourishment projects are not considered “existing” under the rule methodology in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 unless they are funded and permitted at the time the application at issue is filed. Mr. Walther used the 14-year remaining life of the existing federal project in his calculation of the 30-year erosion projection, as did Mr. Foster. The “remaining project life” applicable to this case is 14 years, notwithstanding the likelihood of continued beach nourishment in the area beyond the expiration of the existing project. Step 5: Calculate the 30-year Erosion Projection The final step in determining the location of the 30- year erosion projection is a calculation using the variables determined in the previous steps. The calculation is as follows: first, the remaining project life determined in step four is subtracted from 30; then, that result is multiplied by the erosion rate determined in step three to get a distance; and, finally, the SHWL is moved that distance landward of its pre-project location determined in step two. Subtracting the remaining project of 14 years from 30 equals 16 years. Multiplying 16 years by the erosion rate of -7 ft/yr equals 112 feet, which means that the 30-year erosion line is located 112 feet landward of the pre-project SHWL (or 152 feet landward of the SBHTL). That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but it roughly corresponds to a straight line than runs across the Property parallel to the SBHTL just landward of the “conc. pad” and “existing conc. Pile caps (typ)” shown on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37. The line is 25 to 30 feet seaward of Mr. Foster’s 30-year erosion projection depicted on that exhibit. (3) Ultimate Finding Regarding the Location of the Proposed Structures in Relation to the 30-year Erosion Projection The Project includes major structures seaward of the 30-year erosion projection, as determined above. Impacts of the Project on the Beach-Dune System The Project includes 17 luxury town home units in two four-story buildings, a pool and spa, landscaping, and an elevated dune walkover. The units will range from 2,700 to 4,400 square feet of living space and are projected to be offered for sale in the $1.5 to $2.5 million range. Beach Group’s principal, Harold Seltzer, testified that the Project is sited as far landward as possible to allow for the development of all 17 units while still complying with the local setback and height restrictions; that the Project’s financial viability depends upon it being developed as proposed; and that the Project cannot be redesigned and remain financially viable. The CCCL permit application included a letter from the City of Ft. Pierce confirming that the Project is consistent with the applicable local development codes. Mr. Seltzer testified that the Project’s local development approvals expired in September 2006 because the CCCL permit had not been issued, and that Beach Group is having to go back through the local permitting process. The seaward extent of the Project is the 1978 CCCL, which is approximately 250 feet seaward of the current CCCL. The buildings on the adjacent properties are also located on the 1978 CCCL. The Project does not extend further seaward than the nearby development, including the structures authorized by the Department in File Nos. SL-162 and SL-173.10 The seaward boundary of the Property is the SBHTL. That line is approximately 295 feet landward of the MHWL established in June 2005, and as noted above, it is approximately 65 feet landward of the ECL established in 1997. The adjacent properties are developed with multi-story residential buildings. There is a densely vegetated dune feature in front of the building to the south of the Property. There is some vegetation, but no discernable dune in front of the building to the north of the Property. The Property as a whole is sparsely vegetated, but there are areas of “prolific vegetation” on the Property. The seaward extent of the vegetation on the Property roughly corresponds to the location of the 1978 CCCL. There are several mature sea grape clusters in the vicinity of that line. The beach in front of the Property is devoid of vegetation. It has a steep slope immediately landward of the water line; a wide (approximately 270 feet) expanse of relatively flat beach; and a gently sloping dune feature that starts just landward of the Property’s seaward boundary, crests approximately 30 feet farther landward, and then gradually slopes downward across the Property all of the way to State Road A1A. The dune feature on the Property is the frontal dune. It is the first mound sand located landward of the beach that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value. The crest of the frontal dune is seaward of the vegetation line on the Property, and ranges in height from +9.7 to +12.2 feet NAVD.11 The seaward toe of the dune is shown on the topographic survey for the Property at elevations ranging from +7.27 to +7.85 feet NAVD. Similar elevations occur on the landward side of the dune crest, just landward of the 1978 CCCL. The vegetation on the Property extends landward of the 1978 CCCL and landward of the line shown on the topographic survey of the Property as the “approximate location of sparse grass and ground cover.” The landward extent of the vegetation does not in and of itself define the landward extent of the dune; changes in the slope of the ground must also be considered. