Court Opinion

ID: 9902860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:25:39.733412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:02.066081
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                       FIFTH DISTRICT
                                      NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                      FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                      DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT AND CEDAR ISLAND HOMEOWNERS’
ASSOCIATION OF FLAGLER COUNTY, INC.,

     Petitioners,

v.                                            Case No. 5D22-2426
                                              LT Case Nos. 21-3391
                                                           2021-33

EDWARD J. CECE AND ANNA M. CECE,

     Respondents.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 11, 2023

Petition for Review of Nonfinal
Administrative Action,
A Case of Original Jurisdiction.

Jessica P. Quiggle and Steven J.
Kahn, of, for Petitioner, St. Johns River
Water Management District.

Jay W. Livingston, of Livingston &
Sword, P.A., Palm Coast, for Petitioner,
Cedar Island Homeowners’ Association
of Flagler County, Inc.

Edward J. Cece and Anna M. Cece,
Flagler Beach, pro se.
EDWARDS, C.J.,

                       On Motion for Written Opinion

     We previously denied the Joint Petition for Review of Non-Final

Agency Action filed by Petitioner, St. Johns River Water Management District

(“the District”), and Petitioner, Cedar Island Homeowners’ Association of

Flagler County, Inc. (“the HOA”; while “the development” or “Cedar Island”

refers to the subdivision the HOA controls) relating to the Administrative Law

Judge’s (“ALJ”) Order Following Remand dated September 9, 2022. The

underlying case dealt with a stormwater management system permit, the

Dash 9 Permit, 1 sought by the HOA from the District, which would increase

the permissible allowable impervious surface area, 2 within the development

      1
        The development’s stormwater management system was originally
authorized by the District’s Permit 70686-1 in 2001. Subsequent permits
have been issued by the District to transfer ownership of the stormwater
management system to another developer and ultimately to the HOA. Each
amended permit bears the same first five digits, and only the digit after the
dash changes, hence the reference to Permit 70686-4 as the Dash 4 Permit,
the fourth amended permit, which was issued in 2005 and transferred the
operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system to the
HOA. The Dash 9 Permit (Permit 70686-9) would be the ninth permit for this
system and it would amend the Dash 4 Permit if granted.
      2
       Impervious surfaces are artificial surfaces that water cannot naturally
percolate through or penetrate. Concrete sidewalks and patios, asphalt
paved roads, metal, and roofing shingles are examples of impervious
surfaces. Water striking an impervious surface will run off, potentially
causing damage such as flooding or pollution if not properly managed.

                                      2
to 44.28% from the originally permitted 38.06%. We grant the District’s

motion for a written opinion, but we still deny the petition for the reasons set

forth below.

                    Development Status of Cedar Island

      Cedar Island was developed as a 32-lot residential subdivision. As of

December 2021, shortly before the underlying February 2022 formal

administrative hearing, 18 homes had been fully constructed, three were

under construction, and 11 lots were undeveloped. Some lot owners of

Cedar Island were concerned that continued development and building in the

subdivision would increase the impervious surface area beyond what the

stormwater system could manage and for which it had been permitted.

Those owners worried that continued development might result in flooding

within the subdivision among other problems.

               Cedar Island’s Stormwater Management System

      The development’s stormwater management system consists of two

interconnected, wet detention ponds (A and B) together with a series of 25-

foot-wide vegetative natural buffers (“VNB”) located within a conservation

easement running along the rear of many lots in the development. The

Increasing the amount of impervious surfaces through continued
development of the subdivision will increase the volume of stormwater runoff
that must be handled by Cedar Island’s stormwater management system.

                                       3
detention ponds perform two functions: treatment and storage of stormwater

runoff.   A simplified explanation of treatment is that the longer dirty

stormwater remains in one of the detention ponds, the cleaner it gets, as

particulates and sediments suspended in the water tend to descend to and

remain near or on the bottom of the pond.

      The ponds also store water to avert flooding, a direct function of their

volume. Once the ponds are full, they begin releasing water in a desirable

direction through an opening at the upper edge of the pond called a weir.

The effective storage volume of each detention pond is determined by its

dimensions, including its depth, and by the height at which the weir is located

together with the size of the weir. All things being equal, the lower the

elevation of the weir, the sooner water will be released, while the wider the

opening of the weir, the greater flow of water will be released. The treatment

and storage functions of the ponds work together to limit pollution and

flooding caused by stormwater running off impervious surfaces within the

development.

