The Issue Whether Respondent, while acting as pilot aboard the M/V Itanage in the St. John's River, Jacksonville, Florida on August 29, 1990, engaged in a practice which did not met acceptable standards of safe piloting. (F.S.A. s. 310.101(1)(k))
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed pilot in the State of Florida. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 1) Respondent has been issued license number SP0000032. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 2) On or about August 29, 1990, Respondent was piloting the M/V Itanage outbound in Jacksonville, Florida. (Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 4) The Itanage is a 12,000 gross ton, Brazilian registered diesel powered container vessel. (Transcript p. 164) From May 1988 to August 1990 the Itanage entered and exited the port of Jacksonville under pilotage fifteen times without navigational incident. (Transcript pp. 21, 22) The same crew abroad the Itanage at the time of the allision was on the Itanage on its previous voyage of the Itanage. (Transcript p. 22) Respondent has piloted the Itanage or similar vessels many times previously. (Transcript p. 355) The Itanage was equipped with an overhead rudder angle indicator which is visible from the bridge wing. The rudder angle indicator exhibits the degree angle of the rudder and is color coded red for port and green for starboard so the pilot can glance up and see whether port or starboard rudder is applied. 2/ (Transcript pp. 166, 167) Each bridge wing of the Itanage was equipped with an RPM indicator which shows whether the engine was going ahead or astern and the number of revolutions per minute. (Transcript p. 168) The Itanage was equipped with an engine room telegraph which was operated by the second mate to communicate engine commands to the engine room. 3/ On August 29, 1990, the docking master, Captain Meers, undocked the vessel from Jacksonville Port Authority berths 3 and 4, turned, headed down the river on slow ahead, and disembarked around Coastal Petroleum. (Statement of Captain Steele; DPR Report, p. 2) Respondent assumed responsibility for directing the ship at 1454 hours with the vessel parallel to and favoring the west bank of the river. (Statement of Captain Steele; DPR Report, p. 8; engine bell book, Transcript p. 175) It was a clear day, the ride was at or near slack water, the weather was perfect. (Transcript pp. 92. 169, 170, 198) Respondent gave commands to the second mate who remained positioned by the engineroom telegraph on the bridge. The second mate repeated the commands in English then repeated the commands to the helmsman in Portuguese. (Transcript pp. 195, 337); Statement of Second Mate) The second mate spoke very little English and the helmsman did not speak any English. (Transcript p. 331) At 1454 the Respondent ordered course 320 degrees and slow ahead, which was executed. At approximately 1456, Respondent ordered a course of 310 degrees and full speed ahead. (Transcript pp. 82, 83, 191, 192; DPR Report p. 8; engine bell book; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman, Master, and Chief Mate; Statement of Captain Steele) Respondent's orders issued at 1456 were executed, and the engine speed was set at full ahead and the Helmsman steered 310 degrees. (Transcript p. 186; DPR Report p. 8; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman, Master, and Chief Mater; engine bell book; Statement of Captain Steele; Petitioner's Request for Admissions paragraph 8) Respondent was in the wheelhouse and observed the master-gyro-compass. (Transcript p. 331; Statement of Captain Steele) Because the view forward was blocked by the deck cargo, Respondent went to the starboard wing to observe Buoy 71. (Statement of Captain Steele) At 1455 Respondent ordered "10 degrees port" from the starboard wing. (Transcript pp. 337, 338; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman) The helmsman steered 10 degrees to port (left). (Transcript p. 192; Statements of the Second Mate, Helmsman) After the order of "10 degrees port", Respondent remained on the starboard wing and had a radio conversation using a hand held marine radio with the master of the tug "Ann Moran" which took approximately 45 seconds about a ship they had handled the previous day. (Transcript pp. 338, 340, 247) At 1456 as Itanage approached Buoy 71, at point "D" on Hearing Officer Exhibit 1, from the starboard bridge wing, Respondent ordered hard right (starboard) rudder and engine ahead full. (Transcript p. 343) This was to start the turn around Buoy 71. (Transcript p. 384) Captain Steele did not at that time, however, go to the pilot house. Captain Steele remained on the wing to observe the response of the vessel. (Transcript p. 395) After a few seconds, Captain Steele observed the bow of the vessel swinging to port (left) not to starboard (right). (Transcript p. 345) He immediately rushed to the pilot house, repeating his hard starboard (right) rudder order as he did so. (Transcript p. 345) The rudder angle indicator in the pilot house, however, indicated the actual position of the rudder was passing from port (left) 20 degrees to starboard when Captain Steele entered the pilot house. (Transcript p. 345) Captain Steele did not alter the prior order for ahead full. Captain Steele reached the helm console and grabbed the helm. By that time, the helm was already in the hard starboard position. The only explanation as to how the rudder got to 20 degrees port (left) was that when Captain Steele gave the command hard to starboard, the helmsman actually went hard to port (left), then the helmsman realized his error and was correcting it when Captain Steele entered the pilot house. No one suggests that any other command was given which would account for the port swing of the vessel. (Transcript p. 235) Captain Steele again went to the wing to observe the response of the vessel. When it became apparent the vessel would not make the turn, Steele ordered full astern and ordered both anchors dropped. The vessel continued to make way in a sweeping curve alliding with the Shell Oil Terminal on the western edge of the Chaseville turn at approximately 1459 hours. The allision was not caused by a mechanical failure, weather, or tide. (Transcript p. 69). The allision was set up by the helmsman's turning the ship to port (left) instead of starboard (right). However, the Respondent contributed to this error by failing to give the steering command, "Right, full rudder," as required by the Rules of Road. See 33 USC 232. The Coast Guard conducted an investigation and prepared a report (Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the second page of which is a data sheet taken from the ship's bridge. This data sheet contains a diagram of the ship's turning circle to both port (left) and starboard (right) at half and full speeds. An overlay in proper scale was prepared and attached to Hearing Officer Exhibit 1 at the point where the turn was executed, Point D. The scaled extract of the Coast Guard report is attached to the back of Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. The overlay reveals that the vessel could not make the turn at full speed from Point D because the vessel's course takes it almost exactly to the point of allision. If the vessel's course is offset slightly to the left due to the helmsman's mistake and the vessel's turning circle adjusted for less speed, as would have occurred if the vessel went from half speed to full speed when the order for the turn was given, the vessel's projected track would again place the vessel at the point of the allision. The primary cause of the allision was Respondent's use of full speed in the turn. Although there was controversy about whether the vessel proceeded north the entire way at full speed or whether full speed was ordered as the turn was ordered approaching Buoy 71 (Point D on Hearing Officer Exhibit 1), there is no controversy that Captain Steele intended to execute the turn at full speed. The distance from where Captain Steele assumed control of the ship to where it came to rest is approximately 1 and 1/8 nautical miles. According to the logs, the vessel covered this distance in between four and five minutes. In order to cover that distance in that time, the ship was at or close to its full speed, adjusted for a dirty hull, of 15 knots. The advance and transfer of the ship was extended at full speed in such a way that the vessel could not make the turn in the sea room available. Referring again to the overlay, the vessel could have turned within the searoom available from Point D at half speed. The ship might have completed the turn at half speed from a point left of and forward of Point D, its track as the result of the helmsman's error, particularly with the reserve of thrust available to assist in turning after the emergency developed. The Chaseville turn is a tight turn without a great amount of sea room, and requires care to be exercised by pilots. (Transcript pp. 354, 362, 170, 171). The Respondent's failure to maintain proper speed caused the allision with the Shell Oil Terminal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Pilot commissioners issue a final order suspending Captain Henry A. Steele for three (3) months and levying a civil penalty of $5,000 against him. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Notice to Show Cause dated March 30, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating yacht and ship brokers in Florida. Section 326.003, Florida Statutes (1997). Nivardo Beaton is a resident of Miami, Florida. He is not now, and never has been, licensed as a yacht broker or salesperson. The Division has no record of any prior enforcement or disciplinary actions against Mr. Beaton. At the times material to this action, Mr. Beaton worked at Avanti Powerboats, where he did assembly, electrical installation, and motor installation work on the boats built by Avanti Powerboats. Although he was originally a salaried employee of Avanti Powerboats, at the times material to this action, Mr. Beaton worked on a "piece work" basis and was paid a flat fee when he completed rigging a boat. Mr. Beaton also had a verbal agreement with Raul Rodriguez, the owner of Avanti Powerboats, whereby he was to be paid a five-percent commission for each direct sale of an Avanti boat and a one-and-one-half- percent commission for each Avanti boat sold by a dealership he had recruited as an Avanti distributor. An advertisement appeared in the October 17, 1997, edition of South Florida Boat Trader in which "Beaton Boat Sales and Service - Nivardo Beaton" offered three new boats and three used boats for sale. The three new boats were all Avantis; the three used boats were a twenty-one-foot Corona, a thirty-five- foot Contender, and a thirty-three-foot Avanti. Mr. Beaton owned the Corona; the Contender was owned by a friend, and Mr. Beaton did not expect any compensation from the sale of this boat; and the Avanti, an open-decked fishing boat, had been taken in trade by Mr. Rodriguez and was owned by Avanti Powerboats. Pursuant to a verbal agreement with Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Beaton was to receive a five percent commission on the sale of this used thirty-three- foot Avanti. The advertisement was seen by an employee of the Division, and, when the Division's records revealed that neither Mr. Beaton nor Beaton Boat Sales and Service were licensed to offer yachts for sale, an investigation was initiated. Peter Renje, the Division's investigator, contacted Mr. Beaton on November 19, 1997, and informed him that he could not offer for sale used boats over thirty-two feet in length with the expectation of compensation unless he was licensed as a yacht broker. After Mr. Renje's first visit, Mr. Beaton immediately contacted the South Florida Boat Trader and discontinued the advertisement. He also provided Mr. Renje with the materials he requested to assist him in his investigation. Mr. Beaton abandoned the idea of doing business under the name of Beaton Boat Sales and Service. Mr. Beaton never sold a boat or transacted any other commercial transaction through this business. The only action Mr. Beaton took under the name of Beaton Boat Sales and Service was placing the advertisement in the October 17, 1997, issue of the South Florida Boat Trader. Mr. Beaton has worked in the management and production areas of the boat-building industry for over twelve years; he began working in sales in 1997. Before working for Avanti Powerboats, he worked for a short time selling Boston Whalers, Zodiac Inflatables, and Key West Boats. He also was employed as a full-time salesman by Fisherman's Paradise, Inc., a division of Warren Craft Distributing, Inc., from January to June 1997. Mr. Beaton was aware at the time he placed the advertisement in the South Florida Boat Trader that a person must have a broker's license in order to sell used yachts. He was not aware at the time he placed the advertisement that he needed to have a broker's license to offer for sale the thirty-three-foot Avanti open fishing boat. The evidence presented by the Division is sufficient to establish that Mr. Beaton, doing business as Beaton Boat Sales and Service, offered for sale a used boat over thirty-two feet in length and that he expected to earn a commission if he sold the boat. The evidence is also sufficient to establish that Mr. Beaton worked with Avanti Powerboats as an independent contractor, that he cooperated with the Division in its investigation, that he immediately cancelled the subject advertisement, and that he did not do any business as Beaton Boat Sales and Service. Mr. Beaton's testimony that he was not aware that a thirty-three-foot open-decked fishing boat fell within the statutory definition of a yacht is accepted as credible. Although Mr. Beaton had a few months' experience in boat sales, there is no evidence to establish that he engaged in the sale of used boats or that he sold boats in excess of thirty-two feet in length. The evidence presented by the Division is, therefore, not sufficient to permit the inference that Mr. Beaton knew or should have known that offering for sale a used boat over thirty- two feet in length without a broker's license violated Chapter 326. Likewise, the evidence presented by the Division is not sufficient to permit the inference that Mr. Beaton intended to violate Chapter 326. There was no evidence presented by the Division to establish that any member of the public suffered any injury as a result of Mr. Beaton's action in advertising for sale the used Avanti.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, enter a final order finding Nivardo Beaton guilty of violating Section 326.004(1), Florida Statutes (1997); ordering Mr. Beaton to cease and desist from any other violations of Chapter 326, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder; and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $250. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William Oglo, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Nivardo Beaton, pro se Beaton Boat Sales and Services 14812 Southwest 81 Street Miami, Florida 33193 Philip Nowicki, Ph.D., Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1030 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Harriet Stokes purchased the Largo Motel during August of 1967. The motel consisted of six (6) units with a boat basin and dock which adjoined the site. When the property was purchased, the boat basin was navigable from the motel to the open waters of Tarpon Bay. Tarpon Bay is a Class III water body. A representative number of Ms. Stokes' residents and patrons bring in trailered boats ranging in size, approximately fourteen (14) to eighteen (18) feet. Since approximately 1974, silting has occurred in the basin in the immediate area approaching the dock area. The silting has rendered the dock virtually unnavigable except in cases where boat owners are able to access the open waters by poling". Evidence reveals that a number of boat owners have broken their propellers attempting to gain access to the open waters of Tarpon Bay. Based thereon, residents are cautioned against attempting to launch boats from the dock area, which has resulted in a decline of Respondent's fish and pleasure boating guests (Testimony of Harriet Stokes). Johnny DeBrule, the Heavy Construction Superintendent for the Upper Keys Marine Construction Company, Key Largo, Florida, was consulted by Respondent Stokes for completion of the dredging work called for in the subject application. Mr. DeBrule gave his opinion that the subject project could be excavated with a backhoe equipped with a material handling bucket with minimal interruption to the adjacent waters. Richard Dumas, an Environmental Specialist employed by the Department since approximately November, 1977, conducted the initial field site inspection which resulted in the Department's first report recommending issuance of the permit application (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Mr. Dumas testified that he failed to consider the proper standards when he initially issued his first site inspection report which recommended approval of the project as applied for. Dumas was part of the inspection team which included Messrs. Michael Nowicki, Curtis Kruer, and Attorney Ray Allen. After the second field inspection survey was made during December, 1979, the team unanimously concurred that the project as applied for did not entail maintenance dredging and, further, that based upon an in-depth inspection during the second visit, the project, as applied for, was not permittable. Mr. Dumas's earlier recommendation which favored the approval of the subject project was prompted in large part by the policy consideration of the economic viability of Mrs. Stokes' motel enterprise. Michael Nowicki (Nowicki), a Dredge and Fill Supervisor employed by the Department in its Punta Gorda office, is in charge of processing short form dredge and fill applications. As part of his employment duties, Nowicki makes recommendations to the District Manager on short form applications and as part of this review process has reviewed and appraised approximately three thousand (3,000) dredge and fill applications. Nowicki was involved with the formulation and review process of the subject application. During the inspection on this project on December 10, 1979, the dredging was determined not to be "maintenance dredging" since the dredging "would occur in an area of exposed caprock bottoms situated approximately six (6) to nine (9) inches below the surface waters and would result in the destruction and elimination of the thriving benthic community" (Testimony of Kruer, Nowicki and Dumas). In this regard, during May of 1979, Dumas conducted water samplings in the immediate areas of the proposed project and noted that there was a very diverse and productive benthic algal community which was surviving on the nursery and feeding grounds supplied by the grass flats and natural shorelines (Testimony of Dumas and DER Exhibits 10 and 11). Subsequent inspections by Curtis Kruer corroborate this fact. Curtis Kruer, an Environmental Specialist received as a marine biology expert in this proceeding, performed an on-site inspection of the proposed project on December 6, 1979. Kruer made several probings in the area and found that natural caprock was present in the very shallow areas of the bay bottoms. He found that approximately 70 percent of the area was very diverse and highly vegetated. For example he found that the bay bottom is composed of approximately 30 percent benthic algae, 30 percent silt and organic detritus, and approximately 40 percent sea grasses. The most abundant seagrasses were turtle grass with a small amount of Cuban shoalgrass near the boat ramp. Kruer noted that the vegetated bottoms serve as nursery grounds for the area's marine community which consisted of several varieties of juvenile commercial and recreational fish and shellfish (DER Exhibit 11). Kruer noted that adjoining dredged areas immediately adjoining the proposed project have not revegetated and that there are thick layers of silt and organic materials on this site. He further noted that the project would conflict with the natural shoreline and that there were reasonable alternatives which would provide favorable and less destructive uses for the Petitioner's boat basin. Among the alternatives suggested by Kruer was a boat dock with piers supported by pilings of adequate depth in the project's bay bottoms (DER Exhibit 11). Finally, Kruer noted that the proposed dredged area contains productive vegetated benthic communities which will only revegetate, if at all, over extended periods of time (DER Exhibit II).