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the landward toe of the frontal dune is landward of the 1978 CCCL, but not as far landward as suggested by Department witness Tony McNeal.12 The landward toe of the dune on the Property is best defined by the elevations landward of the dune crest similar to the elevations shown for the seaward toe of the dune. The Project extends into the frontal dune on the Property, and it will requires minor excavation of the frontal dune, primarily in the area of the proposed pool. All aspects of the project, except for the proposed dune walkover, will be landward of the crest of the frontal dune and the mature sea grape clusters located on the dune. There will be no net excavation on the Property as a result of the Project. The sand excavated for the pool will be placed on-site, and additional beach-compatible sand will be used as fill for the site. Overall, the Project will result in the net placement of approximately 66 cubic yards of sand on the Property. The proposed structures will be elevated on piles, which will allow the beach-dune system to fluctuate under the structures during storm events. The finished floor elevation of the proposed structures is approximately +8 feet NAVD, which is slightly higher than the elevations associated with the toes of the frontal dune. The Project will not destabilize the frontal dune, even though it will encroach into the dune. The impacts of the Project on the beach-dune system will be mitigated by the placement of additional sand into the beach-dune system, as described above. The Project’s impacts will be further mitigated by the enhancements to the frontal dune described in the permit application. Mr. Walther testified that the frontal dune on the Property could “very easily” be enhanced to be of comparable height and magnitude of the dunes on the adjacent properties. The permit application proposes enhancements to the frontal dune as part of the Site Landscaping Plan for the Project. The proposed enhancements include increasing the crest of the dune to a height of +15 feet NAVD, and extensive planting of the dune with sea grapes, beach morning glories, and sea oats. The plantings would extend from the 1978 CCCL to the seaward toe of the existing frontal dune. The dune enhancements proposed in the permit application should be included as a specific condition of the CCCL permit for the Project, if it is approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Beach Group’s application for a CCCL permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2007, 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 19th day of April, 2007.
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 issue in this case is whether a beach house petitioners plan to build in south Walton County was already under construction, within the meaning of Section 161.053(7), Florida Statutes (1981) and Rule 16B-33.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, at the time the current coastal construction control line took effect there.
Findings Of Fact In October of 1982, the petitioners acquired a lot in south Walton County, on the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico. Even before the purchase, Mr. Wiese had been in touch with respondent's personnel, who apprised him of the imminence of the adoption of the new (now current) coastal construction control line, at that time already proposed for Walton County. The former coastal construction control line was considerably seaward of the current line, which became effective on December 29, 1982. Petitioners, who have built some seven houses, drew plans for a house to be built on their Walton County lot one foot landward of the old coastal construction control line. They applied for and obtained the necessary county building permit. They contracted for grading on site, which took place on November 27, 1982. In the course of this work, the landward face of the sand dune was disturbed and petitioners realized that, if they were to build so close to the water, a wall or something like a wall would have to be erected and buttressed to keep the sand dune from migrating under or into their beach house. They determined that the plans were inadequate as drawn. Mr. Wiese nevertheless arranged for one Al Christopher to bring two poles to the site and place one of them upright in the sand. When asked at hearing how long the two poles Mr. Christopher delivered to the site were, Mr. Wiese said he did not know. After Mr. Christopher began, petitioners did not ask him to desist either with bringing pilings to the site or with placing them in the ground. Mr. Christopher evidently did what he was asked to do, before he ever began working with the poles. Before the single pile was placed, batter boards were used to locate the perimeters planned for the building. Batter boards are temporary markers which are removed once the foundation is in place. In constructing piling foundations for beach houses along the gulf coast, in this part of Florida if not elsewhere, the ordinary