               Dash 9 Permit Involved Re-Calculations Only

      In its 2020 application for the Dash 9 Permit, the HOA did not say or

propose that it was going to make any physical changes to the structure or

composition of the existing stormwater management system, nor did the

                                      4
District require alterations as a condition for issuance of the permit. Instead,

the HOA simply submitted a recalculation, performed by its retained

engineering expert, purporting to demonstrate that the stormwater system as

designed and permitted in 2001 could effectively manage an increased load

associated with a greater amount and percentage of impervious surface area

which would generally mean more stormwater runoff that wouldn’t soak into

green spaces but would go to the existing stormwater system. The HOA’s

engineering expert did not base any of his calculations on the existing

system.

            What Did They Know, and When Did They Know It?

      As part of its application for the Dash 9 Permit, the HOA submitted

certain as-built plans created in 2002 when Cedar Island’s stormwater

management system was actually constructed.             Those as-built plans

demonstrated that the stormwater management system, as actually

constructed, deviated in several significant ways from the originally permitted

design. For example, the detention ponds were considerably shallower than

designed. Pond A was constructed to a depth between -4.2 to -4.7 feet,

instead of the designed -6 feet. Pond B was constructed to a depth of -4.3

feet instead of the designed -8 feet. The crested elevation of the weir was

constructed several inches lower than designed and the weir itself was

                                       5
constructed to a width of only 24 feet instead of 40 feet as set forth in the

design of the originally permitted system.        These as-built deviations,

individually and in combination, decrease the amount of stormwater which

the development’s stormwater management system could effectively handle,

compared to the system as it was designed and originally permitted in 2001.

No current survey of the components of the stormwater management system

was provided by anybody. Inexplicably, the HOA’s expert testified that he

was unaware of any differences between the current system and the as-

designed system. All his calculations were based solely on the non-existent,

as-designed stormwater management system. The HOA possessed the as-

built plans all along; thus, the construction shortfalls cannot be considered a

surprise to the HOA or the District as though it happened to come up

sometime late in the process.

      Additionally, in connection with the HOA’s application for the Dash 9

Permit, the District conducted an inspection of Cedar Island’s existing

stormwater management system and found several compliance issues, such

as (1) accumulation of sediment in both detention ponds; (2) erosion of the

top of the berm elevation for both ponds; and (3) numerous areas where the

series of 25-foot wide VNBs had been cleared or modified, which reduced

their performance. The District considered those three items to be curable

                                      6
by maintenance-type actions.      The District noted that the HOA could

undertake compliance with the maintenance issues on a parallel basis and

time frame with applying for the increased percentage of impervious

surfaces. The District’s Technical Staff also noted that some of the homes

included an impervious footprint larger than accounted for in the original

design. Thus, the HOA and District knew well before the administrative

hearing that the existing system and the as-designed system were

remarkably different in many structural and functional regards.

                Objections to Issuance of the Dash 9 Permit

     Two Cedar Island owners opposed issuance of the Dash 9 Permit

based primarily on their concern that continued development could

overwhelm the development’s stormwater management system and result in

problems. They requested an administrative hearing to formally contest the

application and issuance of the permit. Another owner later intervened,

joining the opposition to issuance of the Dash 9 Permit.

     During the ensuing administrative hearing conducted by a duly

appointed ALJ from the Department of Administrative Hearings, the HOA

presented the testimony of its expert who performed calculations of what the

as-designed stormwater system could theoretically manage and concluded

that it would function properly even if the impervious surface area percentage

                                      7
within the development was increased to 44.28% from the originally

permitted 38.06%. The HOA’s expert had not based his calculations on the

stormwater management system that currently, actually existed in Cedar

Island nor had he considered the deviations from the system’s design noted

in the 2002 as-built plans.    The objecting homeowners presented the

testimony of their engineering expert who opined that one could not

accurately calculate what water load and what percentage of impervious

surfaces the Cedar Island stormwater system could handle unless the

system’s current status and the deviations from design were considered.

                         Why Ignore the Obvious?

     The evidence introduced at trial demonstrated that Cedar Island’s

existing stormwater management system was smaller than designed and

originally permitted. That smaller system was already handling a larger load

at that stage of development than anticipated, and it needed maintenance of

all its features. Nobody provided calculations as to the ability of Cedar

Island’s current system to manage the existing stormwater runoff, nor did

anybody provide calculations as to whether the current system could

manage the proposed, increased load associated with the increased

percentage of impervious surface areas.

                                     8
      In order to obtain the Dash 9 Permit, the HOA was required to provide

“reasonable assurance” that the stormwater management system would

satisfy the applicable criteria set forth in rule 62-330.301 and rule 62.330-

302 of the Florida Administrative Code, and Volumes I and II of the

Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook.              “Reasonable

assurance” has been defined as “a substantial likelihood that the project will

be successfully implemented.” Metro. Dade Cty. v. Coscan Fla., Inc., 609

So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Reasonable assurance does not call

for absolute guarantees, nor can proof of reasonable assurance be defeated

solely by speculation or subjective concerns. FINR II, Inc. v. CF Indus., Inc.,

Case No. 11-6495 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 30, 2012; Fla. DEP June 8, 2012).