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its final order denying the application for a permit to dredge approximately 5,400 square feet of silt from the boat basin at Largo Lodge, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Lucile Keely 5797 La Luneta Avenue Miami Florida 33155 Michael Egan, Esquire ROBERTS & EGAN, P.A. Post Office 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Ray Allen, Esquire William W. Deane, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jacob R. Varn, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Terry Carlson's application to construct and install a single-family dock in Lee County, Florida, is exempt from the need for an Environmental Resource Permit.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: On April 27, 2007, Mr. Carlson filed with the Department an application to modify a single-family dock in a man-altered waterbody in Section 13, Township 46 South, Range 23 East, Lee County (County), Florida. In geographic terms, the property is located at 18570 Deep Passage Lane, which is at the base of a peninsula which extends for around one-half mile south of Siesta Drive, a roadway that appears to be in an unincorporated area of the County between the Cities of Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach. See Carlson Exhibits 10A and 10B. Although Respondents have not stipulated to the facts necessary to establish Petitioner's standing, that issue is not identified in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation as being in dispute. Because no member of the Association testified at final hearing, the number of members in the Association, the number who operate boats and their size, and the nature and purpose of the organization are not of record.5 It can be inferred from the record at the final hearing, however, that at least one member of the Association, Mr. Kowalski, who lives at 12228 Siesta Drive, operates a boat on the affected waterway. Carlson Exhibits 10A and 10B are maps of the general area and reflect that Siesta Drive begins at an intersection with San Carlos Boulevard (also known as County Road 865) to the east and terminates a few hundred yards to the west. (County Road 865 is a major roadway which connects Fort Myers and Fort Myers Beach.) On the south side of Siesta Drive are three man- made, finger-shaped canals, which extend to the south and provide access for boaters to the Gulf of Mexico. According to one expert, the finger canals are between one-fourth and three- quarters of a mile in length. The canals run in a straight line south for perhaps two-thirds of their length, then bend slightly to the southwest at "elbows" located a few hundred feet north of their outlets. Basins are located at the northern end of each canal. The third canal is the western most of the three canals and is at issue here. Carlson Exhibit 9 (an aerial photograph) reflects that a number of single-family residences, virtually all of whom have docks, are located on both sides of two peninsulas which lie between the three canals. Mr. Carlson owns property on the southern end of the peninsula between the second and third finger canals. It can be inferred from the record that Mr. Kowalski resides in or close to the basin in the third canal. Boaters wishing to depart the third canal must travel south to the end of the canal, make a ninety-degree turn to the east, pass through a channel which lies directly south of Mr. Carlson's proposed dock, head slightly northeast for a short distance, and then make another ninety-degree turn to the south in order to gain access to a channel (directly south of the second finger canal) leading into Pelican Bay and eventually the Gulf of Mexico, approximately one mile away. Boaters entering the third finger canal would travel in a reverse direction. At the point where the dock will be constructed, the channel appears to be around two-hundred fifty feet wide (from the applicant's shoreline to a cluster of mangrove trees to the south), but much of the channel, as well as the three canals themselves, have a soft bottom consisting of sand and silt, which limits the speed and accessibility of vessels. The original application requested authorization to construct a floating dock anchored by concrete pilings at the southern end of the finger canal in front of Mr. Carlson's property. (The proposed dock replaces an older wooden dock which has now been removed.) That application represented that the dock is private and less than 1,000 square feet; it is not located in Outstanding Florida Waters; it will be used for recreational, noncommercial activities associated with the mooring or storage of boats and boat paraphernalia; it is the sole dock constructed pursuant to the requested exemption as measured along the shoreline for a minimum distance of sixty- five feet; no dredging or filling will occur except that which is necessary to install the pilings necessary to secure the dock in place; and based upon the depth of the water shown in accompanying documents and the dock's location, the dock will not substantially impede the flow of water or create a navigational hazard. These representations, if true, qualify the dock for an exemption from permitting by the Department. See § 403.813(2)(b), Fla. Stat.6; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.051(3)(b)1.-4. Based upon the information supplied in Mr. Carlson's application, Mark R. Miller, Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program Manager in the Department's South District Office (Fort Myers), issued a letter on May 8, 2007, advising Mr. Carlson that his application qualified for an exemption from Department permitting requirements and that the letter was his "authorization to use state owned submerged land (if applicable) for the construction of [his] project." After receiving the Department's first letter, Mr. Carlson elected not to publish notice of the Department's decision or provide notice by certified mail to any third parties.7 Therefore, third parties were not barred from challenging the Department's decision until after they received actual notice. The parties no longer dispute that after the Association received actual notice of the construction activities, it filed a request for a hearing within twenty-one days, or on December 26, 2007. Therefore, the request for a hearing is deemed to be timely. Section 403.813(2)(b)3., Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.051(3)(b)3. are identical in wording and provide that in order to qualify for an exemption, a dock "[s]hall not substantially impede the flow of water or create a navigation hazard." In its Petition, the Association contended that this requirement had not been satisfied. It also contended that the documents used in support of the initial application may not be valid. In the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, the Association clarified this objection by contending that the exemption may have expired because site conditions have materially changed from those initially reviewed by the Department. This allegation is presumably based on the fact that during the course of this proceeding, Respondent submitted two revisions to its original construction plans. Sometime after the first letter was issued, new information came to light and on May 16, 2008, Mr. Miller issued a Revised Letter which stated that the Department had "determined that the proposed project as described in the above referenced application . . . does not involve the use of sovereignty submerged lands[,]" and that "no further authorization will be required from the Submerged lands and Environmental Resources Program." See Department Exhibit 2, which is a disclaimer for the relevant waters issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The effect of the disclaimer was to render Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 inapplicable to this proceeding. By the time the Revised Letter had been issued, the original application had been revised twice, the last occurring sometime prior to the issuance of the Revised Letter. Among other things, the size of the dock has been increased to 997 square feet, and the dock will be placed nineteen feet landward and westward (or twenty-five feet east of Mr. Carlson's western property boundary) of the initial dock design for the purpose of improving navigation and creating less of an inconvenience to other boaters. The dock will now be located twenty-five feet from the seawall and is approximately seventy feet long and eight feet, five inches wide. A gangplank and floating platforms provide a walkway from the seawall to the proposed dock. On the western edge of the dock, running perpendicular to the seawall, will be pilings that will accommodate a boat lift for one of Mr. Carlson's boats. (The record reflects that Mr. Carlson intends to moor a forty-eight-foot Viking with a width of approximately sixteen feet, six inches, on the outside of the dock, parallel to the seawall, while a second boat will be stored in the boat lift.) A floating platform is located seaward of the main dock to allow access to the boat on the boat lift. After reviewing these changes, Mr. Miller reaffirmed his earlier determination and concluded that all criteria had still been met. In conjunction with the initial application, a Specific Purpose Survey of the channel dimensions was prepared by a professional surveyor, Mr. Timothy Mann, which reflects the bottom elevations of the channel in front of Mr. Carlson's property. The bottom elevations were calculated by taking manual and electronic readings using the national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) of 1929. This method is accepted in the surveying and mapping industry to calculate bottom elevations. The survey was signed and sealed by Mr. Mann. The updated applications relied upon the same survey. In calculating the water depth, Mr. Mann subtracted the mean low tide in the Pelican Bay area from the bottom elevation survey. Mean low tide is an elevation of the average low tide over a nineteen year period. Mr. Mann obtained these average low tide records from the State. Mean low tide for the Pelican Bay area was determined to be approximately -0.5 NGVD. Therefore, if Mr. Mann's survey showed a depth of -7.77 feet, the water depth would be -7.27 feet. The survey reflects that there is at least a sixty-foot wide area beyond the proposed dock with depths at mean low water of between four and five feet. See Carlson Exhibits 7A and 7B. The mean low water survey adds further justification for the Department's determination because it is not required by the Department, and applicants do not normally submit one. It should be noted that although the Department has no rule for how deep a channel needs to be, a three-foot depth is typically used. To satisfy the navigation concern raised by Petitioner, Mr. Carlson engaged the services of two long-time licensed boat captains, both of whom were accepted as experts. Besides reviewing the dock design, on May 13, 2008, Captain Joe Verdino navigated the entire length of the third finger canal using a thirty-foot boat with a five-foot beam and twenty-four inch draft. The boat was equipped with a GPS sonar calibrated at the hull of the craft to verify the depth of the water shown in the Specific Purpose Survey. Based upon his measurements, Captain Verdino determined that there is at least another sixty feet beyond the proposed dock for other vessels to safely travel through the channel and that vessels with a draft of four to five feet would be able to safely navigate the area. Therefore, he concluded that a fifty-five-foot boat with a sixteen to eighteen-foot beam could safely navigate on the channel. Even though the measurements were taken when the canal was closer to high tide than low tide, the witness stated that this consideration would not alter his conclusions. He further opined that wind is not a major factor in this area because the channel is "well-guarded" by Fort Myers Beach, which essentially serves as a large barrier island to the southwest. He discounted the possibility of navigational concerns during nighttime hours since boats have lights for night travel. Significantly, he noted that the tightest navigable area in the third canal is at an elbow located several hundred feet north of Mr. Carlson's property, where a dock extends into the canal at the bend. Therefore, if vessels could navigate through a narrower passageway further north on the canal, then vessels would have no difficulty navigating safely in front of Mr. Carlson's proposed dock. After reviewing the plans for the proposed dock, Captain Michael Bailey also navigated the third canal and concluded that the canal can be safely traversed by a fifty-two- foot boat. This is the largest boat presently moored on the third canal. After Mr. Carlson's dock is constructed, he opined that there is at least "fifty plus" feet and probably sixty feet of width for other boats to navigate the channel, even if a forty-eight-foot boat is moored at Mr. Carlson's dock. In reaching these conclusions, Captain Bailey used a PVC pipe and staked out depths in the channel beyond the proposed dock to verify the figures reflected in the Specific Purpose Survey. PVC pipes provide the most accurate measurement of the actual distance from the water's surface to the bottom of the channel. Like Captain Verdino, he noted that the narrowest point on the canal was at the elbow several hundred feet north of the proposed dock where boats must navigate between a private dock on one side and mangrove trees on the other. Captain Bailey discounted the possibility of navigational hazards during nighttime hours since a prudent mariner always travels slowly and would not enter a finger canal at nighttime unless he had lights on the boat. Mr. Mark Miller also deemed the navigation issue to be satisfied. He did so after reviewing the Specific Purpose Survey, the aerial photograph, the location of the dock, the results of a site inspection, and other dock applications for that area that had been filed with his office. Based upon all of this information, Mr. Miller concluded that there is an approximate sixty-foot distance to the south, southeast, and southwest beyond Mr. Carlson's dock before the waters turn shallow (less than four to five feet deep), and that the dock would not pose a navigational hazard. In response to Petitioner's contention that the third set of drawings was not signed and sealed by a professional surveyor, Mr. Miller clarified that drawings for dock applications do not have to be signed and sealed. (The third set of drawings was based on the first set submitted to the Department, and which was signed and sealed by a professional surveyor.) He also responded to an objection that the Department's review did not take into account the size of the boat that Mr. Carlson intended to dock at his facility. As to this concern, Mr. Miller pointed out that the Department's inquiry is restricted to the installation of the dock only, and not the size of the boat that the owner may intend to use. Finally, even though the County requires that a building permit be secured before the dock can be constructed, and has its own standards, that issue is not a statutory or rule concern in the Department's exemption process.8 Petitioner further alleged that site conditions have materially changed since the original application was filed and that the exemption determination should automatically expire. (This allegation parrots boilerplate language used in the Rights of Affected Parties portion of the Department's two letters.) As to this contention, the evidence shows that the applicant revised its dock plans twice after its initial submission. The Association does not contend that it was unaware of these changes or that it did not have sufficient time to respond to them prior to final hearing. The third (and final) revision is attached to Respondents' Joint Exhibit 2 (the Revised Letter) and indicates that the dock will be 997 square feet, which is larger than that originally proposed, but is still "1000 square feet or less of surface area," which is within the size limitation allowed by the rule and statute. It will also be further west and closer to Mr. Carlson's seawall. These revisions do not constitute a substantial change in site conditions, as contemplated by the Department in its exemption process. In order to have materially changed site conditions, Mr. Miller explained that there must be an event such as a hurricane that substantially alters the nature of the channel. Therefore, there is no basis to find that a material change in site conditions has occurred and that the original determination of exemption, as revised, should automatically expire. Petitioner presented the testimony of Captain Marcus Carson, a licensed boat captain, who moved to the Fort Myers area in 2000. He noted that the three canals (known as "the three finger area") have always been a "little hazardous" and because of this he cautioned that only residents familiar with the waters should use them. On May 12, 2008, he accompanied Mr. Kowalski on a "brief trip" in Mr. Kowalski's boat up and down the third canal. Using a dock pole to measure depths, he found the deepest areas of the channel below Mr. Carlson's home to be between 4.6 and 5.0 feet. However, he conceded that a dock pole is not as accurate as a PVC pipe, which Captain Bailey used to take the same type of measurements. Based upon the first set of plans, which he used in formulating his opinions, Captain Carson criticized the dock as being "out of place," "overbearing," and not aesthetically pleasing. He also opined that once the dock is constructed, the channel would be too small for two fifty-foot boats to pass through the channel at the same time. However, these conclusions are based upon the assumption that the original dock plans and pilings would be used. The witness agreed that if the original plans have been modified, as they have, and the dock moved further west and closer to the seawall, he would have to reevaluate his opinions.
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 determining that Mr. Carlson's project is exempt from its permitting requirements. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2008.
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner on account of his race in terminating his employment as a glass bottom boat captain at Silver Springs? Whether Emma Hawkins should be allowed to intervene? If so, whether respondent discriminated against intervenor on account of her race in failing to promote and ultimately in discharging her?