sequence is to bring all foundation piles to the site before bringing the equipment necessary to install all the piles at once. This makes for efficient use of expensive machinery, and is virtually always done. One of the Wieses' neighbors, fearing that the new coastal construction control line would take effect last fall arranged for a single pile to be driven, but his project was well underway by the time the new coastal construction control line did in fact take effect. As late as March of this year, Mr. Wiese checked with a Texas supplier to see if foundation piles would be available for the project. The plans drawn before the grading of November 27, 1982, called for a foundation of 37 piles, each of which was to be 45 feet long. No horizontal members nor bracing of any kind was contemplated for the foundation. The foundation piles were to be put so close together that it would have been impractical to bring heavy equipment in to do the grading after they were in place. The idea in leveling the ground was to prepare it so a concrete slab could be poured to serve as a parking surface underneath the beach house. Under both the plans originally drawn and the plans under which petitioners now hope to proceed the parking surface itself is not expected to have a structural function, Mr. Wiese's testimony to the contrary notwithstanding. Once petitioners were persuaded that the project needed "reengineering," they diligently sought out expert assistance and new foundation plans were eventually drawn to their satisfaction. Petitioners' efforts took place on a regular, if not a daily basis, but consisted in large part of finding the right people for the "reengineering" job. The plans which petitioners propose to use were stamped with the final engineer's seal on March 3, 1983, more than two months after the current coastal construction control line took effect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioners' beach house project grandfathered status, and apply the coastal construction control line adopted for Walton County on December 29, 1982, in any agency action regarding the project. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1983, Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 ApA1Achee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Jacobs, Esquire John C. Pelham, Esquire and Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire ERVIN, VARN, ODOM & KITCHEN Post Office Box 1770 Tallahassee, Florida 32322-1170 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Suite 1003 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, license number CG C033931, based on the violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: Reeves is a Florida State certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C033931 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). Licensure status is "Active Issued." Reeves is registered or certified with the CILB as an individual. The Scope of the Project Sometime prior to October 1998, Beach retired, came to Florida, and needed a place to live, so she decided to ultimately reside in a trailer. Beach has health problems, which require special living accommodations and changes to the trailer she purchased, including ramps and a bathroom to facilitate the needs of a handicapped person. Beach was unfamiliar with trailer life and wanted to ensure that her trailer was "fastened securely to the ground." Based on suggestions made by three (3) different contractors, Beach decided to design a "roof over coming out eight feet on either side of the existing trailer and tying it to the ground securely so that the trailer was then encased in the roofing over." Beach developed the plans for the project, which were approved by the local planning and zoning department. After discussing the matter with Reeves, Beach also decided to have porches on both sides of the trailer, "taking advantage of the overhang that the roofing-over afforded." Beach and Reeves discussed other details, such as the need for a walk- in closet off of the bedroom, a whirlpool tub, replacement of the upper kitchen cupboards, improvement of the duct work in the kitchen and living areas, screening of the front porch and windows on the back porch (a sun room), enlargement of the bathroom and made "handicap-accessible," and replacement of the doors and ramps. The Written Proposal and "Extras" On or about November 2, 1998, Reeves entered into a written contractual agreement, i.e., the "Proposal" dated October 26, 1998, with Beach, to construct addition(s) and other items to her trailer-home located at 2170 Maryland Street, Lanark Village, Florida. The written Proposal states in material part: We will supply all labor and materials to complete the following at your residence: Build a new freestanding roof over existing trailer and extend roofline to cover front and back porches. Build a new front porch with approximately an 8' x 24' screen section and ramp on opposite end. Rebuild back porch to 8' x 24' and install windows. Enlarge bathroom and make a walk-in closet. Inspect and improve existing duct work for better air flow. Enclose gable ends of new roof and tie in to existing trailer. Install new upper cabinets in kitchen (allowance $500.00). WE WILL PERFORM THIS WORK FOR THE SUM