      Following the conclusion of the formal administrative hearing, the

parties submitted proposed recommended orders and on May 2, 2022, the

ALJ issued a recommended order.

           ALJ Recommends the District Deny the Dash 9 Permit

      Ultimately, the ALJ agreed with the objecting homeowners, finding that

the HOA had not carried its burden of providing “reasonable assurance” that

its proposal would comply with applicable rules. The ALJ cited to rule 62-

330.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that construction,

operation, and maintenance of the project will not cause adverse flooding to

                                      9
on-site or off-site property. The ALJ also cited to rule 62-330.301(1)(c),

which requires that there be no “adverse impacts to existing surface water

storage and conveyance capabilities.” Although the HOA’s expert testified

that in his opinion there would be no such adverse consequences, the ALJ

considered, but rejected those opinions due to “deficiencies in the modeling.”

The HOA’s Dash 9 application was based on theoretical calculations of a

system that did not exist at the time of the hearing, that had never existed,

and that was not being proposed as new or modified construction now by the

HOA. While the ALJ acknowledged the District’s argument that the HOA

could bring the system into compliance, it also noted that the HOA “never

expressed any definitive intent that it would bring the system to its design

specifications.” Further, the ALJ stated in the recommended order that it was

the responsibility of the applicant, not the District, to provide the requisite

reasonable assurances.

                         Post-Hearing Proceedings

      The parties filed exceptions to portions of the ALJ’s recommended

order which the District considered and ruled upon in its Final Order and

Order of Remand. In that order, the District took exception to the ALJ’s

conclusion that calculations regarding the stormwater management system

must be modeled based on its current condition, rather than the proposed

                                      10
condition. The District and the HOA asserted that the ALJ improperly applied

the analysis called for under rule 62-330.301(1)(a), (b) and (c) and that rule

62-330.302 was not at issue in this case.

     To summarize the District’s lengthy argument on this point, it noted that

if there were issues of non-compliance or violations of the existing Dash 4

Permit, one should consider whether the proposed modifications would

resolve those problems. However, the only modification proposed here was

a new set of calculations. There was no proposal by the HOA to change the

physical condition of any part of the existing system.        There was no

suggestion that the HOA had any intention of revising the as-built, non-

compliant existing system so as to resemble the non-existent, as-designed

system that its expert relied upon. As already noted, the HOA’s expert never

performed any calculations to determine if the current system could handle

either the current or the proposed increased runoff load. A computer with

software is no substitute for excavation equipment when it comes to making

ponds that were too shallow 20 years ago—before being silted in—deep

enough to comply with the original design that was permitted.

     The District’s order remanded the case to the ALJ, directing it to make

findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the “proposed” project rather

than on the “existing” system. In other words, the District remanded for the

                                     11
ALJ to proceed on the assumption that the stormwater management system

in question was the one described in the 2001 design plan that was originally

permitted. The District stated that with any permit application, you don’t look

at the current condition because typically the application is for a “proposed

system” that is going to be built or the physical modification of an existing

system. Here, there was no such “proposed system.”

      The District’s remand order included a hypothetical situation in which

an applicant’s current system was in place and was independently

permittable, despite the fact that the current system, as built, did not comply

with the design submitted and originally permitted. In its hypothetical, the

District bemoans that this hypothetical applicant would have to deconstruct

its existing, desirable stormwater system, that was demonstrated to be

permittable, just to comply with the original permit.        Of course, that

hypothetical situation has nothing to do with this case, because the HOA

never attempted to demonstrate that its current system, as-built rather than

as-designed, would be eligible for permitting. The HOA’s expert prepared

no calculations as to whether Cedar Island’s existing system would be

permittable. Thus, the District’s hypothetical fact pattern underscores why

the Dash 9 Permit should be denied here as there were no reasonable

                                      12
assurances of any existing or proposed system that was going to be

constructed at Cedar Island that would be permittable.

                          ALJ’s Ruling on Remand

      The ALJ issued an order following remand in which the remand order

was acknowledged, but the ALJ declined to accept the District’s premise that

the application for the Dash 9 Permit was to be considered as though the

non-existent, never-existing system designed in 2001 was in place. The ALJ

further rejected the District’s directive that the ALJ consider the application

as though the 2001 as-designed system would be put in place at some

indeterminate time, because the HOA had not proposed to do so. The HOA

was just doing a numbers submission of recalculations based on the as-

designed system, not the as-built, much less the current system. Thus, the

ALJ did not reject the remand; however, there was no “proposed project”

which could be analyzed in accordance with the remand order.

                          Current Appellate Review

      The District and HOA sought appellate review from this Court. Section

120.68(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2022), provides:

            A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate order of
            the agency or of an administrative law judge of the
            Division of Administrative Hearings is immediately
            reviewable if review of the final agency decision
            would not provide an adequate remedy.