Findings Of Fact On January 1, 1989, FLAC acquired Silver Springs and Wild Waters, an adjacent tourist attraction dating to 1977 or 1978. In or near Ocala, Florida, both properties had belonged to Florida Leisure Acquisitions, Inc., who had acquired them from American Broadcasting Company some five years earlier, in a "leveraged buyout." FLAC also acquired Weeki Wachee in 1989. T.449. Thomas Cavanaugh, who started as a vice-president and general manager in 1973, survived both changes in ownership, and had effective control over a unified personnel system until his departure in 1990. As late as 1973, everybody who worked at Silver Springs as a glass bottom boat captain was black. When FLAC acquired Silver Springs, five of twelve glass bottom boat captains were black. At the time of petitioner's discharge on June 21, 1989, seven of the boat captains were black. The number had fallen to three by November of 1990. Hiring Patterns Most of the jobs at Silver Springs require little or no skill, and this has been true at all pertinent times. Boat captains needed only to be able to deliver a spiel or learn a script and handle a boat. Maintenance and food service positions were predominantly unskilled. In all these areas, there were also some positions for managers or supervisors. Between December 7, 1987, and May 6, 1991, inclusive, respondent or its predecessor hired 104 boat captains or guides, and offered jobs as boat captains or guides to 20 others who did not accept. None of those who refused offers and only one who accepted was black. Nine of 520 persons who applied for these positions during this time period were black. In late 1989 and early 1990, blacks applying for other positions at Silver Springs comprised a significantly higher proportion of the applicants for these other positions. In the early part of 1990, blacks accounted for 6.95 percent of applicants for all jobs at Silver Springs, up from the latter part of the year before. Treating the population between 15 and 64 as a proxy for the civilian labor force, the civilian labor force in the area was, according to 1980 census data, 14.7 percent black, a percentage that had fallen by 1990 to 12.7 percent. Blacks comprised 11.1 percent of the Marion County population 15 and older in 1990, and 16.8 percent of those who found work through the Florida State Employment Service in the period from July of 1990 through June of 1991. A labor economist called by petitioner testified that the discrepancy between the percentage of blacks in the flow of applicants for work as boat captains or guides and the percentage of blacks in the work force in Marion County permitted an inference "that there is . . . probably some barrier to entry for individuals to apply," Fresen Deposition, p. 21, for those positions. The same witness was also willing to speculate, id. at 54, that the discrepancy between the percentage of blacks in the flow of applicants for boat captain or guide positions and the percentage of blacks in the flow of applicants for other positions at Silver Springs "may be . . . [attributable to t]he channelling of applicants for navigational positions into other positions." Id. at 55. Respondent attributed the conceded decline in black applicants for work at Silver Springs to better opportunities increasingly available elsewhere in Marion County, including positions at a Martin-Marietta plant with 1800 employees, at Certified Grocers with 800 employees, at Energy One and at Federal Motors, each with 1100 employees in the community, and at a K-Mart Distribution Center with two or three hundred employees. T.440-1. Glass Bottom Boats For several years, perhaps since 1957, U.S. Coast Guard regulations have required that passengers on glass bottom boats at Silver Springs be told about life jackets on board, and boat captains have been responsible for doing this, before setting out. Otherwise, until a few years ago, each glass bottom boat captain had broad discretion about what he did or did not say to passengers on board. On July 1, 1957, when petitioner David Faison, who is black, began work for one of respondent's predecessors in interest as a glass bottom boat captain (or driver), each captain was required to compose a talk to deliver to glass bottom boat passengers. As a new recruit, Mr. Faison read the book "Eternal Springs" and rode with other captains, before leading his own boat tours, pointing out flora and fauna and sharing information about the springs. An Easter Outing Jim Schorr, then FLAC's new chief executive officer, took his family for their first ride on a glass bottom boat at Silver Springs on Easter Day 1989. They "went down on the glass bottom boat dock, and they took the first boat that was available and that happened to be Riley Williams' boat." T.526. Afterwards Thomas Cavanaugh summoned Riley Williams, a black boat captain with more than 30 years' experience, and Michael Jacobs, respondent's director of operations, to his office. "Riley, what happened? What happened with your trip, Riley?" he asked. "We just talked to Jim Schorr. He said it was a terrible trip." T.526. Surprised and visibly shaken, Mr. Williams reported that "Mr. Schorr even told me my trip was good," (T.527) but allowed that he had been nervous. Mr. Cavanaugh told him to take the afternoon off and said, "Riley, we're going to go ahead - we're going to help all the drivers. We're going to hire a drama coach, and it will help everybody out." Id. Standardization David London, the new drama coach, prepared the first version of a script the boat captains were asked to commit to memory, or at least to follow closely as a guide when giving tours. As requested, petitioner, along with other boat captains, made suggestions for improving the script. T.251, 521. At a meeting on or after May 2, 1989, a revised script was distributed to assembled boat captains, and Mr. Schorr announced "that he wanted them to learn the script, and if they chose not to learn the script, that they could find work elsewhere." T.484. No deadline was given. T.44, 429. Whether petitioner Faison was in attendance is unclear. T.294. Riley Williams now works on the grounds at Silver Springs, landscaping and gardening. His pay is no less than if he had remained a boat captain. He asked for a transfer because he felt he "really wasn't coming up to par of what they wanted . . . [from boat captains] and the time was closing in " T. 581. Dockmaster A black man, Willie Barr began as a glass bottom boat captain at Silver Springs in 1974. Except for a hiatus that began in 1980 and ended in 1981, he continued in respondent's employ (or that of a predecessor in interest) until November 18, 1989, when he retired as dockmaster, a salaried position he first assumed in 1982. As dockmaster, Mr. Barr reported directly to Mike Jacobs, the white man who worked as respondent's director of operations. Mr. Barr had overall responsibility for both jungle cruise and glass bottom boats; and particular responsibility for scheduling glass bottom boat captains' work and for maintenance of the glass bottom boats. A separate maintenance department actually did the work. He also piloted, loaded, unloaded and tied up glass bottom boats. Mr. Barr retired at age 52 at least partly because of high blood pressure, a malady of which both he and Mr. Jacobs had become aware in early 1989. T.299, 481. During the months before he stepped down, Mr. Barr came to Mr. Jacobs on several occasions, and told him "about the stress he was under at the boat dock, the problems he was having with the drivers, a new company taking over and all the changes that were taking place." T.481. In May of 1989, Mr. Jacobs asked Mr. Utz, a decorated Navy veteran who had worked at Silver Springs longer than Mr. Barr, "to give Willie a hand." T.371, 481-2. At the time of this request, Mr. Utz, who is white, was "at the jungle cruise most of the time running the jungle cruise operation," (T.298) as lead or "manager of the jungle cruise." T.368. Mr. Barr viewed Mr. Utz, before May of 1989, as his assistant, as did every glass bottom boat captain who testified on this point. But management witnesses insisted that Mr. Utz's position "at the jungle cruise" was equal in rank to that of glass bottom boat dockmaster, the position Mr. Barr held. T.472. Although Mr. Utz worked for an hourly wage before (and, initially, after) the change in May of 1989, Mr. Utz's remuneration exceeded Mr. Barr's salary significantly. In addition to supervising jungle cruises, Mr. Utz trained boat captain recruits. Respondent gave Mr. Utz no pay raise in May of 1989, when his broader responsibilities seemed to most to entail greater authority. The company's chief executive officer acknowledged that a change in the pecking order occurred. T.455. Mr. Barr began reporting to Mr. Utz in May of 1989. T.275. On May 7, 1989, Mike Sentman took over as lead for jungle cruise operations. Response to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories, No. 16. Glass bottom boat drivers considered Mr. Barr their supervisor before, but not after, the time Mr. Utz undertook his new role in glass bottom boat operations. T.42, 53- 4, 57. Ultimately Mr. Utz assumed a new title, supervisor of boat operations (T.295, 372), and filled a newly created position, which respondent never advertised, even to other employees. He continued to train all new boat captains before they took a test the U.S. Coast Guard required, drawing on his long experience with boat handling. Only in January of 1990, after Mr. Barr had retired, however, did Mr. Utz acquire his present title and become a salaried employee. T.372. We Are Not "Edutained" On Tuesday, June 20, 1989, the day David Faison returned from a two- week vacation, David London rode on his boat and listened to what petitioner said to the tourists. Unfavorably impressed, he told Donald Utz afterwards, "Wow, that was terrible. That was the wors[t] yet." T.378. That afternoon Donald Utz and Michael Jacobs sent Robert Sinkler, Jr., at the time employed in respondent's "Edutainment" program, on a boat ride with petitioner, with instructions to videotape petitioner's performance. Virtually without interruption, petitioner (who mistook Mr. Sinkler for a tourist) was videotaped for the duration of the trip. Received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, the videotape records petitioner's remarks, delivered in a sometimes unintelligible singsong. They bear scant resemblance to the prescribed script, and include no reference to life jackets. On other occasions, however, petitioner did advise passengers of the life preservers on board. T. 278. David Faison was asked the next day to join Messrs. Jacobs and Utz, in viewing at least a portion of the videotape. In the discussion that followed, petitioner, who was said to be good-natured ordinarily, expressed resentment at having to use the script, which Mr. Jacobs took as a refusal to do so. Petitioner is "a person that would tell you what he thought." T.451. He terminated petitioner's employment on the spot, although Mr. Faison was generally seen by his superiors in the organization as not the type of person to be insubordinate. T.450-451. The day Mr. Faison was discharged Willie Barr, the dockmaster, asked to see the videotape, after he learned from other boat captains that petitioner had been sent home. Mr. Barr watched part of it in the company of Don Utz, who told Mr. Barr that petitioner had been discharged for failure to use the assigned script. T.295. Mr. Utz "didn't really indicate that" (T.295) respondent had refused to use the script. Before petitioner's discharge, Mr. Utz had told Virginia Phillips that he did not know how the black boat captains were going to do because they were difficult to understand. T.51. He also told her he did not want her going to "that area of the city," (T.47) which she took to mean the black residential area. She had recently travelled there when she drove a black boat captain, Alphonso Sears, home. Insubordination was (and remains) a recognized ground for dismissal. T.293, 303. But a white glass bottom boat captain was not dismissed despite refusing to be "cross-trained" as a boat captain for two of the three other rides offered by FLAC, even though he had originally been told that "cross training" for all three was mandatory. T.108. The white employee did train as a boat captain for one of the three other rides. He was told, three weeks before the hearing, that training for the other two was not required. T.109. Another boat driver, Virginia Ferguson, testified that she "was told recently all boat drivers needed to be cross-trained" (T.175) to act as guides on all four rides. T. 176. A second white boat driver also refused cross- training with impunity. T.420. But nobody else was shown to have insisted on giving the glass bottom boat tour his own way, without using the prescribed script. Respondent's newly installed chief executive officer had personally decided and publicly announced that all glass bottom drivers were to use the script. Recruitment Efforts Four times petitioner tried unsuccessfully to get in to see Mr. Cavanaugh in an effort to regain the job he had held for more than three decades. At hearing, Mr. Cavanaugh characterized his failure to talk to petitioner about his discharge as an "error" (T.452) that he attributed to the emotional drain of having himself to terminate the employment of so many people he had worked with for a long time. David Faison was one of approximately twenty employees FLAC discharged in 1989, most of whom were managers. "The new management was making a sweep." T.449. Like his brother David, Roosevelt Faison has worked as a boat captain at Silver Springs for many years. He began on May 4, 1956, and worked full-time until 1989, when he chose to cut back to two days a week. An average or above average employee (T.276), his evaluations have been consistently "good" or "excellent." In May of 1989, he told Anne Dansby, a white woman who worked for respondent that "the few blacks . . . [still employed] felt like they w[ere] not really wanted in the park." T.125. She apparently relayed the substance of this conversation to Tom Cavanaugh, who later brought up the subject with Mr. Roosevelt Faison, agreeing that the number of black employees had dropped. Mr. Cavanaugh told Mr. Roosevelt Faison that he "was dead on the money, but it wasn't done intentionally." T.126.36. On the third or fourth day after his arrival at Silver Springs, Thomas Cavanaugh ordered an end to racially segregated bathrooms at Silver Springs. He personally included a sledge hammer in an attack on a urinal reserved, until its destruction, for the use of black men. Within months of his arrival, he "retired" the white supervisor of glass bottom boats and replaced him with a long-time black employee. He sought to recruit black employees through the school system and enlisting the assistance of black community leaders. These efforts antedated his discussion of the situation with Roosevelt Faison, and intensified after their discussion. Lay-Off On a Monday in July of 1989, when Mr. Roosevelt Faison reported to work, he found a note with his paycheck, which said, "Roosevelt, you are off until notified to come back to work." T.127. When he spoke to Ms. Dansby about the note, she called Mike Jacobs, but he was reportedly too busy to talk to Mr. Roosevelt. Ms. Dansby then called Mr. Utz, who did speak to Mr. Roosevelt Faison, first telling him, "It's just slow business, and we're just cutting back," (T.129) then referring him to Willie Barr, who was not at work that day. The next day, when Roosevelt Faison spoke to Mr. Barr by telephone, Mr. Barr rescinded the lay-off. Although he had not recommended the lay-off, (T.277) Mr. Barr had written the note to Mr. Faison ("on Roosevelt's time card" T.305) at Mr. Utz's behest. T.307. Mr. Roosevelt Faison did not work that week, but he was paid for a half day (presumably because he had come in Monday.) He resumed working his wonted Mondays and Tuesdays the following week. McCants Charlie McCants, who is black, went to work for respondent or a predecessor in interest in 1959 in the deer park, feeding and otherwise taking care of the animals there. He also mended fences and did other maintenance, until his transfer in 1985 to the wildlife section of the attraction. There he did much the same thing, although for different animals, among them giraffes, to whom he had to give shots. He was paid the same thing in the wildlife section as he was making in the deer park before the transfer, although he never supervised anybody in the wildlife section, as he once did for a while in the deer park, without actually holding a supervisor's position. He and Bill White, who is white, were relocated at the same time. Management felt they had both become too often hard to find in the deer park. Emma Hawkins Emma Hawkins began work at Silver Springs in the food and beverage department in May of 1974. In September of 1976, she resigned to go to junior college, but she returned to her job in November of 1977, and was promoted the following month to lead. She was promoted a second time -- to unit coordinator -- in March of 1979, and a third time -- to supervisor -- in August of the same year. She viewed her transfer in February of 1990 to the food and beverage department at Wild Waters as a fourth promotion. T.185, 198. She did not, however, receive every promotion for which she applied. She was passed over in favor of another black person for a job "managing the warehouse," (T.188, 489) and lost out, again to another black applicant, when she applied for an administrative position in the front office. T.188, 489. In January of 1989, she received the last in a series of merit pay raises. More than once, she applied unsuccessfully to become assistant manager of the food and beverage department. The last time she applied to be assistant manager of the food and beverage was the spring of 1989. T.188. The position remained open until Shari Wynkoop, a white woman who had not previously worked at Silver Springs, began as assistant manager of the food and beverage department on June 28, 1990. T.479. At the time of her transfer to Wild Waters, Ms. Hawkins had charge of a restaurant at Silver Springs, The Outback, where she supervised some 20 employees, more in the summertime. T.299-301. At Wild Waters, she had responsibility for five food facilities and up to 50 employees. Id. She had "charge of hiring, firing, inventory purchasing, schedules, supervising, cooking, [and] cash control." T.186. At least after the transfer, many of the assistant manager's duties devolved on Ms. Hawkins, until Ms. Wynkoop took over. A few months before the transfer, Robert Santillana, the food and beverage director, had given Ms. Hawkins a written reprimand because Tina Balboni, whom she supervised, had been permitted to work with "NO HAT, SCARF OR NAME TAG." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. On a "CAST MEMBER COUNSELING FORM," Mr. Santillana warned that another such dereliction would result in further counseling. Id. Money Bags The Wild Waters operations manager's morning routine included a trip from Silver Springs to Wild Waters with locked bags full of cash for the various Wild Waters cash registers. He put the money bags needed for the operations Ms. Hawkins supervised in a milk crate in his office. She usually took the crate herself from there to her office in the back of the Surf's Up restaurant, before distributing the money to cashiers. Ms. Hawkins had a door lock installed -- there was none when she started at Wild Waters -- but she did not always lock her office door. An electronic timing device for one of the water slides at Wild Waters was located in her office, and the operations manager needed access to reset the timer. She spent a certain amount of time out of her office but in close proximity. Ms. Hawkins was told on her return (after two days off) to work on or about August 10, 1990, that $98.16 had not been accounted for on or about the evening of August 8, 1990, and that a cashier had quit the day after the loss was discovered. She relayed this information to Mr. Santillana, who did not seem particularly concerned at the time. But Mr. Santillana gave her a written reprimand when, sometime within a few days of August 8, 1990, approximately $400 was taken from an unlocked money bag a cashier left in her unlocked office, in violation of prescribed procedure and apparently without Ms. Hawkins' knowledge. This loss occurred on a Friday. Mr. Santillana, who did not learn of it until the following Monday, was angry that Ms. Hawkins had not succeeded in reaching him over the weekend. She had standing instructions to report major losses to him as soon as possible. On August 16, 1990, he and Ms. Wynkoop went to Ms. Hawkins' office and found it unlocked. Nobody was in the office, but a milk crate full of money bags was in plain sight. He went straight to the front of the restaurant and asked Ms. Hawkins to come to his office the following day. Later he wrote a memorandum, memorializing his findings on August 16, 1990, recounting the loss a week or so before of $98.16, and terminating her employment. August 16, 1990, was the last day Ms. Hawkins' worked for respondent. Ms. Hawkins was not the first to lose a job with respondent for (apparent) failure to abide by prescribed cash handling procedures. On occasion employees were discharged for a single (apparent) breach of such procedures. Ms. Hawkins (who had not yet clocked in when Mr. Santillana accosted her on the morning of August 16, 1990) noticed that a trusted employee had a good view of her office door, but did not bother to check whether it was locked, before going to help elsewhere in the facility, where she was needed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order denying the petition for relief. That FCHR enter a final order denying the petition to intervene. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 32, the first two sentences of No. 33, Nos. 34, 35, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 69- 74, 77-82, 84, 86, 87, 90-93, 95, 98, 99, 100, 105-112, 115, 116, 117, 120-124, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 138 and 139 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the CEO was Jim Schorr. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 26, 28-31, 59-62, 66, 67, 68, 76, 83, 85, 88, 89, 94, 102, 103, 104, 118, 119, 126, 128, 135, 136, 140, 143 and 144 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, the weight of the evidence established that petitioner did not give the warning on June 20, 1989. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 23, 36, 37, 96, 97, 101, 125 and 142, the witnesses testified as reported. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact No. 27, the last sentence, of No. 33, Nos. 75, 113 and 141 have been rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 36-56, the case has been decided on the assumption, pro hac vice, that race discrimination did take place at some point. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 114, the transfer occurred in February. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 137, she had not been performing as assistant manager for ten years. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 5 pertain to the procedural posture of the case, apart from evidence adduced at final hearing. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6-8, 12-15, 17-20, the first sentence of No. 21, Nos. 25, 27, 28, 31-34, 36, 37, 39-47, 49-56, 60, 61, 62, 64, 67, 69-75 and 76 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10 and 11, it is not clear whether Faison was present and heard Mr. Schorr's remarks, or that he was ever told of any deadline. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, it is not clear whether FLAC intended not to hide the fact that one of its employees was videotaping petitioner. With respect to the last sentence of paragraph No. 21 and Nos. 22, 23 and 24, petitioner was fired for perceived refusal to use the script, whether or not he had time enough to learn it. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 26, 29, 30, 35, 38, 48, 58, 63, 77, 78 and 79 pertain to subordinate matters. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 57 is interally inconsistent. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 59, it is unnecessary to decide this question in order to decide the case. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 65, the position was filled on June 28, 1990. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 66, see paragraphs 46-51 the findings of fact. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 67, the evidence was in equipoise on the question of where Ms. Hawkins was when the loss was discovered. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary C. O'Rourke P. Kent Spriggs Spriggs and Johnson West College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Loren E. Levy Bruce Kaster Cove, Green and Kaster P.O. Box 2720 Ocala, FL 32678 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113 Lewis E. Shelley 117 S. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Town of Ponce Inlet Comprehensive Plan adopted by Ordinances 2008-01 (2008 Amendment) and 2010-09 (2010 Amendment) are "in compliance" as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Pacetta, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company that owns real property in Ponce Inlet. Petitioner, Mar-Tim, Inc., is a Florida corporation that owns real property in Ponce Inlet. Petitioner, Down the Hatch, Inc., is a Florida corporation that owns real property in Ponce Inlet. Petitioner, Pacetta, LLC, controls and manages Mar-Tim and Down the Hatch. Petitioners' real property in the Town is directly affected by the challenged plan amendments. Petitioners submitted objections to the Town during the period of time beginning with the transmittal hearing and ending with the adoption of the challenged amendments. The Town of Ponce Inlet is a municipality in Volusia County that adopted a comprehensive plan in 1990 ("Town Plan"), which it amends from time to time pursuant to chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Petitioners' Property Petitioners' property is located on the north cut of the Ponce de Leon Inlet. The current uses on the property include a restaurant, a marina and boat repair yard with a marine travel lift, and vacant lands. An old cemetery is located on a portion of Petitioners' property. A shell midden (ancient refuse pile) is located on a portion of Petitioners' property. Petitioners' property has single family residences on three sides. A significant tree canopy is adjacent to Petitioners' property and large oak trees are on the property. A historic cemetery known as Pacetti Cemetery is near Petitioners' property. Several historic buildings are located near Petitioners' property. A museum and exhibit building are located nearby on Beach Street. Beach Street and Sailfish Drive are the main roads to access the Petitioners' property. These two roads have been designated by the Town as Scenic Roads. Petitioners' property comprises approximately 15 acres. About 2.4 acres are zoned for multifamily development. The remaining acreage is zoned Riverfront Commercial. There is also a special Riverfront Overlay District ("ROD") that covers Petitioners' property. Background There are at least three areas in the Town designated Riverfront Commercial. The Riverfront Commercial land use category permits wet boat storage, dry boat storage, boat sales and services, fishing charter boat dockage, fishing and boat equipment and supplies, seafood markets, restaurants, boatels, and boat construction and repairs. There is only one area in the Town designated ROD. In the ROD, land uses are more restricted. Dry boat storage facilities are allowed by special exception in Riverfront Commercial, but not within the ROD. The Town created the Riverfront Commercial District and the ROD in its Land Use and Development Code in 2004, but these land use categories were not identified in the Town Plan at that time. After the designation of the ROD in 2004, Petitioners began to acquire several parcels of land located within the ROD. The Town continued to engage its citizens in a visioning process for the Town's waterfront, which lead to the 2008 Amendment. As originally proposed, the 2008 Amendment allowed upland boat storage in the ROD under certain conditions in Future land Use Element ("FLUE") Policy 4.1.5. A citizens group obtained a sufficient number of signatures to place on the general election ballot a charter amendment to prohibit dry boat storage facilities in the ROD. Therefore, when the Town adopted the 2008 Amendment, it changed FLUE Policy 4.1.5 to prohibit dry boat storage facilities. Petitioners challenged the charter amendment in circuit court and the court determined that the charter amendment was invalid. The court also invalidated FLUE Policy 4.1.5, determining that the policy was only adopted to conform to the charter amendment. The circuit court decision was affirmed on appeal. Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC, 63 So. 3d 840 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Petitioners also asked the circuit court to invalidate the ROD provisions of the Land Use and Development Code, but the circuit court declined to rule on their validity. Following the court's invalidation of FLUE Policy 4.1.5, the Town adopted the 2010 Amendment, which creates a new Policy 4.1.5. The new policy also prohibits dry boat storage facilities in the ROD. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners' overarching objection to the plan amendments is that they prohibit Petitioners from building a dry boat storage facility. Petitioners claim the prohibition is inconsistent with other policies of the Town Plan and is not supported by data and analysis. The term "dry boat storage facility" is not defined in the Town Plan. The Volusia County Manatee Protection Plan ("MPP"), which is adopted by reference in Coastal Management Element ("CME") Objective 1.6, defines dry boat storage facility as "an upland structure used for storing watercraft." Petitioners already store some boats on trailers or boat stands on the upland while they are being repaired or refurbished in the boatyard. The Town interprets the Town Plan to allow this type of upland storage in the ROD, citing FLUE Policy 4.1.4 of the 2008 Plan Amendment which explains that dry boat storage means "multiple level boat racks" in "fully enclosed buildings" and not the "[l]imited storage of boats on trailers or boat stands" in conjunction with boatyard operations. FLUE Policy 4.1.5 Petitioners' objections to FLUE Policy 4.1.5, which was adopted in the 2010 Amendment, are addressed first because the associated issues affect the other policies that have been challenged. FLUE Policy 4.1.5 states: The Town shall maintain a zoning overlay district over those Riverfront Commercial and High Density Multi-family Residential lands west of Sailfish Drive, south of Bounty Lane and north of the most southerly portion of Sailfish Drive to promote the water-oriented character of the River and compatibility with adjacent residential properties, to ensure protection of view corridors of the River and the tree canopy in the Front Street Area, and to preserve the historic setting and unique character of this area, including, but not limited to, the scenic roads of Beach Street and Sailfish Drive. Dry boat storage facilities shall be prohibited within this overlay district. Petitioners argue that the prohibition against dry boat storage facilities in Policy 4.1.5 conflicts with the MPP adopted by reference in the Town Plan because the MPP expresses a preference for dry slips over wet slips. The MPP includes a Boat Facility Siting Plan, which contains requirements that must be met for new or expanded marina facilities. The Plan requires the Town to place a priority on the development of boat slip capacity at or south of Ponce de Leon Inlet, to encourage marinas to include both wet slips and dry slips, and to "utilize dry storage to the fullest extent possible in addition to wet slips." The Boat Facility Siting Plan includes best management practices ("BMPs"). One of these BMPs is "Use of upland dry storage shall take precedence over the creation of new wet slips." The prohibition against dry boat storage facilities in the ROD will likely reduce the number of boats launched in the ROD because fewer boats can be accomodated in wetslips than in upland dry boat storage facilities.2/ This proposition was not rebutted by Petitioners. A major objective of the MPP is to reduce manatee injuries and deaths due to collisions with boats. The fewer boats, the fewer potential collisions with manatees. Therefore, the effect of the prohibition against dry boat storage facilities in the ROD is consistent with the objectives of the MPP. Dry boat storage facilities are allowed elsewhere in the Town. The design standards and BMPs in the MPP are described as permitting requirements, not as zoning or land use restrictions. The MPP does not state that all of its design standards and BMPs must be reflected in every permit issued by the Town, County, or State. It does not require, for example, that every marina must have more dry slips than wet slips. The MPP acknowledges that marina sites must conform to local land use and zoning regulations that affect the construction of new wet and dry slips. Under the Policy 4.1.5, utilizing dry storage to the fullest extent possible in the ROD means allowing upland storage of boats on trailers and boat stands in conjunction with boatyard operations. Petitioners also contend that Policy 4.1.5 is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the Town. The prohibition against dry boat storage facilities in the ROD is supported by data and analysis that shows that the noise, fumes, traffic, scale, and appearance of dry boat storage facilities is incompatible with residential uses and with scenic, historic, and natural resources nearby. Petitioners showed that some of the same incompatibility factors exist in other Riverfront Commercial areas, but the factors are not as numerous and pronounced as they are in the ROD. FLUE Policy 1.2.2(g) Petitioners challenge FLUE Policy 1.2.2(g), which limits the floor area for buildings within the Riverfront Commercial District (including the ROD) to 5,000 square feet. Petitioners argue that this limit is in conflict with CME Policy 1.6.6, which requires the Town to adopt and maintain a boat slip allocation program pursuant to which the Town made an allocation of 213 dry slips to Petitioners' property. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, this argument cannot be raised in this proceeding because the 5,000 square- foot limit was already in the Town Plan before the 2008 Amendment. Petitioners argue that the floor area limit is subject to compliance review in this proceeding because its effect has been substantially altered by new provisions in the 2008 Amendment. The 2008 Amendment added a floor area ratio (gross floor area of buildings divided by upland lot area) limit of 35 percent for Riverfront Commercial, and an increase in floor area up to 10,000 square feet is made possible in a new Planned Waterfront Development District. However, these and other changes in the 2008 Amendment do not alter the fundamental effect of the existing floor area limit. The Town has adopted a boat slip allocation program as required by CME Policy 1.6.6. The allocation of 213 dry slips to Petitioners' property is not required by Policy 1.6.6 or by any other policy in the Town Plan. Petitioners cannot base a claim of internal inconsistency on matters that are external to the Town Plan.3/ Even if the floor area limit in FLUE Policy 1.1.1(g) is subject to compliance review, it is not inconsistent with the MPP for the same reasons that the prohibition of dry boat storage facilities in FLUE Policy 1.4.5 is not inconsistent with the MPP. FLUE Policy 4.2.4 Policy 4.2.4 of the 2008 Amendment states that, in developing design standards for a new Planned Waterfront Development District, limited exceptions might be allowed to the floor area limit of 5,000 square feet, up to 10,000 square feet, but this exception will not apply to dry boat storage facilities. No Planned Waterfront Development District has yet been created in the Town. Despite Petitioners' objection to the 5,000 square- foot floor area limit generally applicable in Riverfront Commercial, Petitioners argue that there is no data and analysis to support the Town's allowance for an increase in the floor area limit to 10,000 square feet in a Planned Waterfront Development District. The knowledge of what a 5,000 square foot or a 10,000 square foot building looks like is all the data needed to set a limit based on scale. CME Policy 1.6.6 CME Policy 1.6.6 of the 2008 Amendment states: The Town shall maintain and enforce its boat slip allocation program. This program shall provide for equitable allocations of new wet and dry slips. Upland slips may be permitted under this allocation program if they can meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Town and the Town Codes. Upland/dry slips development shall be balanced against other community policies, including neighborhood compatibility and visual impacts. Dry slips shall not take precedence over wet slips based solely on environmental concerns. Petitioners contend that Policy 1.6.6 conflicts with the building size limitations in FLUE Policies 1.2.2(g) and 4.2.4 and with the prohibition against dry boat storage facilities in FLUE Policy 4.1.5 because the size limits and prohibition do not allow for the balancing called for in Policy 1.6.6. Petitioners are interpreting the policy more literally than the Town. Things are not going to be placed on scales and made to balance in the middle. The Town interprets the policy to direct the Town to consider competing policies according to their relative importance. In Riverfront Commercial areas other than the ROD, there can be combinations of wet and dry slips, including dry boat storage facilities, but the floor area limit of 5,000 square feet is a "community policy" that will also apply to affect the outcome of the balancing. In the ROD, the prohibition against dry boat storage facilities is another community policy that must be applied. The Town has established a community policy to prohibit dry boat storage facilities in the ROD because the Town has determined that such facilities do not harmonize with nearby residential uses and scenic, historic, and natural resources. Data and analysis support this determination. Although Petitioners got a Town witness to testify that a prohibition does not allow for balancing, the record shows that the Town gives no weight to the desirability of dry boat storage facilities in the ROD and some weight to the desirability of wet slips, so that the scales always tip in favor of wet slips and for boats on trailers or boat stands in a boatyard. Petitioners contend that the statement in FLUE Policy 1.6.6 that "Dry slips shall not take precedence over wet slips based solely on environmental concerns," is directly in conflict with the MPP, because the MPP states a preference for dry slips based specifically on environmental concerns (manatees). However, the meaning of the policy statement is that environmental concerns, alone, will not determine how many dry slips are allowed. Other concerns will be taken into account in determining how many dry slips are allowed. That is not inconsistent with the MPP. Recreational and Working Waterfronts Petitioners contend that the floor area limit in FLUE Policy 1.2.2(g), the prohibition against dry boat storage facilities in FLUE Policy 4.1.5, and the floor area limit for dry storage facilities in FLUE Policy 4.2.4 are inconsistent with section 163.3177(6)(a)3.c., which requires a FLUE to include criteria to "[e]ncourage preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts for water-dependent uses in coastal communities." The term "recreational and commercial working waterfronts," is defined in section 342.201(2)(b): "Recreational and commercial working waterfront" means parcel or parcels of real property that provide access for water- dependent commercial activities or provide access to the public to the navigable waters of the state. Recreational and commercial working waterfronts require direct access to or a location on, over, or adjacent to a navigable body of water. The term includes water-dependent facilities that are open to the public and offer public access by vessels to the waters of the state or that are support facilities for recreational, commercial, research, or governmental vessels. These facilities include docks, wharfs, lifts, wet and dry marinas, boat ramps, boat hauling and repair facilities, commercial fishing facilities, boat construction facilities, and other support structures over the water. There is no current use of Petitioners' property that is prohibited by the challenged amendments. In other words, Petitioners' working waterfront is preserved. To the extent section 163.3177(6)(a)3.c. should be interpreted more broadly to encourage not only preservation, but also economic vitality through further development and redevelopment of waterfronts, the Town has adopted FLUE criteria to encourage their development and redevelopment. The floor area limit and the prohibition against dry boat storage facilities in the ROD do not prevent Petitioners from further developing their working waterfront to add or expand uses. Evaluation and Appraisal Petitioners challenge FLUE Policies 1.2.2(g) and 4.2.4 and CME Policy 1.6.6 as constituting a failure of the Town to update its plan to address the changes needed as identified in the Town's Evaluation and Assessment Report ("EAR"). Petitioners failed to prove that the Town did not make the changes identified in the EAR. Summary Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the 2008 Amendment or the 2010 Amendment create internal inconsistency in the Town Plan. Petitioners failed to prove that the 2008 Amendment or the 2010 Amendment is not supported by relevant data and analysis. Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the 2008 Amendment or the 2010 Amendment is not in compliance.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order determining that the plan amendments adopted by Town Ordinances 2008-01 and 2010-09 are in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a letter of consent to use State-owned submerged lands (SL) and an environmental resource permit (ERP) (which are processed together as a SLERP) for the single-family dock proposed by Pamela C. Damico, which would extend 770 feet into the Atlantic Ocean from her property on Plantation Key in Monroe County (DEP Permit 44-0298211-001).
Findings Of Fact Pamela C. Damico owns property at 89505 Old Highway on Plantation Key in the Upper Florida Keys in Monroe County. Her property includes submerged land extending between 212 and 233 feet into the Atlantic Ocean, which is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). She applied to DEP for a permit to build a dock and boat mooring at her property. In its final configuration, the proposed docking structure would have an access pier from the shoreline that would extend across her submerged land, and then farther across State-owned submerged lands, for a total distance of 770 feet from the shoreline. A primary goal of the application was to site the mooring area in water with a depth of at least -4 feet mean low water (MLW). Mrs. Damico’s consultants believed that this was required for a SLERP in Monroe County. In addition, they were aware that -4 feet MLW would be required to get a dock permit from Islamorada, Village of Islands. The beliefs of Mrs. Damico’s consultants regarding the depth requirement for the mooring site were based in part on incorrect interpretations of DEP rules by certain DEP staff made both during Mrs. Damico’s application process and during the processing of other applications in the past. Those incorrect interpretations were based in part on ambiguous and incorrect statements in guidance documents published by DEP over the years. (Similarly, certain DEP staff made incorrect interpretations of DEP rules regarding a supposedly absolute 500-foot length limit for any dock in Monroe County.) See Conclusions of Law for the correct interpretations of DEP rules. Petitioner owns oceanfront property to the south and adjacent to Mrs. Damico’s. As expressed by Petitioner’s owner and operator, Dr. William Carter, Petitioner has concerns regarding impacts of the proposed docking structure on navigation, boating safety, and natural resources, including seagrasses, stony corals, tarpon, and bonefish. Several changes were made to the proposed docking structure to address concerns raised by Petitioner. In the earlier proposals, the access pier would have been supported by 10-inch square concrete piles, which must be installed using a construction barge and heavy equipment. In its final form, to reduce the direct impacts to the seagrasses and stony corals, it was proposed that the first 550 feet of the access pier from the point of origin on the shoreline would be installed using pin piles, which are made of aluminum and are 4.5 inches square inside a vinyl sleeve five inches square, and can be installed by hand. Instead of the planks originally proposed for the decking of the access pier, a grating material was substituted, which would allow greater light penetration to the seagrasses below. The orientation and length of the proposed docking structure was modified several times in an effort to achieve the optimal siting of the mooring platform. Handrails were proposed for the access pier, and no tie-up cleats are provided there. In combination with the elevation of the decking at five feet above mean high water (MHW), the handrails would discourage use of the pier for mooring by making it impractical if not impossible in most cases. Railing also was proposed for the north side of the mooring platform to discourage mooring there, and a sign was proposed to be placed on the north side of the platform saying that mooring there is prohibited. These measures were proposed to restrict mooring to the south side of the mooring platform, where a boat lift would be installed, which would protect the large seagrass beds that are on the north side of the terminal platform. (Mooring an additional boat along the end of the 8-foot long mooring platform, which faces the prevailing oceanic waves, is impractical if not impossible.) To make the docking structure less of a navigation and boating safety hazard, it was proposed that a USCG flashing white light would be installed at the end of the terminal platform. In its final configuration, the docking structure would preempt approximately 2,240 square feet of State-owned submerged land, plus approximately 200 square feet preempted by the proposed boat lift. In addition, it would preempt approximately 900 square feet of Mrs. Damico’s privately-owned submerged land. Mrs. Damico’s private property has approximately 352 linear feet of shoreline. Dr. Lin testified for Petitioner that the proposed docking structure would preempt a total of 3,760 square feet. This calculation included 520 square feet of preemption by the boat lift, but the proposed boat lift is for a smaller boat that would preempt only approximately 200 square feet. Intending to demonstrate that the proposed docking structure would wharf out to a consistent depth of -4 feet MLW, Mrs. Damico’s consultants submitted a bathymetric survey indicating a -4 MLW contour at the mooring platform. In fact, the line indicated on the survey is not a valid contour line, and the elevations in the vicinity do not provide reasonable assurance that the mooring area of the docking structure in its final configuration is in water with a consistent depth of -4 feet MLW, or that there is water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel. The evidence does, however, provide reasonable assurance that the proposed mooring platform is in water with a consistent depth of at least -3 feet MLW, and that there is water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, which would avoid damage to seagrass bed and other biological communities. The evidence was not clear whether there is another possible configuration available to Petitioner to wharf out to a mooring area with a consistent depth of at least -3 feet MLW, not over seagrasses, and with water of that depth consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, that would not require as long an access pier, or preempt as many square feet of State-owned submerged land. A noticed general permit (NGP) can be used for a dock of 2,000 square feet or less, in water with a minimum depth of -2 feet MLW, and meeting certain other requirements. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-341.215 and 62-341.427. The evidence was not clear whether an NGP can be used in an OFW in Monroe County in water less than -3 feet FLW, according to DEP’s interpretation of its rules. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62-312.400, Part IV. Initially, mitigation for impacts to natural resources was proposed. However, DEP’s staff determined that no mitigation was required because there would not be any adverse effects from the docking structure, as finally proposed. For the same reason, DEP staff determined that there would be no significant cumulative adverse impacts and that no further analysis of cumulative impacts was necessary. Actually, there will be adverse impacts to natural resources. The biologist for Mrs. Damico determined that there are some seagrasses and numerous stony corals in the footprint of the access pier, in addition to other resources less susceptible to impacts (such as macro-algae and loggerhead sponges). These organisms will be disturbed or destroyed by the installation of the access pier. The biologist quantified the impacts to round starlet corals by assuming the placement of two supporting piles, four feet apart, every ten feet for the length of the pier, and assuming impacts to the stony corals in a quadrat centered on each pile location and three times the diameter of the pile. Using this method, it was estimated that approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would be destroyed by the installation of the docking structure. The impacts assessed by Mrs. Damico’s biologist and DEP assume that construction would “step out” from shore and, as construction proceeds, from already-built segments of the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area. This construction method is not required by the proposed SLERP. It would have to be added as a permit condition. Petitioner did not prove that the impacts to a few seagrasses and approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would damage the viability of those biological communities in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure. Direct and indirect impacts to other species from the installation and maintenance of the docking structure would not be expected. Impacts to listed species, including manatees and sawfish, would not be anticipated. Manatees sometimes are seen in the vicinity but do not rely on the area for foraging or breeding. Sawfish are more likely to frequent the bay waters than the ocean. Migratory tarpon and bonefish use the area and might swim out around the docking structure to avoid passing under it. Resident tarpon and some other fish species might congregate under the docking structure. The proposed docking structure does not block or cross any marked navigation channel and is in a shallow area near the shore where boats are supposed to be operated at reduced speeds. Nonetheless, the proposed structure poses more than a casual navigation hazard, especially due to its length, which is significantly greater than any docking structure in the vicinity. In conducting its staff analysis of the impacts on navigation and boating safety, DEP understood that the closest marked navigation channel is at least two miles away from the proposed docking structure. Actually, there also is a marked channel at the Tavernier Creek, which is less than half a mile north of the site. It is not uncommon for boaters to leave the marked Tavernier Creek channel to motor south in the shallow water closer to shore; they also sometimes cut across the shallow waters near the site to enter the Tavernier Creek channel when heading north. There also are other unmarked or unofficially-marked channels even closer to the proposed docking structure. In good weather and sea conditions, the proposed docking structure would be obvious and easy to avoid. In worse conditions, especially at night, it could be a serious hazard. To reduce the navigational hazard posed by the dock, reflective navigation indicators are proposed to be placed every 30 feet along both sides of the access pier, and the USCG flashing white light is proposed for the end of terminal platform. These measures would help make the proposed docking structure safer but would not eliminate the risks entirely. The light helps when it functions properly, it can increase the risk if boaters come to rely on it, and it goes out. Both the light and reflective indicators are less effective in fog and bad weather and seas. The risk increases with boats operated by unskilled and especially intoxicated boaters. It is common for numerous boaters to congregate on weekends and holidays at Holiday Isle, which is south of the proposed docking structure. Alcoholic beverages are consumed there. Some of these boaters operate their boats in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure, including “cutting the corner” to the Tavernier Creek pass channel, instead of running in deeper water to enter the pass at the ocean end of the navigation channel. This increases the risk of collision, especially at night or in bad weather and sea conditions. DEP sought comments from various state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over fisheries and wildlife. None of these agencies expressed any objection to the proposed docking structure. No representative from any of those agencies testified or presented evidence at the hearing. Area fishing guides and sports fishermen fish for bonefish and tarpon in the flats in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure. If built, the proposed docking structure would spoil this kind of fishing, especially bonefishing, or at least make it more difficult. The more similar docking structures installed in the area, the greater the difficulties in continuing to use the area for this kind of fishing. On the other hand, resident tarpon and some other fish species could be attracted by such docking structures. Mrs. Damico’s application initially offered a money donation to the Florida Keys Environmental Restoration Trust Fund if mitigation was required. The proposed permit includes a requirement to donate $5,000 to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), before construction begins, for the maintenance of mooring buoys to reduce recreational boater impacts at the coral reef areas. The reefs are miles from the site of the proposed docking structure, and the donation does not offset project impacts. Rather, as stated in the proposed permit, its purpose is to “satisfy public interest requirements.” As a federal agency, the FKNMS does not accept donations directly. Donations would have to be made to the Sanctuary Friends of the Florida Keys (SFFK) for use by the FKNMS for buoy maintenance. A condition would have to be added to the ERP to ensure that the donation would be used for the intended purpose. In a bid to defeat Mrs. Damico’s attempt to satisfy public interest requirements, Petitioner offered to donate $10,000 to SFFK for the buoy maintenance if DEP denied the permit. Petitioner’s offer should not affect the evaluation of the proposed docking structure under the public interest criteria. DEP staff evaluated the proposed ERP under the public interest criteria to be essentially neutral and determined that the $5,000 donation would make it clearly in the public interest. This analysis was flawed. With or without the $5,000 donation, the proposed docking structure would have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, and welfare; an adverse effect on navigation; an adverse effect on fishing or recreational values in the vicinity; and an adverse effect on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It would not have any positive public interest effects. Its effects would be permanent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying a permit for the proposed docking structure; if granted, there should be a condition requiring construction to “reach out” from shore and, as construction proceeds, from already-built segments of the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of October, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia M. Silver, Esquire Silver Law Group Post Office Box 710 Islamorada, Florida 33036-0710 Brittany Elizabeth Nugent, Esquire Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A. at Islamorada Professional Center 81990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor Islamorada, Florida 33036-3614 Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue to determine in this matter is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) properly issued its proposed verification of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) exemption, dated March 23, 2018, for the installation of nine pilings off of Respondent Larry Lynn’s residential property, in the direction of Petitioner MarineMax, Inc.’s commercial property (MarineMax), pursuant to section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, commonly known as the “de minimus” exemption.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lynn has owned the real property located at 111 Placid Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, since 1994. Mr. Lynn’s residential property is a corner lot that fronts a canal on two of the four sides of his property, and also contains his home. MarineMax is a national boat dealer with approximately 65 locations throughout the United States and the British Virgin Islands. MarineMax has approximately 16 locations in Florida. MarineMax, through subsidiary companies, acquired the property at 14030 McGregor Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida, in December 2014 (MarineMax Property). Prior to MarineMax’s acquisition, this property had been an active marina for more than 30 years. MarineMax continues to operate this property as a marina. The MarineMax Property is a 26-acre contiguous parcel that runs north-south and that is surrounded by canals and a larger waterway that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. The “northern” parcel of the MarineMax Property is surrounded by two canals and the larger waterway that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. The “southern” parcel is a separate peninsula that, while contiguous to the northern parcel, is surrounded by a canal that it shares with the northern parcel, along with another canal that separates it from residential properties. Mr. Lynn’s property is located directly south of the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property, and the canal that runs east-west. As his property is a corner lot, it also fronts an eastern canal that is directly across from the southern parcel of the MarineMax Property. The eastern canal described above also serves as a border between MarineMax and a residential community that includes Mr. Lynn’s residential property. Mr. Lynn has moored a boat to an existing dock on the eastern canal described in paragraphs 5 and 6 for many years. MarineMax holds ERPs for the business it conducts at its MarineMax Property, including the canal between the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property. For example, these ERPs permit: (a) the docking of boats up to 85 feet in length with a 23-foot beam; (b) boat slips up to 70 feet in length; (c) up to 480 boats on the MarineMax Property; and (d) a boatlift and boat storage barn (located on the southern parcel). The MarineMax Property also contains a fueling facility that is available for internal and public use. It is located on the northern parcel of the MarineMax Property, directly across the east-west canal from Mr. Lynn’s property. The prior owner of the marina constructed this fueling facility prior to 2003. Request for Verification of Exemption from an ERP Mr. Lynn testified that after MarineMax took over the property from the prior owner, he noticed larger boats moving through the canal that separates his property from the MarineMax Property. Concerned about the potential impact to his property, including his personal boat, Mr. Lynn contracted with Hickox Brothers Marine, Inc. (Hickox), to erect pilings off of his property in this canal.2/ On March 8, 2018, Hickox, on behalf of Mr. Lynn, submitted electronically a Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit to DEP. The “Project Description” stated, “INSTALL NINE 10 INCH DIAMETER PILINGS AS PER ATTACHED DRAWING FOR SAFETY OF HOMEOWNER’S BOAT.” The attached drawing for this project depicted the installation of these nine pilings 16 and 1/2 feet from Mr. Lynn’s seawall, spaced 15 feet apart. On March 23, 2018, DEP approved Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit, stating that the activity, as proposed, was exempt under section 373.406(6) from the need to obtain a regulatory permit under part IV of chapter 373. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit further stated: This determination is made because the activity, in consideration of its type, size, nature, location, use and operation, is expected to have only minimal or insignificant or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit further stated that DEP did not require further authorization under chapter 253, Florida Statutes, to engage in proprietary review of the activity because it was not to take place on sovereign submerged lands. The Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit also stated that DEP approved an authorization pursuant to the State Programmatic General Permit V, which precluded the need for Mr. Lynn to seek a separate permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Megan Mills, the environmental specialist and program administrator with DEP’s South District Office, testified that DEP’s granting of Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit was routine, and that his Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit met the statutory criteria. After DEP granted the Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit, Hickox, on behalf of Mr. Lynn, installed the nine pilings in the canal at various distances approximately 19 feet from Mr. Lynn’s seawall and in the canal that divides Mr. Lynn’s property from the MarineMax Property (and the fueling facility).3/ MarineMax timely challenged DEP’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resource Permit. Impact on Water Resources MarineMax presented the testimony of Sam Lowrey, its corporate vice president of real estate, who had detailed knowledge of the layout of the MarineMax Property. Mr. Lowrey testified that the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s residential property is active with boating activity, noting that MarineMax’s ERP allows up to 480 vessels on-site. With the installation of the pilings, he testified that he was concerned that MarineMax customers “will be uncomfortable navigating their boats through this portion of the canal[,]” which would be detrimental to MarineMax’s business. Mr. Lowery testified that he had no personal knowledge of whether MarineMax has lost any business since the installation of the pilings. MarineMax also presented the testimony of Captain Ralph S. Robinson III, who the undersigned accepted as an expert in marine navigation, without objection.4/ Captain Robinson has been a boat captain, licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard, since 1991. He has extensive experience captaining a variety of vessels throughout the United States and the Bahamas. He is an independent contractor and works for MarineMax and other marine businesses. Captain Robinson is also a retired law enforcement officer. Captain Robinson testified that he was familiar with the waterways surrounding the MarineMax Property, as he has captained boats in those waterways several times a month for the past 15 years. Captain Robinson testified that he has observed a number of boats with varying lengths and beams navigate these waterways, and particularly, the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property. Captain Robinson estimated that the beam of these boats range from eight to 22 feet. He also testified that the most common boats have a beam between eight and 10 feet. Captain Robinson’s first experience with the pilings in the canal occurred in April 2018, when he was captaining a 42- foot boat through the canal. He testified that an 85-foot boat was fueling on the fuel dock, and when he cleared the fueling boat and pilings, he had approximately one and a half feet on each side of his boat. He testified that “[i]t was very concerning.” Captain Robinson testified that since this experience in April 2018, he calls ahead to MarineMax to determine the number and size of boats in the portion of this canal that contains the pilings. On behalf of MarineMax, in December 2018, Captain Robinson directed the recording of himself captaining a 59-foot Sea Ray boat with an approximately 15- to 16-foot beam through the canal separating the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s residential property, with another boat of the same size parked at MarineMax’s fueling dock.5/ Captain Robinson testified that these two boats were typical of the boats that he would operate at the MarineMax Property and surrounding waterway. The video demonstration, and Captain Robinson’s commentary, showed that when he passed through the canal between the fuel dock (with the boat docked) and Mr. Lynn’s residential property (with the pilings), there was approximately four to five feet on either side of his boat. Captain Robinson stated: This is not an ideal situation for a boat operator. Yes, it can be done. Should it be done? Um, I wasn’t happy or comfortable in this depiction. Captain Robinson testified that his “personal comfort zone” of distance between a boat he captains and obstacles in the water is five or six feet. Ultimately, Captain Robinson testified that he believed the pilings in the canal between the MarineMax Property and Mr. Lynn’s property were a “navigational hazard.” Specifically, Captain Robinson stated: Q: In your expert opinion, has Mr. Lynn’s pilings had more than a minimal, or insignificant impact on navigation in the canal, in which they are placed? A: I believe they’re a navigational hazard. The impact, to me personally, and I’m sure there’s other yacht captains that move their boat through there, or a yacht owner, not a licensed captain, um, that has to take a different approach in their operation and diligence, um, taking due care that they can safely go through. It’s been an impact. Q: Is a navigational hazard a higher standard for you as a boat captain, being more than minimal or insignificant? A: Yes. A navigational hazard is, in my opinion, something that its position could be a low bridge or something hanging off a bridge, a bridge being painted, it could be a marker, it could be a sandbar, anything that is going to cause harm to a boat by its position of normal operation that would cause injury to your boat, or harm an occupant or driver of that boat. Ms. Mills, the environmental specialist and program administrator with DEP’s South District Office, testified that after MarineMax filed the instant Petition, she and another DEP employee visited Mr. Lynn’s residential property. Although not qualified as an expert in marine navigation, Ms. Mills testified that, even after observing the placement of the pilings and the boating activity the day she visited, the pilings qualified for an exemption from the ERP.6/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that DEP enter a final order dismissing MarineMax’s challenge to the determination that Mr. Lynn’s pilings qualify for an exemption from an environmental resources permit pursuant to its March 23, 2018, approval of Mr. Lynn’s Request for Verification of Exemption from an Environmental Resources Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2019.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent Roy Voss is entitled to an exemption from the requirement to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) and entitled to “consent by rule” to use sovereignty submerged lands to install five mooring pilings next to his existing dock in Stuart, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Pirtle is the owner of real property located at 4622 Southeast Boatyard Drive, Stuart, Florida. The property includes a dock that has been operating as a commercial marina for over 20 years. Respondent Voss is the recipient of the authorizations which are challenged by Petitioner. Voss owns the real property located at 4632 Southeast Boatyard Drive, Stuart, Florida, which is located immediately south of Petitioner’s property. Voss has a private dock. The Pirtle and Voss properties are riparian lots on Manatee Pocket, which connects to the St. Lucie River. Both lots have 50 feet of waterfront. The Department is the state agency with the power and duty to regulate construction activities in waters of the state pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The Department also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“Board of Trustees”) to review and act on certain construction activities on state sovereignty submerged lands under chapter 253. The Pirtle and Voss Docks The Pirtle dock is 101 feet long and is T-shaped. The Pirtle marina operates under a 1991 sovereignty submerged land lease issued by the Board of Trustees. The lease authorizes up to ten boat slips within the leased area. Pirtle has five boat slips on the south side of his dock, which are configured so that boats are moored perpendicular to the dock, usually with their bows pointed toward the Voss dock. The Voss dock is 120 feet long and has an L-shaped waterward end. The “L” extends to the south, away from the Pirtle dock. The Voss dock was built sometime after the Pirtle dock. Voss has moored several boats at his dock, including a 26-foot Grady White with an 8.5-foot beam, a 38-foot boat with a 15-foot beam, and a 42-foot boat a 15-foot beam. The 38-foot and 42-foot boats have each been moored along the north side of the Voss dock (nearest the Pirtle dock) in the past. The parties did not dispute the location of an imaginary “riparian line” running parallel to and generally equidistant between the Pirtle and Voss docks. Before Voss installed the five pilings which are the subject of this case, boats maneuvering into or out of the slips that are on the south side of the Pirtle dock (“the south slips”) often crossed over the riparian line. The Mooring Pilings On August 29, 2012, Voss applied for the authorizations to install five mooring pilings spaced 20 feet apart on the north side of and parallel to his dock. Voss said he intended to use the pilings to moor a new 38-foot boat with a 15-foot beam. Voss could use three pilings to moor a 38-foot boat. The mooring pilings are also farther from Voss's dock than needed to moor a boat with a 15-foot beam. Voss originally proposed to install the pilings on the riparian line. The Department reviewed the proposal and asked Voss to set the pilings back about three feet farther away from the Pirtle dock. The Department issued the authorizations to Voss on October 25, 2012, and he installed the five mooring pilings where the Department directed him to, about three feet inside the riparian line and 20 feet from his dock. The closest distance between the T-shaped end of the Pirtle dock and the nearest mooring piling is about 8.5 feet. Therefore, only boats with a beam (maximum width) less than 8.5 feet can pass this point when attempting to maneuver into or out of the south slips. Pirtle found out about the Voss pilings early in December 2012. He filed his petition for hearing with the Department on December 20, 2012. The timeliness of the petition was not disputed. The authorizations were issued by the Department without first conducting a site inspection to determine what effect the mooring pilings would have on the ability of boats to maneuver into and out of Pirtle’s south slips. After Pirtle filed his petition, four Department employees went to the site in a 21.5-foot boat with a beam of about 7.8 feet. The pilot of the boat, Jason Storrs, had difficulty maneuvering into and out of Pirtle’s south slips and had to be assisted by the other Department employees who stood in the boat and pushed off from the pilings. Without their assistance, the boat would have bumped into the pilings. An inexperienced boater would have greater difficulty attempting to enter or leave one of the south slips. It would be more difficult to maneuver a boat in or out of one of the south slips if Voss had a boat moored along the pilings. In windy and choppy water conditions, a person attempting to maneuver a boat into one of the south slips would risk damage to the boat and possible injury. The proximity of the mooring pilings to the slips on the south side of the Pirtle dock creates an unsafe condition. It is the practice of the Department to treat boating conditions that create a potential for damage to boats and injury to boaters as a “navigational hazard.” Voss's mooring pilings create a navigational hazard. The difficult and unsafe situation created by the mooring pilings would be obvious to boat owners considering whether to lease one of the south slips at the Pirtle marina. The south slips would be unattractive to potential customers of the marina. Pirtle’s ability to operate the south side of his marina is substantially impaired by Voss's pilings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection deny the exemption and consent by rule. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2013, 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 27th day of September, 2013.
The Issue Whether Broward County should issue an Environmental Resource Permit (the "ERP" or "Permit") to Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., for the construction of five finger piers as sized, configured, located and approved by Broward County's Proposed Permit issued in 2007?