OF $20,900.00) (TWENTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS). Beach agreed to make payments "as work progresses." The original contract price for the additions to the trailer was $20,900.00. The Proposal contained no language of access to the Construction Industry Licensing Fund. At the time of executing the Proposal, Reeves told Beach that a subcontractor was not necessary for the electrical and plumbing work. Reeves and Beach also discussed several "extras" which were added to the Proposal. Beach and Reeves made a verbal agreement for additions or extras to the original Proposal that included siding ($2,700.00), a fireplace, and an extension of one of the ramps, in exchange for not replacing the cabinets. These changes increased the total contract price to $24,200.00, which was paid by Beach. See Finding of Fact 33. Also in November 1998, and before she signed the Proposal, Beach prepared a list, in her handwriting, of plumbing and kitchen items she saw at Home Depot, which she needed for the job and she gave the list to Reeves. According to Beach, Reeves "followed through and got everything [on the list] except for the shower door." Reeves applied with the Franklin County Building and Zoning Department for permits to perform the work on the Beach trailer and the permits were issued. The Franklin County Building Code requires inspections, but does not state when they are to be performed. It is not unusual to perform more than one inspection at a time, especially where, like Franklin County, there is only one inspector for the entire County. Reeves did not ask for an inspection of the work done on the trailer. Work begins on the trailer and problems arise After the Proposal was signed and the verbal additional items agreed to, on November 4, 1998, Reeves commenced work on the project. At this time, Beach was living in a motor home. The roof line built by Reeves covered the back and front porches. Reeves built a new front porch with an approximately an eight foot by twenty-four foot screen porch and a ramp on the opposite end as required by the Proposal. He also added three other ramps, which are not mentioned in the Proposal. By letter dated April 15, 1999, Beach responded to an invoice submitted to her by Reeves. The record does not contain a copy of the invoice, which seems to have been dated March 31, 1999. However, Beach's letter indicates that Reeves submitted a bill for an additional $4,240.00 (which did not include $2,700.00 for siding), above the original Proposal price of $20,900.00. Beach says that only $975.00 are valid charges for "verbally agreed upon additions to the contract." (Beach says that she paid Reeves $600.00 for the extras which was included in her check of December 16, 1998, for $5,000.00.) Reeves' invoice was the first bill for any extras discussed by Beach and Reeves. According to Beach, they discussed the necessity of having additional ramps, and Reeves did not say there would be an additional charge, and it was discussed "as if it was part of the ongoing project." According to Beach, work progressed through November and slowed during Thanksgiving week. Into December, Beach says that Reeves came to the work site "less and less" and the workmen did not have either the necessary materials or equipment and also came "less and less." She tried to contact Reeves. According to Pendleton, who worked for Reeves on the Beach project, for the first three weeks to a month after commencing the project, Reeves was on-site every day. According to Pendleton, the job took longer than expected because of the many changes requested by Beach. For example, after the trailer was "roofed," Beach "wanted her outside ceiling closed into her trailer." They added "a furnace on the back porch," "put marble sills in her window of her trailer," and "furred out her whole wall to put paneling on the trailer." The original plans called for one ramp, but three were added. As work progressed, Beach expressed objections to Reeves regarding the workmanship on the screened-in porch and floorboards and the need to eliminate bugs from entry. They also discussed the build-up of heat in the roof because the roof was "trapping hot air in." Reeves treated the roof area, an extra, which Beach acknowledges. Beach reported other problems to Reeves, including but not limited to, a leak in the shower and an unsealed drain in the shower, which caused a flood in the bathroom, and "a two-foot hole cut in the floor around the plumbing that was left open to the outside." This was on the punch list she gave to Reeves. She pled with Reeves to finish the job, but he said that "[t]his w[ould] be the last day [he would] be coming" and that "he had other things he had to do." According to Beach, "things deteriorated," and she saw very little of Reeves into January and did not see much of him at all by the end of January. Beach was frightened and did not know what to do but "struggled along with [Reeves'] workmen," i.e., Richard Norman (Norman) and Pendleton, the main workmen, who did the plumbing for the shower. When Reeves was no longer on-site daily or all day, Norman and Pendleton were on-site. Another worker, Bob Lanceford quit because of the changes requested by Beach and her "flip- flopping." At some