                                      13
The scope of appellate review under that provision is “‘analogous to, and no

broader than the right of review by common law certiorari.’” CNL Resort

Hotel, L.P. v. City of Doral, 991 So. 2d 417, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting

Fla. Dep’t of Fin. Servs. v. Fuggett, 946 So. 2d 80, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)).

“On certiorari review, a petitioner must demonstrate that the lower court

‘departed from the essential requirements of the law, thereby causing

irreparable injury which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal following

final judgment.’” Id. (quoting Belair v. Drew, 770 So. 2d 1164, 1166 (Fla.

2000)). If a decision following remand by an ALJ leaves the parties at an

impasse, the appellate court must resolve the issue because there is no

other remedy. See Ag. for Health Care Admin. v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of

Greater Miami, 690 So. 2d 689, 693 (Benton, J., concurring) (“With the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) within the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH) and the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) at

an impasse, the litigants have no other forum.”).

     The District and the HOA assert that this Court has jurisdiction because

the Agency cannot issue a final order on whether to issue the Dash 9 Permit,

given that the ALJ’s Second Order does not make the additional factual

findings requested by the District. At issue is whether the ALJ’s Second

Order departs from the essential requirements of the law resulting in

                                     14
irreparable harm in the form of a “stalemate” that leaves the parties at an

impasse, as alleged by the District and the HOA.

           No Departure from the Essential Requirements of Law

      The ALJ, in the initial recommended order and the order following

remand, was required to base findings of fact and conclusions of law on

competent, substantial evidence. In both orders, the ALJ determined that

Cedar Island had not proved that the existing stormwater management

system met the requirements for issuance of the Dash 9 Permit. The District

acknowledged in its remand order that the ALJ had made those findings and

they were supported by competent, substantial evidence.

      The permit application that the District wants the ALJ to reconsider

simply does not exist.     The District’s remand order to the ALJ and its

arguments before this Court assume one of two things: (1) that the HOA has

proposed in its Dash 9 Permit application to construct or modify its existing

system to bring it into compliance with the original design and original permit,

or (2) that Cedar Island’s exiting stormwater management system can be

permitted without change. But neither circumstance exists. The HOA did not

propose in its application to bring the existing system into compliance with

the original design or to construct an otherwise permittable system. Thus,

there simply was no “proposed system” for the ALJ to consider as an

                                      15
alternative to Cedar Island’s existing system. The HOA included its as-built

plans which demonstrated beyond dispute that the existing system did not

replicate the system as designed and the HOA knew it. Accordingly, there

was no departure from the essential requirements of the law when the ALJ

did not make findings of fact regarding any “proposed system” and concluded

that the HOA, which offered no evidence about its current system, had

neither proposed any construction nor provided reasonable assurance that

the existing system could handle an increased percentage of impervious

surfaces.

                   No Stalemate and No Irreparable Harm

      The District and HOA argue that unless we remand the matter to the

ALJ with instructions to make the findings of fact relating to the non-existent

“proposed system,” the District will be unable to issue a final order. That is

not correct. As the record stands now with the findings of the ALJ, the District

can enter its final order either granting or denying the HOA’s Dash 9 Permit.

What the District cannot do in the proceeding before this Court is to have the

case remanded for the ALJ to consider an application in a form and with

information that was never submitted and to render findings of fact and

conclusions of law on evidence that was not offered during the formal

administrative hearing.

                                      16
      The HOA has argued that the matter could be remanded for additional

presentation of evidence regarding whether its existing stormwater

management system can effectively handle not only the current stormwater

load, but the increased load that would result by increasing the percentage

of impervious surfaces. Overlooking the fact that the HOA did not make that

proposal in its application nor in the underlying case, that would require

reopening the case with additional evidence presented by the HOA, the

District, and the objecting homeowners. It would require further hearings, a

further recommended order from the ALJ, further exceptions from the

parties, and perhaps would cumulate in a final order from the District which

would still be subject to an appeal. That untenable situation was perfectly

described as “endless litigation” which the First District observed was not the

intent of the Administrative Procedures Act. See Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v.

J.W.C. Co., 396 So. 2d 778, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The HOA here made

the choice to offer recalculations only and has never proposed to either bring

its existing system into compliance with the original design or offer

reasonable assurance that its current system is permittable.

                                 Conclusion

      Accordingly, we deny the District and the HOA’s petition, and remand

to the District for entry of a final order either issuing or denying the HOA’s

                                      17
application for the Dash 9 Permit, which Agency decision can then be

appealed if the losing parties choose to do so.

    MOTION GRANTED, PETITION DENIED; REMANDED TO THE
AGENCY WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

                                     18