Findings Of Fact The Port Laudania Property Port Laudania is a privately-owned marina basin (the "Marina Basin" or the "Basin") in Broward County. Located just off the Dania Cut-off Canal south of Port Everglades, the Marina Basin is not far from the Atlantic Ocean and the Intra-coastal Waterway that lies along all of Florida's east coast. There are no fixed bridges or other impediments to the passage of large sea-going boats and ships between the Basin and the Atlantic. The Marina Basin is an ideal spot to berth large vessels such as yachts and those used in the ocean-freight shipping business. PBPH owns the submerged lands in the western approximate two-thirds of the Basin as well as adjacent uplands. Together, these submerged lands and uplands constitute the parcel located at 750 N.E. 7th Avenue in the City of Dania (the "PBPH Parcel"). Immediately adjacent is a parcel owned by C-Term, a Florida general partnership. Located at 760 N.E. 7th Avenue in Dania, the uplands at the address and the approximate eastern one-third of the Marine Basin (the part not owned by PBPH) comprise the "C-Term Parcel." The PBPH Parcel and the C-Term Parcel make up the Port Laudania Property. Prior to a conveyance in 1987 that divided the Port Laudania Property into two parcels, the property had been under common ownership. The entire property was owned in fee simple by Dennison Marine, Inc. ("DMI"). Just prior to the division of the property into two parcels, DMI conveyed an easement that would ensure that owners and lessees of both parcels would have unhindered access from the Dania Cut-off Canal to their respective parcels: a Cross-use Easement of Ingress and Egress (the "Cross-use Easement"). The Cross-Use Easement for Ingress and Egress On June 29, 1987, DMI executed the Cross-Use Easement.2/ Earlier, DMI had divided the Port Laudania Property into two parcels (Parcel I and Parcel II in the Cross-use Easement, referred-to in this order mainly as the C-Term Parcel and the PBPH Parcel, respectively) and had entered into an Agreement for Deed and Lease with Port Denison, Inc., for the purchase and sale of one of the two parcels. The transaction subject to the agreement had not yet occurred so that DMI remained the sole owner of the Port Laudania Property on the date the Cross-Use Easement was established. The Cross-Use Easement contains the following: WHEREAS, both Parcel I and Parcel II share an inlet off of Dania cut-off Canal, . . . WHEREAS, it is to the mutual advantage of the present and future owners, tenants, invitees, etc. of both Parcel I and Parcel II that the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposes of ingress and egress; NOW THEREFORE, . . . Denison Marine, Inc., with the consent of Port Denison, Inc., does hereby for itself and its successors and assigns, give and grant to the future owners, tenants and future tenants of all or any portion of the Property, their respective customers, employees, agents, invitees, successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and across the inlet as described in Composite Exhibit "C" hereto. This non-exclusive easement shall run as a covenant with the land and constitute [sic] an appurtenance thereto. Petitioners' Ex. 1 at 0164-0165. Composite Exhibit "C" of the Cross-Use Easement contains sketches and descriptions of both the "Easterly Portion of the Marina," see id. at 170-171, (the C-Term Parcel) and the "Westerly Portion of the Marina," see id. at 172-173 (the PBPH Parcel.) The descriptions include the entire Basin except for that occupied by the boat lift in the northern end of the Basin.3/ Neither the legal descriptions nor the surveys attached to the Cross-Use Easement depict any finger piers, docks or pilings in the Basin. Under the Cross-Use Easement, the ability of the parties to amend the rights granted therein is governed by the following: This Agreement may be altered, amended or terminated by written document executed by all the then fee simple title holders of all portions of the Property and then record holders of any first mortgages then encumbering any of said lands and recorded in the public records of Broward County, Florida. Petitioners' Ex. 1, second page, BK 1490 PG0165. C-Term has not agreed to amend the Cross-Use Easement to permit construction of the docks contemplated by the 2007 Notice of Intent and Proposed Permit. The rights conferred by the Cross-Use Easement are property rights that govern the use of the Basin. The Basin and the Cut-off Canal The Basin is man-made and frequently referred-to in documents that relate to it as an "inlet" off the Dania Cut-off Canal. Small and medium-sized pleasure crafts, large yachts, mega-yachts,4/ and commercial cargo vessels, some of which are as lengthy as 250 feet regularly pass through The Dania Cut-off Canal in the area of the Basin immediately south of its mouth. Aerial photographs show that the Basin was excavated in the early 1960's. Shortly after excavation, the Port Laudania Property was used as a commercial cargo terminal. Since at least 1967, the Basin has accommodated cargo vessels with lengths up to 250 feet give or take 15 feet. Petitioners' Exhibit 145 is an aerial photograph that shows vessels of approximately 250 feet on both sides of the Basin. For the approximately 250-foot vessel on the east side of the Basin (the C-Term side), the margin of error in measuring the vessels from the aerial is "[p]robably 10 feet, plus or minus." Tr. 1049. G&G has operated numerous vessels in the Basin at lengths of over 200 feet. Of the seven vessels that G&G owned or operated at the time of hearing the maximum length is 234 feet. From April 1999 to March 2006, vessels owned or operated by G&G have struck finger piers or docks on the PBPH side of the Basin "a handful of times." Tr. 893. None of the details of these collisions was produced at hearing. Standard procedure for such incidents would have been to file an internal report or a captain's report, but Mr. Ganoe could not remember whether a report was filed.5/ For his part on the PBPH side of the Basin, Mr. Straub is not aware of any G&G vessels hitting boats moored at the finger piers on the PBPH side of the Basin, indicating that the collisions were not serious. In contrast to evidence that collisions have occurred is evidence from one frequent navigator of the Basin, Jim Steel of Steel Marine Towing. With the exception of the years in college, Mr. Steel has towed vessels in the area of Broward County consistently since 1988 when he began towing with his father at the age of 12. The range in length of the vessels, both commercial and private, that Mr. Steel has towed is from 120 to 250 feet. Mr. Steel has towed hundreds of vessels in and out of the Basin. During those times, he has observed various dock and finger pier configurations. He never collided with the docks on the PBPH side of the Basin with his tugboat or the vessels he towed even when the fifth finger pier was 150 feet long during the time period from 1995-96. Mr. Steel described the Dania Cut-off Canal in the vicinity of the Basin as a congested area with a number of facilities that cater to marine traffic. Large motor yachts (100 feet to 150 feet in length), mega-yachts (longer than 150 feet), commercial vessels (up to 250 feet), smaller pleasure craft as well as other smaller boats comprise the traffic seeking access to facilities along the canal. The facilities include Harbortown Marina across the canal from the Basin, which has some spots for large motor yachts and berths for hundreds of smaller boats up to 90 feet. Facilities in the area that serve mega- yachts are Director's Shipyard, Powell Brothers, and Playboy Marine. In the last five years, new facilities have been opened along the canal for smaller pleasure craft: American Offshore, Dania Beach Club and Dusty's. Mr. Steel described their function, "[t]hey are . . . what you would call rack and stack," (tr. 1562) storing boats sized from 20 to 40 feet pulled in an out of the water and stacked with a forklift. There are eight or nine such facilities west of the Basin. Mr. Steel estimated each of these facilities house at least several hundred boats. Mr. Steel summed up the traffic in the canal: "Some bright sunny days, it is extremely congested, some days it is not as congested, but there's always traffic there." Tr. 1550. 2001: The Delegation Agreement On May 22, 2001, an agreement was entered by three parties. Entitled "Delegation Agreement Among the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The South Florida Water Management District and Broward County" (the "Delegation Agreement"), it delegated to Broward County's EPD "the authority for permitting, compliance, and enforcement on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District programs." Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 1, at 11, 12. "Section 11E. of the Delegation Agreement provides that permits issued by the County under the Delegation Agreement 'shall consolidate in a single document the permit under part IV of Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes, and any required Environmental Resource License' ("ERL") required under Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code of Ordinances ("BCC" or "Code").[']" Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 2, at 12. In April of 2002 or thereabouts, Broward Yachts submitted an after-the-fact application to EPD for an ERP and an Environmental Resource License (the "Dock Application"). "The Dock Application sought approval to install six total docks [finger piers] comprised of five [finger piers composed of] floating docks in the Basin, with lengths ranging from 150 feet to 190 feet, and one dock, in the canal parallel to the seawall, with a length of 240 feet." Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 4, at 12. Although the docks were on the PBPH Parcel of the Port Laudania Property, the application was not PBPH's, the owner; instead it was submitted by Broward Yachts, a PBPH tenant. PBPH and C-Term Tenants From November of 1998 to March of 2005, Broward Yachts, Inc. ("Broward Yachts")6/ leased the PBPH Parcel from PBPH for the purpose of manufacture and sale of private yachts and boat dockage. Broward Yachts sold certain of its assets to Lewis Property Investors, Inc., under an Asset Purchase Agreement dated March 2, 2005. On March 8, 2005, Lewis Property Investors' assigned its interest in the Asset Purchase Agreement to Broward Marine. Broward Marine is a Florida limited liability company, formerly engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing private yachts and activities that constituted operation of a marina on the PBPH Property. Broward Marine leased the PBPH Property starting in March of 2005. It continued to occupy the property under a lease-purchase option agreement with PBPH until June of 2009. C-Term's Property is the subject of a tenancy with G&G, an ocean-freight shipping company. G&G, therefore, has shared the Marina Basin with Broward Marine in recent years. Broward Marine's Departure In March 2009, Broward Marine signed an early termination of its lease with PBPH caused by Broward Marine's failure to pay rent. Broward Marine has not been a tenant or otherwise in possession of the PBPH Property since approximately November, 2009.7/ The termination of Broward Marine's lease was effective on June 15, 2009. After termination of the Broward Marine lease, the PBPH Property was re-let to Broward Shipyards, Inc., an entity that is not a party to this proceeding. At the time of the termination, Broward Marine's interests in the 2002 Dock Application and a revision of the application in 2003 (the "2003 Revised Application") were assigned to PBPH.8/ In the meantime, PBPH has pursued the application which had its origin in a complaint about the unpermitted structures and a warning notice issued by the County in 2002. See paragraph 35., et seq., below. The application for the license and permit was for floating docks. Floating Docks The floating docks used by Broward Yachts and others on the PBPH side of the Basin generally come in sections of 8-10 feet. They are secured to existing pilings in the Basin by a collar which slides up and down the piling or, as Mr. Lewis put it at hearing, "[t]hey float up and down . . . as the tide comes in and goes out." Tr. 204. The top of the piling emerges from the water and the rest of the piling extends downward generally into the bedrock at the bottom of the Basin. A series of floating docks make up a finger pier. Finger piers, the structures authorized by the Proposed Permit, can be lengthened or shortened by adding or removing floating docks based on business needs.9/ The ability to easily lengthen or shorten a finger pier in response to the business needs of PBPH or its tenants accounts for one of the main evidentiary features in this proceeding: the many finger pier configurations that appear in aerial photographs over the years and, in particular, since 1998 when PBPH came into ownership of the PBPH Parcel. The floating docks have been constructed of wood and Styrofoam. Those that PBPH seeks to install under the Proposed Permit will be "concrete bathtubs," tr. 580, which "work just as well and are a lot more permanent." Id. Structures made of concrete are of much likely to cause damage in the event of a collision with a vessel than are floating docks made of wood and Styrofoam. Warning Notice and 2002 Dock Application On January 22, 2002, the EPD visited the PHPB Property in response to a complaint about unlicensed docks. Julie Mitchell (then known as "Julie Karczyk"), a Natural Resources Specialist with the County was present on the property during the visit to conduct an inspection. In a Case Summary admitted into evidence, Ms. Mitchell documented the visit with an employee of the State Department of Environmental Protection. The two visitors asked the manager of the property to provide a copy of permits and licenses for the docks on site. If he could not provide them he was advised of the necessity to apply for them. At the time of visit, there were four finger piers composed of floating docks on the PBPH side of the Basin. The four piers protruded into the Basin at an angle similar to the angle of the finger piers shown in the drawings approved by the Proposed Permit. These four docks (from north to south) had lengths of 117, 130, 150 and 150 feet respectively and were each 7.5 feet wide. The northernmost dock was separated from the second dock (the dock immediately to its south) by 52 feet; the second dock was separated from the third by 60 feet; and the third from the fourth by 55 feet. There was also a fifth structure. It may have been a fifth finger pier, but, because of its width which is substantially more than the 7.5 feet, see Petitioners' Ex. 114F (an aerial photograph with a "fly date" of January 2002), it is more likely to have been "work platforms to construct the docks." Tr. 114. Whatever its function, the fifth structure did not protrude into the Basin as far the four others. It was "[r]ight up against the seawall." See id., Petitioners' 125 at 5, and tr. 114. Ms. Mitchell checked the County records and could not locate a license or permit for finger piers or other structures in the Basin. No evidence of a license or permit was provided by either PBPH or any of its tenants. The status of the finger piers and floating docks today remains the same: unlicensed and unpermitted. The County required Broward Yachts as the tenant of the PBPH Property to submit an after-the-fact permit and license application if it wished to keep the structures. Broward Yachts submitted its application for an ERP and Environmental Resource License ("ERL") to the County (the "2002 Dock Application") on April 16, 2002. In the meantime, Broward Yachts installed an additional finger pier in the Basin angled from the seawall just as the four piers observed by Ms. Mitchell. The installation occurred without County authorization. On May 2, 2002, the County issued Warning Notice No. WRN02-0125 (the "Warning Notice"). Directed to both Broward Yachts and PBPH, the Warning Notice contains one count. See Petitioners' Ex. 7. The count reads as follows (bold type in original): Respondent: Broward Yachts, Inc. Respondent: Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. Violated section 27-333(a)(1), BCC, which states: "No person shall conduct or cause to be conducted mangrove alteration, construction, demolition, dredging or filling in regulated aquatic or wetland resources, except in accordance with a currently valid environmental resource license issued by DPEP and all general and specific license conditions therein." By: constructing docks and installing pilings without a valid DPEP Environmental Resource License. Corrective Action: The respondent must apply for an after- the-fact license from the Department for the dock construction and piling installation. The license will not be issued until the respondent obtains a South Florida Water Management District Right-of-Way permit for the pilings located within the Dania Cut-off Canal. Correct within 14 days of this notice. Id. The 2002 Dock Application was filed on April 16, 2002 (prior to the Notice of Warning.) In the meantime and subsequent to the Notice of Warning, the County conducted a review of the 2002 Dock Application. The 2002 Dock Application The 2002 Dock Application was signed by Paul Bichler of Tri County Marine. Mr. Bichler and his company are listed on the application as the "Entity to Receive Permit," see Respondents' Ex. 3 at 3-4, and Bill Thomas of Approved Permit Services, Inc., is listed as the "Agent Authorized to Secure Permit." Id. The owner of the land is shown as Richard Arnold, General Manager of Broward Yachts. Mr. Arnold signed the application in order to give Mr. Thomas the authority to act as the agent of Broward Yachts in securing the permit. There is no mention of PBPH in the application. Part 8 of the 2002 Dock Application requires the applicant to describe in general terms the proposed project, system or activity. Filled in is: "Install Floating Docks!" Id. at 3-5. No other description is offered. The application contains as attachments a map of the site showing the Port Laudania Property and a drawing of Parcel A at the site (the PBPH Parcel.) The drawing shows six finger piers to be installed. Five are attached to the western seawall of the Port Laudania Property at such an angle so that they lie in the Basin in a southwesterly direction (much the same as the four finger piers observed in January of 2002 by Ms. Mitchell). The lengths of the five range from 150 to 190 feet. The fourth and fifth finger piers are proposed to be 180 feet and 155 feet in length, respectively. The sixth pier lies roughly parallel to the southern terminus of the bulkhead on the PBPH Parcel and extends into the mouth of the Basin. Unlike the other five, the sixth structure is not attached to the western seawall. To the south of the bulkhead and with no attachment to the bulkhead, it runs 240 feet in length. At its eastern end, it overlaps the boundary between the Basin and the Dania Cut-off Canal and protrudes into the canal. Id. at 3-9. The drawing also depicts pilings associated with each of the six structures. The floating docks applied for in the 2002 Dock Application were to be made out of Styrofoam and wood. Permitting Criteria/County Review The County's evaluation and processing of the 2002 Dock Application was conducted appropriately pursuant to the Delegation Agreement. Section (1) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.30210/ (the "ERP Additional Conditions Rule") requires an applicant to "provide reasonable assurances that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of a system" will meet conditions contained in subsections (a) through (d).11/ For systems located in, on, or over surface waters that are not Outstanding Florida Waters, such as the finger piers and floating dock systems proposed by PBPH, reasonable assurances must be provided that the activity "will not be contrary to the public interest [the "Public Interest Test"] . . . as determined by balancing"12/ seven criteria listed in the ERP Additional Conditions Rule: 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 endangerment or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. Of the seven criteria, above, the two deemed most relevant and determinative for the EPD in processing the 2002 Dock Application were 1., and 3., that is, whether the activity will adversely affect public safety, the property of others, and navigation. The County considered the proposed sizes, locations and configuration of the docks as shown in the drawing attached to the application. It had no navigational experts on staff and did not consult with outside navigational experts. Nonetheless, the County considered the nature of the use and whether it would adversely affect safety and navigation. The County also considered an objection to the location of certain pilings and a "future floating pier along the south edge of the basin at Port Laudania." Petitioners' Ex. 8 at 4. The objection had been lodged by the Port Everglades Pilot's Association in a letter dated May 1, 2002: Port Everglades Pilots are responsible for insuring the maximum level of safety of commercial vessels transiting the water of Port Everglades and Port Laudania. * * * I am writing to you in reference to some pilings that have been driven by Broward Marine for what appears to be a future floating pier along the south edge of the basin at Port Laudania in Broward County, Florida. This is the basin that is shared by Broward Marine and G&G Shipping and located within the City of Dania Beach. These pilings are affecting the safe navigation of commercial vessels that have already been using the basin at Port Laudania for many years. Vessels docked at this new pier will pose additional risk to navigation. * * * I would like to go on record stating that the location of these pilings and potential pier is not satisfactory as it hinders the navigation of commercial vessels using the basins at Port Laudania. Id. The letter is signed by Captain James J. Ryan, Managing Pilot for the Port Everglades Pilots' Association. The County acknowledged receipt of the