point in time after the trailer roof-over was completed and other work performed, including work on the back porch, Reeves and Beach discussed the punch lists written by both and that he had given the list to his workmen. Beach recalls the conversation and that Reeves said it was going to be his last day there. Beach recalls Norman staying to finish the skirting and Jody Fechera putting the siding on the inside of the sun porch, but that "the guys really didn't work on [the punch list] that much." Beach felt that she had to supervise Pendleton regarding hooking up the shower during this two-week period. Pendleton says that he and the others were working off of the list Reeves gave him during the last couple of weeks he was on the Beach job. Pendleton could not get the work done on the list because Beach "stood over [them] telling [them] to do other things and [they] never could get to that list." The list included adding hurricane clips and exterior work. None of these tasks were completed. Pendleton recalls Reeves telling him that he and "Rich" would have to leave the Beach site in a couple of days and to make Beach happy because they could not return until Edwards returned. Pendleton understood that they were to return to the Beach site and finish the job after Edwards finished the plumbing and electrical work. There is a dispute whether, during a two-week period after the punch lists were written, Beach was supervising Reeves' workmen including Pendleton. In or around the end of February 1999, Reeves advised Beach of problems he was having with the bathtub and needed Edwards "to do it." Reeves also needed Edwards, licensed to do plumbing and electrical work, to move the electrical panel box, which was accomplished. According to Beach, this was the first time Reeves advised Beach that he could not do plumbing or electrical work. Beach says that Reeves told her on the day they signed the Proposal that he would not have to subcontract for any of the plumbing and electrical work. Reeves admitted to doing plumbing and electrical work on this and other projects, although both of these types of work require specific licenses. Reeves recommended to Beach that Edwards perform these tasks. According to Pendleton, Edwards was "to come over and do all of the plumbing and wiring." It took Edwards quite a while to get to the Beach project. Edwards "pulled the permit for the electrical unit." He "made the old panel hot." He installed the breaker box and connected it to Beach's trailer. Edwards fixed the shower head and the drain plug, which was a major leak. He also fixed the plumbing. Edwards fixed some other problems he noticed, but he did not know whether these problems pre-dated Reeves' tenure on the project. In October 1998 and prior to Reeves' commencing work on the Proposal, Beach had a man drilling a well on her property. In February or March of 1999, Beach "got the idea of moving the tank back . . .." Edwards came to the Beach trailer on March 10, 1999, and installed the electrical panel and moved the tank at the same time. It took Edwards a few weeks to accomplish these tasks from the time Reeves and Beach discussed these items. Beach paid Edwards to move the electrical panel to the end of the house and move the water tank and installing it under the carport and some electrical and plumbing repairs. Beach paid Edwards $1,580.00, of which $700.00 of the bill, according to Beach, was for correcting plumbing and electrical errors made by Reeves or his workmen. In early March 1999, Ron Jackson (Jackson) advised Beach that Reeves had "run up a $9,435[.00] bill" at Ace Hardware in her name which remained unpaid and that a lien would be filed on her house. At this time, Beach filed a complaint with the local building department and hired an attorney to assist her with the lien. Apparently the lien was not timely filed and not successfully pursued. Beach also filed a complaint with the Department. Beach was unaware of any amount still owed on her job to others, which Reeves performed and did not pay. By letter dated March 30, 1999, Reeves apologized to Beach for not paying Jackson timely and told Beach he intended to pay Jackson, whether Beach paid him or not. On March 17, and April 21, 1999, a hearing was held before the Franklin County Construction Industry Licensing Board. This Board issued a verbal warning to Reeves "for operating outside his scope of work in the field of electrical and plumbing." Reeves advised the Board that he would not "do any electrical or plumbing until he is licensed to do the work or he will hire license[d] people." On April 7, 1999, Beach, having been living in a motor home during this time, decided to live in the trailer and discovered the flooding problems in the bathroom; everything in the kitchen leaked; and the commode was unsteady and leaked. Reeves returned to "stabilize it," but apparently Beach had to pay Edwards to repair the leaks in the bathroom. At some time after March, Reeves ceased performing on the project altogether. The project was not complete. Beach pays Reeves By check, Beach paid Reeves $4,000.00 on November 11, 1998, to get started; $10,000.00 on November 12, 1998; $2,500.00 on November 20, 1998; $5,000.00 (which included an estimated cost of $600.00 for