application in a letter dated August 16, 2002, and informed Broward Yachts' agent that the "application for license is incomplete." Petitioners' Ex. 8. The letter requested prompt submission of the information listed on an attached sheet and warned that failure to submit it within 60 days of the request could result in denial. Two items were found omitted or incomplete in the application. The first was a "South Florida Water Management District right-of-way permit for the pilings located within the Dania Cut-off Canal." Petitioners' Ex. 8 at 2 of 3. The second was a response to the navigation issue posed by the Port Everglades Pilot Association. Id. The County's letter advised that upon a showing of resolution of issues posed by the omissions, the Department would process the application as an ERP since the applicant was allowed by a state administrative rule to apply for an ERP concurrently with an ERL. To that end, the letter requested payment of an additional $700 fee. Id. Four other items were also requested for submission. Five months later, Broward Yachts' agent wrote Ms. Mitchell listing seven responses as "the additional information you requested." Petitioners' Ex. 9. With regard to Item 2, the letter states: 2. I am working with Dan Boyer who is handling the Right of Way permit @ SFWMD, I am also addressing same issue with him, if I can demonstrate that a boat when moored at the proposed dock will not extend more than 25% into the canal, he will recommend to the Board of Governors that the project be approved. I am waiting for a signed and sealed survey to show the exact width of the waterway at this location. Petitioners' Ex. 9. With regard to Item 3, the agent responded, "[c]heck enclosed." The letter did not respond to all the requested information. For example, with regard to requested information concerning the anticipated use of the dock proposed within the Dania Cut-off Canal, whether boats would be moored on both its sides, and the anticipated length and draft of the boats, the agent responded, "I will need to get back to you about this one!" Id. Together with a memorandum dated July 21, 2003, the agent submitted revised drawings for the permit (the "2003 Revised Dock Application" or the "Revision"). The Revision removed any portion of the structures or pilings from the Dania Cut-off Canal in order to avoid the requirement for a SFWMD Right-of-Way Permit. Instead of the six finger piers shown in the 2002 Dock Application, the Revision showed seven. Six were similar to the five that angled into the Basin in a southwesterly direction from where they touched the western seawall. The six piers ranged from 120 feet in length to 150 feet in length. The seventh was similar to the sixth finger pier in the 2002 Dock Application but was depicted as being only 60 feet in length. It no longer protruded into the Dania Cut-off Canal. See Petitioners' Ex. 10 at 2. A memorandum to the file dated August 11, 2003, shows that Ms. Mitchell faxed the drawings in the 2003 Revised Dock Application to the Port Everglade Port Association. The memorandum reported that Captain Ryan responded by saying "he no longer had any objections to the project because the structures had been removed from the ROW [of the Dania Cut-off Canal]." Petitioners' Ex. 11. The memorandum also reported that Captain Ryan stated that there still may be navigational and safety concerns with the proposed pier lengths and locations, and that there may be special circumstances for ships wanting to use the basin such as, navigation during slack tide only, daylight only, and other factors that would exacerbate the concerns. Six weeks or so later, Ms. Mitchell signed a letter from the County. The letter, dated September 29, 2003, advised Broward Yachts that the additional information submitted in response to the January 2002 request had been received. It also advised that the project required an Environmental Resource License (in addition to the ERP) and that the application for such a license had been received. To fully evaluate the project, additional information was needed. This second request for additional information consisted of one item: [1] A Cross Access Agreement (attached), recorded on October 27, 1987, states that "the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposed (sic) of ingress and egress." The Department has received objections from the adjacent property owner that the proposed docks, specifically the most southern 150-foot-long dock, may hinder the navigation of commercial vessels using the basin. Please provide evidence that the proposed docks will not negatively affect the safety and navigation of vessels using the basin. Petitioner's Ex. 12, Completeness Summary, Environmental Resource License Application at 2 of 2, (emphasis added.) The additional information requested was not provided by Broward Yachts or any other party. On October 6, 2003, Ms. Mitchell forwarded a copy of the Cross-use Easement to the County Attorney's Office and asked for it to be reviewed "to confirm that the [easement] pertains to both facilities [the applicant's and G&G's] and that G&G has a basis for their objection." Petitioners' Ex. 13. The objection by G&G was expressed as: "the most southern proposed finger pier will hinder [G&G's] ability to safely navigate their vessels." Id. Attached is a drawing that depicts seven docks. Opinion of the Broward County Attorney's Office In response to Ms. Mitchell's request, an opinion of the Broward County attorney's office was issued on October 31, 2003. The opinion addresses two questions: first, does the Cross-use Easement pertain to both facilities operated by Broward Yachts and G&G; and, second, does G&G have a basis for its objection. Both questions were answered in the affirmative with the following elaboration on the second question: The Easement includes granting a non- exclusive right to the successors of Port Denison, Inc. to use "all or any portion of the Property . . . for ingress and egress over and across the inlet as described in Composite Exhibit C. . ." The Property referred to in Exhibit A includes all of Parcels I and II. Composite Exhibit C is made up of a sketch and legal description of the easement area, with each Parcel having its own description and sketch. The physical structures referred to that limit the easement are the wetface of the bulkhead and the boat hoist structure. The easement rights granted are not similarly limited by reference to docks or piers that may have existed around the time that the easement was granted. This reading of the easement is consistent with the intent of the parties, as clearly reflected in the last "Whereas" clause which reads: " . . . it is to the mutual advantage of the present and future owners, tenants, invitees, etc. that the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposes of ingress and egress." Since G&G Shipping's objection is related to the use of the inlet for ingress and egress with reasonable reference to navigation safety, and G&G Shipping accommodates uses that it does not anticipate will interfere with such activities, its objection to the license application has a basis in its easement rights. While the additional correspondence from Broward Yachts dated October 11, 2003, refers to an undated photo showing floating docks that are asserted to exist "around the time that the agreements were drawn-up for cross access," this photo doesn't control or limit the terms of the Easement, which grants the use of the entire inlet to both parties. Petitioners' Ex. 16 at 1-2. Another RAI On December 16, 2003, the County sent another request for information (RAI) to Broward Yachts (the "December 16, 2003 RAI." The request stated, "[y]our response dated October 14, 2003, does not adequately address the navigational and safety concerns stated in our letter [of September 29, 2003]." Petitioners' Ex. 17. The December 16, 2003, RAI referenced the County attorney's October 31, 2003, Opinion which "concluded that G & G Marine, Inc., does have a legal basis for their objection to the docks." Id. The December 16, 2003, RAI concluded: [T]he Department has not received reasonable assurances that the proposed docks will not negatively affect navigation and safety, nor have we received a response regarding the objections. It is the intent of this letter to inform Broward Yachts, Inc. (applicant) and Mr. Bill Thomas (agent) that the license application will be closed, pursuant to Section 27- 55(d)(4), if all requested information is not provided within ten (10) days of the receipt of this letter. Id. Broward Yachts requested an additional 90 days to provide the information. The request was granted. A second request to extend the time for providing the information another 90 days was denied by the County. The County Holds its Position Correspondence dated July 8, 2004, from Larry Zink, Esquire, requested reconsideration of the County's October 31, 2003, Opinion. The County responded in a letter dated July 21, 2004. See Petitioners' Ex. 22. The July 21, 2004, letter refers to "additional information, such as Mr. Denison's Affidavit and references to Florida case law," id. and then concludes: After consideration and based upon the Easement, Broward Yachts' letter of October 11, 2003, [Mr. Zink's] letters of May 5, 2004, May 21, 2004, and July 8, 2004, Mr. Denison's affidavit, Florida law, and G&G Shipping's objections dated November 5, 2003 and April 13, 2004, the conclusion that G&G has a basis for its objection to the Project is still correct . . . . Id. The July 21, 2004, letter addresses Florida Law with regard to the Cross-Use Easement: Florida Law: You have asserted that "[t]he Florida Court's have held that to determine the scope of an easement the Court's attempt to ascertain the intent of the parties in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time the easement was created," referencing the cases of Hillsborough County vs. Kortum and Florida Power Company vs. Silver Lake Homeowners Assn. However, the following more completely summarizes the relevant case law standards: The construction or interpretation of an easement is not evidentiary; it is a matter of law. Hillsborough Co. v. Kortum, 585 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So.2d 76 (Fla. 1992). The determination of the extent and nature of an easement granted or reserved in express terms by deed depends upon a proper construction of the language of the instrument, for an examination of all of the material parts thereof, and without consideration of extraneous circumstances. Kotick v. Durrant, 143 Fla. 386, 196 So. 802 (1940). An easement holder has the right to do what is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement, but the right must not be increased to any greater extent than reasonably necessary and contemplated at the time the easement was created. Crutchfield v. F.A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So.2d 328 (Fla. 1954). However, rights of the owners of an easement are not absolute and unlimited. The owner of the servient estate may use [the] land, including the easement, in such a way that will not interfere with the easement owner's right of passage. Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. v. Roberts, 394 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). (String citations have been omitted for brevity.) As you may know, the Circuit Courts of Florida have exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions involving title and boundaries of property. See Section 26.012(2)(g), Florida Statutes. Therefore, it is the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court that has jurisdiction and authority to determine the relative title interest rights of Broward Yachts and G&G in relation to the Project. The Office of the County Attorney respectfully declines to act in a role which is the proper jurisdiction of that Court. Within the limited scope of the previous and instant reviews, it is merely apparent that G&G objects to the Project and holds a title interest which, on its face, could be negatively affected by the Project. Therefore, it has a basis for its objection. Id., paragraph 2, at page 2 of 3 (emphasis added.) The County determined that Broward Yachts had not provided reasonable assurances that the Project would not adversely affect safety and navigation and would not violate the Cross-Use Easement. In light of the determination, the County sent a memorandum on July 21, 2004, see Petitioners' Ex. 23, requesting such assurances (the "July 21, 2004, RAI"). The July 21, 2004, RAI recognized that the issue with regard to the Cross-Use Easement was the subject of litigation between Broward Yachts and G&G Marine, but in the meantime requested reasonable assurances with regard to the navigation and safety issues or "have your client amend its application to resolve this concern." Id. As with the December 16, 2003, 10 RAI, the July 21, 2004, RAI was required to be answered in 10 days. The County hoped that a response would provide guidance from a navigational expert that the new docks would not affect the ability of other vessels to come in and out of the Basin. Denial and Petition for Review By the end of January 2005, the ten-day period for submitting additional information relative to the 2003 Revised Dock Application had expired. No information relative to safety and navigation concerns or compliance with the Cross-Use Easement had been submitted. By letter dated January 31, 2005 (the "Application Denial"), the Broward County EPD announced its decision to deny the application based on a lack of "reasonable assurance that the proposed docks will not negatively affect navigation and safety, nor violate the Cross-Use Easement . . . ." See Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 7 at 13. The County's intent in issuing the Application Denial was to deny both the ERL and ERP. The parties stipulated to what happened next: Broward Yachts filed a Petition for Review of Final Administrative Determination, Environmental Resource License Application No. DF03-1121, Environmental Resource Permit Application No. 06-0194386-001 (the "Administrative Review Petition") with EPD on February 7, 2005, challenging the denial of its "license and permit applications." The Administrative Review Petition invoked the procedures of Chapter 27, BCC. Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 8 at 13. The Administrative Review Petition did not invoke the procedures of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to an internal procedure, the Administrative Review Petition was reviewed by the Department Director. After an independent review, the Department Director upheld the denial. That decision was communicated to Broward Yachts in a letter dated March 11, 2005, signed by Eric Myers, Director of the Broward County EPD. See Petitioners' Ex. 41. The March 11, 2005, letter proposed a compromise that related to an aerial photograph taken at roughly the time of the submission of the 2002 Dock Application. The photograph showed four finger piers ranging in length from 130 to 150 feet. The County offered to permit such a configuration if Broward Yachts modified its application. Broward Yachts was apparently unwilling to do so. Broward Marine Involvement The denial of the 2002 Dock Application was directed only to the application filed by Broward Yachts. Likewise, the Administrative Review Petition was filed solely by Broward Yachts. In March of 2005, however, Broward Marine took over the possession and operation of the PBPH Property from Broward Yachts. It also purchased the assets of Broward Yachts, including the 2002 Dock Application and the 2003 Revised Application. Response to the County's Proposal In June of 2005, the County met with representatives of Petitioners to discuss acceptable dock configurations. Petitioners advised that they would accept a configuration consisting of four docks extending into the Basin at a southeasterly angle and that they would be amenable to a fifth dock parallel and immediately adjacent to the southern portion of the PBPH bulkhead. The County presented the proposal to Mr. Zink, counsel for Broward Yachts, Broward Marine and PBPH in a letter dated July 11, 2005. Mr. Zink responded by letter dated July 14, 2005. The letter references: "Broward Yachts, Inc. - Floating Docks" even though at the time the 2002 Dock Application and the 2003 Revised Dock Application had been assigned to Broward Marine. The one paragraph letter reads: I am in receipt of Michael Owens July 11, 2005 letter regarding the above matter. Though my client does not agree the 2002 aerial photos are historically representative of the number of floating docks, Broward Yachts is submitting herewith a revised drawing dated July 13, 2005 which accepts what is proposed in paragraph two (2) of Mr. Ownens July 11, 2005 letter. Petitioners' Ex. 54, (emphasis added.) The revised drawing, that was neither signed nor sealed, was attached to Mr. Zink's letter. It shows five floating docks "ALL 7'6" WIDE," id. at second page, four of which are angled into the Basin in a southeasterly direction, none of which are more than 150 feet in length. It also shows a fifth dock that lies immediately adjacent to the eastern seawall of the bulkhead on the PBPH property so that it does not angle into the Basin at all. It is 200 feet long and stops short of the south end of the bulkhead so as to be well clear of the Dania Cut-off Canal. Mr. Zink's acceptance of the proposal on behalf of Broward Yachts did not, however, lead to a resolution. The County asked for two additional matters: signed and sealed drawings from an engineer and that PBPH, as the owner of the property, become the applicant. PBPH Steps In Through a letter dated October 20, 2005, Mr. Zink agreed to the two additional demands of the County. The letter enclosed "sealed drawings for the above applications." Respondents' Ex. 6. The applications were referenced in the letter as ERL and the ERP for "Broward Yachts - Floating Docks," but the letter stated, "[a]s per your E-mail of August 25, 2005, a Revised Application identifying Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. as the property owner will be submitted to you directly by my client." Id. The signed and sealed drawings that were submitted did not reflect the proposal made by the County and agreed to by Mr. Zink on behalf of his client in July of 2005. The drawings showed one finger pier immediately alongside the western seawall of the bulkhead and five finger piers composed of floating docks that angled into the Basin. The signed and sealed drawings showed six finger piers instead of five and five finger piers that angled into the Basin instead of the four envisioned by the agreement finalized by Mr. Zink's letter on July 14, 2005. In a letter dated November 11, 2005, and received on November 16, 2005, that was characterized by Mr. Zink as "a follow up on my October 20, 2005, letter to [the County]," Petitioner's Ex. 7, Mr. Zink enclosed two documents: "1) Original executed Application on behalf of Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. 2) Drawing prepared by Frank L. Bennardo, P.E., depicting the docks." Id. The letter dated November 11, 2005, was not accepted for reasons outlined in an e-mail message from Julie Mitchell to Eric Myers. See Petitioners' Ex. 69. In the wake of the message, the County continued to process the 2003 Revised Dock Application. In a letter dated December 16, 2005, with the same reference line used in his earlier correspondence ("Re: Broward Yachts, Inc. - Floating Docks"), Mr. Zink submitted "(2) Revised Drawings prepared by Frank L. Bennardo, P.E., Inc. dated 11/30/05 depicting the five (5) finger piers as per the July 13, 2005, conceptual drawing approved by DPEP." Petitioners' Ex. 75. As represented by Mr. Zink, the drawings matched the configuration proposed by the County in its letter of July 11, 2005. At this point in the series of events initiated by the Notice of Violation in 2002, the parties would have been justified in thinking that an agreement had been reached, that the ERL and ERP could be issued and that all files on the matter of the Broward County EDP could be successfully closed. Mr. Lewis on behalf of Broward Yachts expressed the sentiment at hearing: [I]n the course of that same period, [Mr. Ganoe] was concerned about turning vessels where the fifth dock was. And we put a buoy in the basin where the length of a boat extending beyond that pier would be, he had given us a radius of what he wanted. We had McLaughlin Engineering take that, and I can't remember how many feet that he wanted clear in that area, plotted it on a drawing, went over it with him, thought we had an agreement. Tr. 181 (emphasis added.) Between the County's July 2005 proposal and Mr. Zink's December 16, 2005, letter that appears to have finalized the proposal's acceptance, however, a disruptive event occurred. The event caused destruction in the Basin, halted businesses on both of its sides and stressed the resources of the County: Hurricane Wilma. Hurricane Wilma Hurricane Wilma destroyed most of the docks and pilings in the Basin. In the wake of the destruction, Broward Marine submitted an application to the County for the issuance of a general license (the "General License") to repair and re- install pilings and ramps. The difference between projects that require an ERL, such as the project at issue in this proceeding (which required both an ERL and an ERP), and those that require only a general license was explained by Ms. Mitchell at hearing: "A general license is for smaller projects, specifically for docks where the total overwater area is less than 500 feet . . . ." Tr. 386. A Broward County general license was also distinguished from the ERP at issue in this case. Projects for which the overwater area is less than 1,000 feet are not subject to ERPs. The general license was approved in a letter issued by EPD's Wetlands/Uplands Resources Section: This letter is to inform you that your request for a General License has been granted. General License No. GL- DAN0512-029 authorizes the installation of ten (10) pilings and five (5) floating ramps, adjacent to 750 NE 7th Avenue, in the City of Dania Beach. Respondents' Ex. 9 at 9-2. The General License authorized pilings and ramps only; it did not authorize floating dock structures such as finger piers. The approved project description was attached to the January 6, 2006, letter. It shows the approved project to be pilings installed within the Basin at certain distances from the seawall. For the northernmost four set of pilings the distances range from 115 feet to 150 feet. The distance from the seawall of the fifth set of pilings (the southernmost set that corresponds to the fifth finger pier applied for in the ERP application) is 75 feet, a distance significant to safety and navigability. Notwithstanding that the General License did not authorize finger piers, Broward County installed finger piers in the Basin. The installation of finger piers was done without an ERL or an ERP. When asked why a Notice of Intent was not issued that reflected the parties' putative agreement at the end of 2005, Ms. Mitchell replied, "To be honest, I don't recall because there was so much settlement going on outside of our department with the attorneys, I don't remember exactly why it ended up going [to hearing.]" Tr. 397. The record is unclear as to why a Notice of Intent was not issued. It may have been because of the interruption and destruction of Hurricane Wilma and the confusion it caused when country resources were diverted to other pressing matters. It may have been because of lack of communication between all of the parties and their attorneys. Or, it may have been because of objections from Broward Marine that are referenced in Petitioners' Ex. 69 as to the November 16, 2005, submission of information. The objections are counter to Mr. Zink's letter of December 16, 2005, and inconsistent with Mr. Lewis' recall of having reached an agreement in mid-2005. Whatever the reason, a Notice of Intent for an ERL and an ERP authorizing finger piers and floating docks as referenced in Mr. Zink's December 16, 2005, letter was not issued. In March of 2006, the 2002 Dock Application and the amendment to it in the 2003 Revised Application proceeded to hearing before a Broward County Hearing Examiner because of their denial by the County. The March 2006 Hearing, the Final Order and the Omnibus Order The hearing was held on March 30, 2006. There were two parties to the proceeding: Broward Yachts, Inc., as the Petitioner, and Broward County Environmental Protection Department. Aside from the County, none of the parties to this proceeding13/ (DOAH Case No. 08-1393) were parties to the proceeding before the Hearing Examiner. In his Final Order, the Hearing Examiner described those who participated or were present: At the hearing, the Environmental Protection Department was represented by Michael Owens, Esquire, who presented the testimony of Julie Krawczyk, Natural Resource Specialist II. The Petitioner was represented by Larry Zink, Esquire, who presented the testimony of Glenn Straubb [sic], the President of Palm Beach Holdings, Inc. Also in attendance at the hearing was Steve Ganoe, President of G&G Marine, Inc. ("G&G") Respondents' Ex. 10. The Hearing Examiner entered the Final Order on June 5, 2006. The Final Order found that "these docks, is some shape or form, have existed in this area for over twenty one years and have been used for substantially the same purpose for those years." Id. at 10-2. The order further found "that no competent substantial evidence was presented that would support or warrant the denial of the license and permit sought by the Petitioner [Broward Yachts] to maintain its existing docks." Id. at 10-3. The order concluded, "The administrative decision denying the license/permit to maintain the docks is quashed and the matter is remanded to EPD to take appropriate action in accordance with the terms of this Final Order." Id. The order is based on the following finding: The only relevant standard to this proceeding . . . is . . . whether the docks will adversely affect public safety or welfare or the property of others. No evidence was presented that the docks, which have been in existence since 1985, have ever caused an accident or that they impede G&G's reasonable use of the easement. Moreover, while the EPD does have the right to regulate these docks and the navigable water upon which the docks rest, the easement area is not generally travelled by the public and more or less serves as an entrance to only two businesses, G&G and that of the Petitioner. Id. Broward County filed a motion for reconsideration of the Final Order. G&G filed a motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration as a "nonparty." See Respondents' Ex. 11. Both motions were considered in an order entitled "Omnibus Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Post Hearing Motions." Respondents' Ex. 12. The County's motion was denied. The motion of G&G's was granted in part. The motion was found to request relief not inconsistent with the Final Order. "Specifically, G&G requests that the Final Order prohibit the installation of additional docks and prohibit increasing the size of the existing docks." Id. at 12-2. The Omnibus Order grants the following relief: Petitioner may maintain the five existing docks and repair and replace them, but may not do so in a manner that causes any of the docks to protrude at a greater length or distance into the waterway. Additionally, Petitioner may not construct or maintain any docks other that the five existing docks. Id. at 12-2, 12-3. Neither the Final Order nor the Omnibus Order contains a finding of fact as to the configuration of docks at the time of the hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner. There is evidence in the record of this case (DOAH Case No. 08-1393) that the five docks existing on March 30, 2006, were configured consistently with the pilings authorized by the General License, that is, they had lengths beginning with the northernmost dock of 135, 135, 150, 150 and 75 feet, respectively. At the time of the final hearing in this proceeding, moreover, the docks were present in the Basin in approximately the same configuration as existed in March of 2006. The 2006 and the 2007 NOIs On October 23, 2006, the County issued a Notice of Intent (the "2006 Notice of Intent") to issue a combined permit/license for the construction of the five docks ranging from 132 feet to 192 feet in length. The 2006 Notice of Intent was issued solely because the County believed it was required by the Hearing Examiner's Final and Omnibus Orders. See Tr. 405. The configuration of docks authorized by the 2006 Notice of Intent resembled the July 2005 Proposal accepted by Mr. Zink on behalf of Broward Yachts: four docks angled into the Basin in a southwesterly direction with one additional dock parallel and adjacent to the seawall. The County did not conduct any evaluation of its own between the dates of the Hearing Examiner's Final and Omnibus Orders as to whether the configuration authorized by the 2006 Notice of Intent had unacceptable impacts to navigation and safety. The draft permit attached to the 2006 Notice of Intent contains several sets of conditions. DEP General Conditions, Broward County EPD General Conditions and ERP and ERL Specific Conditions ("Specific Conditions"). The Specific Conditions were included under the County's authority to impose conditions necessary to carry out the intent of the ERP and ERL permitting regulations. Specific Condition 18 is "Mooring of vessels with lengths exceeding the length of the permitted structures is prohibited." Respondents' Ex. 13 at 13-17. The purpose of including Specific Condition 18, as testified by Eric Myers, Director of the Broward County EPD at the time the 2006 Notice of Intent was issued, "was to make sure that . . . adequate navigation was maintained within the Basin." Tr. 560. G&G challenged the 2006 Notice of Intent by filing a petition for formal proceedings with EPD seeking a clarification in interpretation with regard to the lengths of vessels to be moored in the PBPH side of the Basin vis- à-vis the length of the permitted structures. Broward Marine also filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings challenging the 2006 NOI. In furtherance of discussions with the County, Broward Marine, by letter dated June 26, 2007, submitted four surveys for consideration by the County. The first purported to show the dock configuration existing after Ms. Mitchell's January 2002 visit but before the submission of the Permit Application; the second purported to show the dock configuration on December 11, 2003; the third showed the dock configurations sought by Broward Marine; and the fourth showed all configurations overlapping. None of the surveys depicted the dock configuration existing on January 22, 2002, the date of the Ms. Mitchell's visit, which was the configuration the County had requested Broward Yachts to submit for approval. The County did not transmit the G&G petition or the Broward Marine petition to DOAH. Instead, on or about August 23, 2007, EPD issued another Notice of Intent to Issue Permit/License (the "2007 NOI") to PBPH. The 2007 NOI identifies the proposed project as the Broward Yachts Marine Facility, with permit No. 06-0194386-001 and License No. DF03-1121 and lists the Permittee/Licensee as "Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc." Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-9. With respect to the factors considered by the County in issuing the 2007 NOI, it provides: The Department reviewed the information presented in the petitions, the Hearing Examiner's Final Orders, and surveys provided by Broward Marine with a letter dated June 25, 2007, and as a result has reformulated the draft permit and agency action. Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-3. The 2007 NOI also referred to an earlier NOI and draft permit issued on August 2, 2007. On August 8, 2007, EPD was notified of typographical errors in the August 2, 2007, NOI. As a result of the typographical errors and other previous errors, the 2007 NOI stated, "this Notice hereby supersedes the October 23, 2006, and August 2, 2007, Notices of Intent to Issue and draft permits/licenses." Id. The Proposed Permit and the draft Environmental Resource License attached to the 2007 NOI allows PBPH to construct five floating finger piers as detailed in a section of the Proposed Permit entitled "PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN," as follows: The proposed project is to construct five (5) floating finger piers in an existing privately-owned marina basin. From north to south, the finger piers shall have the following sizes: (1) 7.5-foot-wide by 122-foot-long pier; (2)7.5-foot-wide by 135.8-foot-long pier; (3) 7.5-foot-wide by 150.5-foot- long pier; (4) 7.5-foot-wide by 150.5- foot-long pier; and (5) 7.5-foot-wide by 152.6-foot-long pier. All five (5) finger piers shall be placed sixty-five (65) feet apart and angled in a southeasterly direction from the existing seawall, as depicted on the attached drawing. The total over-water area of the structures shall be 5,378.25 square feet Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-10. The dock configuration authorized in the Proposed Permit is the same dock plan depicted in Exhibit C to the June 25, 2007, letter from Broward Marine to the County. The County issued the 2007 NOI, revising the dock configuration from what it had authorized in the 2006 NOI, due to objections from Broward Marine that the configuration in the 2006 NOI was not consistent with the Final Order and the Omnibus Order. The Proposed Permit also eliminated Specific Condition 18 that was in the 2006 NOI. It did not impose any restriction or limitation on the length of vessels that may be moored at the proposed finger piers, and PBPH indicated at hearing that it would moor vessels alongside the finger piers whose lengths exceeded the piers.14/ In addition to elimination of Specific Condition 18, there were other significant differences between the 2006 NOI and the 2007 NOI. For example, the 2007 NOI allows all five finger piers to be placed 65 feet apart and angled in a southeasterly direction from the seawall. In contrast, the 2006 NOI provided that the southernmost pier of the five would be placed immediately parallel to the seawall so that it did not jut out at all into the Basin. The 2007 NOI contemplates that the structure of the finger piers would be more permanent. The 2003 Revised Application had sought floating docks, of the type existing at the time made of Styrofoam and wood, as opposed to fixed piers. The concrete pilings and the concrete tub floating docks contemplated by the 2007 NOI are more permanent than the existing wood pilings and the wood and Styrofoam docks. Eric Myers, Director of EPD at the time, signed the 2007 NOI. When he did so on August 26, 2007, he believed that the issues regarding safety and navigation that had been raised by G&G and C-Term had been resolved "based on the advice of staff." Tr. 529. Historical Configuration of Docks in the Basin PBPH contends that the finger pier and dock configuration authorized by the 2007 NOI is consistent with historical lengths and configurations of piers and docks in the Basin. The evidence establishes that the length, number, configuration and locations of docks within the Basin varied greatly over time. As Mr. Straub testified in response to a question about the dock configuration when the property was acquired by PBPH, "Whatever we wanted them to be. It could change from day-to-day and month-to- month." Tr. 582. Aerials taken by Broward County dating back to 1998 demonstrate that the docks in the Basin ranged in number, length and location until 2006 when docks were installed following issuance of the General License. Until 1998, there were many different configurations. Since 2006, the number, lengths, and sizes of the docks have remained fairly consistent to the time of hearing. In the January 2007 Broward County aerial photograph, the five docks (from north to south) have lengths of 151.5, 136, 156, 156 and 88 feet, respectively. These lengths are roughly similar to the piling configuration authorized by the General License.15/ Safety and Navigation16/ The multiplicity of factors that affect navigation in the Dania Cut-off Canal "makes maneuvering extremely tricky" in the canal. Tr. 1574. These same factors affect Basin ingress and egress of G&G vessels and other vessels that have access to the Basin. Wind near the Basin comes from any direction. The predominant wind in the area of the Basin is out of the east/southeast at average speeds of 10-12 knots. From time-to-time, of course, the wind shifts. When cold fronts come through the area, for example, they generally come from the west/northwest and the wind blows mainly from the north. Strongest winds associated with a cold front are usually "anywhere from 20 to 30 knots. Constant winds with a good cold front, usually 15 to 20 knots." Tr. 1260. Direction and strength of wind affects stability and handling capacity of vessels entering and exiting the Basin. The bow of the vessel is affected the most. In the front, it is the narrowest part of the vessel, the least heavy, and has the least draft (depth in the water). Vessels entering and exiting the Basin are affected by leeway defined by Mr. Danti at hearing: "[L]eeway is the physical amount of sideways motion that is going to be activated on a vessel by the wind. It is the amount of side motion created by the wind on a vessel." Tr. 1268-9. Leeway varies depending on a number of factors, among them, the strength and direction of the wind, the angle of the vessel, and its draft. Ocean-freight shipping vessels have different handling characteristics from yachts. The effect of leeway on vessels in the Basin varies from vessel to vessel. Typically, the effect of leeway is greater on G&G vessels than on the PBPH vessels. The current in the Dania Cut-off Canal is 2.0 to 2.5 knots. The current in the canal in the immediate vicinity of the Basin has significant effects on the maneuverability of vessels. Because of the current in the canal, it is advisable for vessels entering and exiting the Basin to perform the majority of turns and other maneuvers in the Basin rather than in the canal. Another factor that makes turning maneuvers by G&G vessels safer in the Basin is boat traffic in the Dania Cut-off Canal. That traffic has increased greatly in recent years, as Mr. Steele testified. Vessels exiting the Basin, furthermore, must yield to vessels in the canal. Boat traffic is not visible to the typical G&G vessel until the vessel has committed to exiting the canal. Once committed, the G&G vessel cannot stop and wait for traffic to pass. It must complete the exit maneuver. It is much better, therefore, for the G&G vessel to turn in the Basin before committing to an exit so that it can emerge bow-first with a better view of canal traffic rather than emerge by backing out. Another factor that makes turning in the Basin safer is the Harbortown Marina, located directly across the canal from the Basin. There is a greater chance for collision the farther the G&G vessels must go into the Dania Cut-off Canal before beginning maneuvers necessary to head out to sea. Vessels will have to go closer to the southern side of the canal, that is, farther into the canal, when emerging from the Basin if they back out and turn in the canal rather than turn in the Basin before heading out toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Basin has a width of 320 feet at the north end and a width of 323 feet at the south end. Mr. Danti fashioned an "Unobstructed Line," depicted on Petitioners Ex. 114A and superimposed on Exhibits 114B through 114"O", fourteen aerial photographs of the Basin taken between 1998 and 2008.17/ The line commences at the north end of the Basin 162' from the Basin's western seawall and runs to the south with two "jogs" to the west before it ends at a projected bulkhead line in the mouth of the Basin just north of the Dania Cut- off Canal. The two jogs run perpendicular to the western seawall; the first, to the tip of the fourth finger pier allowed by the 2007 NOI and the second to a point 59.90 feet east of the western seawall in the approximate middle of the fifth and southernmost finger pier allowed by the 2007 NOI. The part of the Basin to the east of the Unobstructed Line is a navigational safe area (the "Safety Zone") created by Mr. Danti in which it is safe, in his opinion, for G&G vessels to turn and take maneuvers necessary to safely enter and exit the Basin. The Unobstructed Line and the Safety Zone were determined by Mr. Danti in a calculation that took into consideration factors including wind, current and tide, as well as the length, width, draft, maneuverability and handling characteristics of the bulk of G&G vessels and the fact that G&G vessels entering and exiting the Basin need the use of a minimum amount of space in the southern part of the Basin to initiate and complete safe entry and exit navigation maneuvers. Ultimately, the Safety Zone provides a minimum distance for a vessel 190 feet in length determined as half the beam of a vessel18/ from the bow, stern or either side of a vessel to any other vessel, dock, piling or seawall. It does not take into account factors that may require a greater distance such as wind, current and traffic under conditions that are less desirable than the best conditions experienced in the area of the Basin ("Best Conditions"). In order for vessels of the size and character that enter and exit the Basin to do so safely under Best Conditions, no finger piers, docks or moored vessels should protrude from the PBPH side of the Unobstructed Line into the Safety Zone. Under ideal wind, current, and weather conditions, the lengths of the first four finger piers from north to south as authorized by the Proposed Permit will not result in adverse effects to safety and navigation of vessels in and around the Basin. The fifth finger pier, however, is another matter. Authorized to be 152.60 feet in length as depicted in the Proposed Permit, it will protrude by more than 77 feet into the Safety Zone developed by Mr. Danti. Put another way, the fifth finger pier will adversely affect safety and navigation unless it is 75 feet or less in length given its southeasterly angle depicted in the Proposed Permit.19/ The authorized length of the fifth finger pier is not the only navigation and safety issue about which Mr. Danti testified. The length of vessels moored at the finger piers in the Proposed Permit, if too long, can present safety and navigation issues, as well, for G&G's vessels coming in and out of the Basin. With respect to the three northernmost finger piers, moored vessels should not extend past the Unobstructed Line, that is, they should not extend more than 162 feet measured perpendicularly from the Basin's western seawall. With respect to the fourth finger pier, vessels moored there should not extend past the 150.50 feet allowed for the length of the pier as depicted in the Proposed Permit. Similarly, no vessels moored at the fifth finger pier should extend past the end of a longest possible safe fifth finger pier, that is, one that is no more than 75 feet in length at the angle depicted in the 2007 NOI. The adverse affects on safety and navigation caused by the fifth finger pier at the length and as configured in the Proposed Permit would not be alleviated by G&G's use of tugboats to assist vessels entering and exiting the Basin. Tugboats are connected to the vessels they tug by tow lines at the bow and stern of the vessels. Such an arrangement adds approximately 85 feet to a typical G&G vessel of 190 feet, thereby requiring more room in the Basin for maneuvering than the vessel would need under its own power. The use of tugboats would require an even more expansive Safety Zone than was developed by Mr. Danti.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Broward County: modify the Proposed Permit attached to the 2007 Notice of Intent to shorten the length of the fifth finger pier to 75 feet and then issue the permit with the modification; or absent such a modification, deny the issuance of the Proposed Permit as applied for by PBPH. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2010.