extras according to Beach) on December 16, 1998; and $2,700.00 (for siding which was an agreed-upon extra) on January 28, 1999, for a total of $24,200.00. Beach had to estimate how much the extra work performed would cost based on the verbal price given by Reeves. The January check was the price for constructing a new one-sided exterior portion, along with the insulation, of the trailer. Beach paid out-of-pocket expenses on repairs and estimates for work which arguably should have been done pursuant to the Proposal and agreed-upon extras. These total approximately $2,560.29. See (Pet. Exh. 5- $990.29; Pet. Exh. 7- $120.00; Pet. Exh. 8- $750.00; and, Pet. Exh. 13- $700.00). Beach also paid for other estimates and repairs as noted herein which were not proven to be directly connected to work performed or not performed by Reeves. See, e.g., Findings of Fact 37-38. Problems identified with the condition of the trailer During the final hearing, Beach identified several photographs, she took over a period of time-April through June, 1999-of her trailer from the inside and outside and identified various problems with the workmanship performed or not performed by Reeves. According to Beach, the photographs show the trailer "after Mr. Reeves finished the project, or Mr. Reeves worked on the house." These problems included an outside electrical switch installed with wires exposed; exposed receptacle outlet; unfinished bathroom trim, which was minor according to Beach; fan cover left hanging on the kitchen ceiling; exposed hole around light fixture in the closet, which Norman could not repair; a fan hanging down in the bathroom, with hole cut too large; water running out from the shower because of an improper drain installation; unsealed shower drain; shower door leak-not caulked; no cutoff valve on the toilet; unsteady commode; no insulation and unprotected plumbing coming up through a hole where the bath tub is located; marble skirt to whirlpool tub destroyed by Edwards' men who had to cut through the marble in order to access the tub; panel to tub which is open and allows air and bugs to enter; tub motor not plugged into a ground fault receptacle; drywall in the bedroom closet, which was new construction, which had to be torn out to repair; wet carpeting which had to be removed; leak in the shower caused by brass plug in plastic line; support posts under the roof not nailed and without hurricane clips (photographs taken in August 1999 after Summerhill and some of the neighbors told her there were no nails on that side of the house holding the roof down); and exposed rafters which allowed squirrels to run down the chimney. Beach asked Greg Mathis, a licensed (City of Tallahassee) plumber, to determine the extent of repairs which were required on her trailer. On or about November 18, 1999, Mathis examined the plumbing in the Beach trailer and gave Beach an estimate for the repairs and charged $135.00 for the estimate, which included his travel time to the Beach trailer in Carrabelle. Mathis charged Beach $670.00 for the repairs including $445.00 for labor and $225.00 for materials. The repairs included applying putty and installing a Delta repair kit on a new faucet in the kitchen; repair of a "fairly new drain" which was leaking in the lavatory; resetting of the toilet which was wobbling and application of caulk; replacement of the whirlpool stopper; repairing the "whole tub waste"; and connection of a drain to a bar sink, which had hot and cold water to it. Mathis also gave Beach an estimate of $185.29 to repair the shower drain and valve. Mathis was unaware who did the plumbing he saw. Brian Will has a State certified building license. Beach asked him to inspect her trailer and give her an estimate of the costs for repair. Will performed a site visit to Beach's trailer on November 22, 1999, and charged Beach $175.00, after a $175.00 Christmas discount, for the inspection and written report dated December 16, 1999. After inspecting the trailer, Will identified problems with the trailer, including a recommendation that Beach secure an engineering report on the foundation, roof framing and uplift connections; installation of a "properly ducted and vented (range termination kit) range hood" in the kitchen; insulate ceiling; improvement to the fireplace clearance; increase vent attic space; and other items. The fireplace issue and "wind loading connection" could be life safety issues. The estimated cost was $9,375.00, although Will stated he is "seldom the low bid guy." Will did not review the Proposal nor the plans and specifications. Will did not know what Reeves and his workmen did or did not do on the Beach trailer. He made no assumptions as to who did any of the work on the trailer. Beach told him that someone added some additional hurricane clips and installed a gable vent or fan. She did not comment to him whether Reeves finished the job. Will identified portions of the trailer that did not appear to him to be finished and that did not meet the building code. Robert J. Pietras, while not a licensed contractor, is a self-employed laborer and has experience in construction, "everything from footers on up to trim carpentry." In or around September 1999, Beach asked him to inspect the trailer and determine what was necessary to make the trailer stronger for hurricane resistance. He found eleven (11) hurricane clips missing and a support post holding up a carrying beam that was not nailed. Some hurricane clips had been placed and set right on the rafters, but the job was incomplete. There were no uplift straps on any of the exterior beams. However, he felt he needed to remove the paneling on the back porch to add the clips from the inside. Pietras could not say whether there were hurricane clips on the outside soffitt. He made the changes. Pietras was also told, by John Summerhill, there was insufficient ventilation in the attic or roof-over, so he added a commercial louver and also framed up to add a fan to draw excess heat. Pietras agreed that if the new enclosed roof-over, constructed by Reeves, had not been enclosed, there would not have been any ventilation problem. He was paid $30.00 for adding the hurricane clips and the tie-down straps. He was not paid approximately $90.00 for work done. Any additional work he recommended was put on hold. Summerhill has air conditioning and electrical licenses and has been in business in Franklin County since 1991. Beach asked him to inspect her trailer and identify electrical problems in or around September 1999. Summerhill did not see the Beach/Reeves Proposal and was unaware of the scope of Reeves' work, including what Reeves did or did not do regarding any electrical problems perceived by Summerhill. However, Beach told him that Reeves did all of the electrical and plumbing. He noticed the absence of hurricane clips on the outside and that a four-by-four post on the south corner did not have nails in the top. He charged Beach $150.00 to install an exhaust in the attic for ventilation which Beach paid. Summerhill also noticed other problems with, for example, waterproof covers needed for the receptacle and switch on the porch, need for ground fault receptacles, and other items. He quoted $600.00 for labor and materials to make these repairs and replace needed items. Summary of work left undone and repairs needed The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Beach and Reeves agreed to the terms of the Proposal and several extras; that Beach paid Reeves $24,200.00, which exceeded the amount originally quoted in the Proposal, i.e., $20,900.00, and included payment for extras, including $2,700.00 for siding and $600.00/$5,000.00 for other extras; that the workmanship performed by Reeves, and others on his behalf, was incomplete and in some cases poorly done which required repairs by others; that Beach paid for repairs; that Reeves left the project with work outstanding; that Reeves, and or his workmen, performed electrical and plumbing services while not being licensed; and that Reeves did not refer to the Construction Industry Recovery Fund in the written Proposal. The Department also proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Beach trailer is in need of substantial repairs and further inspections. See, e.g., Findings of Fact 37-38. However, and in particular, Will, who performed a major inspection of the trailer, did not review the Proposal or the plans and specifications and did not know what Reeves and his workmen did nor did not do on the Beach trailer. Therefore, the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Reeves was responsible for the repairs suggested by Will. Mitigation Reeves has built several State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) homes for the SHIP program in Franklin County to the satisfaction of the County's SHIP administrator, Ms. Shirley Walker. Ms. Walker was not aware of any complaints with Reeves' work over the past four (4) years. Probable Cause is found by the CILB On September 27, 2000, a two-member panel of the CILB found probable cause against Reeves. There was no finding of "no probable cause" by the CILB regarding the Reeves and Beach matter which is the subject of this proceeding. Reeves' prior disciplinary history Reeves has a prior disciplinary history with the CILB and the Department regarding his license. On October 8, 1992, in Case No. 91-11103, the CILB imposed an administrative fine of $1,700.00. On October 24, 1996, the CILB, in Case No. 95-07490, imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00, restitution of $28,501.39 based on an unsatisfied civil judgment, $119.53 in costs, and two (2) years of probation. Both cases were resolved without a final evidentiary hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be rendered as follows: Suspending Reeves' licenses to practice contracting for six (6) months, requiring Reeves to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00, and requiring Reeves to complete continuing education, with the subjects and hours to be determined by the CILB. Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, in the amount of $1,302.91. Requiring Reeves to pay restitution to Beach in the amount of $2,560.29, representing the amounts paid by Beach for estimates and for work performed or ill-performed by Reeves which, on this record, are attributable to Reeves. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Danny L. Reeves 267 Carroll Street Eastpoint, Florida 32328 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
