Board of County Com'rs of Pinellas County v. Ford, 82-383

• Decision Date: 24 September 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82-383,82-383
• Citation: 419 So.2d 786
• Parties: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, as the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority, Petitioner, v. J. Scott FORD, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 786

419 So.2d 786

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, as the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority, Petitioner, v. J. Scott FORD, Respondent.

No. 82-383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Second District.

Sept. 24, 1982.

Steven M. Seibert, Asst. County Atty., Clearwater, for petitioner.

Howard P. Ross of Battaglia, Ross, Hastings, Dicus & Andrews, St. Petersburg, for respondent.

HOBSON, Judge.

Petitioner, Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, acting as the governing authority of the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority (Authority), seeks a writ of certiorari to reverse the appellate order of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County which directed that the Authority grant the revised private dock permit application of J. Scott Ford (Ford), respondent. We grant certiorari and reverse.

Ford owns a lot in the City of St. Petersburg on a peninsula known as Maximo Moorings Unit Eighteen. The peninsula is bordered on the south by the approximately 200-foot wide Maximo Moorings Marina Channel (waterway) and on the north and west by Boca Ciega Bay. At the east end of the waterway is the Maximo Moorings Marina and at the west end is the bay.

Ford filed a private dock permit application with the Authority in mid-September, 1980, requesting permission to build a dock and boat-slip structure which would extend 70 feet into the waterway from the portion of the seawall bordering his upland lot. The Director of Public Works and Utilities, Gene Jordan, submitted a letter of objection on the basis that the proposed structure would constitute "an obstruction to navigation." Ford filed a revised application in early October, 1980, requesting a permit for a dock and boat-slip structure which would extend 50 feet into the waterway.

After duly notifying all interested parties, the Authority held a public hearing on Ford's revised application. The Authority's Minutes Book and File reveal the following:

Speaking in opposition to the application, Victor Kauffman, dock master of the marina, noted that the southern edge of the waterway is not bordered by a seawall, as is the northern, and that, due to tides and currents, the boating channel within the waterway runs through the north side (Ford's side) of the waterway. He stated that the proposed structure would present navigational problems. In support of his position, he remarked that the waterway is heavily traveled because the marina contains about 500 boat facilities and several boat businesses. Also, he presented photographs and a letter of objection from the marina's master mariner.

Gene Jordan, with the aid of illuminated slides, compared Ford's original 70-foot proposed structure with his revised 50-foot proposed structure. He emphasized that boat-slip tie poles in the waterway are generally situated 30 feet or less from the north seawall. Further, he stated that shoaling exists in the waterway.

Brian Curtis, a retired United States Coast Guard officer and owner of property on Ford's side of the peninsula, concurred with Kauffman that the proposed structure would pose a hazard to boating safety. In support of his conclusion, he commented that many boats, some with 20 to 24-foot beams, transit the waterway. He observed that numerous individuals in small boats who use the waterway have little knowledge of boating skills. Also, he noted that the waterway is subject to shoaling, tides and currents.

Judd Beckoff, an owner of property on the southern side of the peninsula, stated that the waterway is one of the most heavily traversed in the City of St. Petersburg. He predicted that the proposed structure would create a dangerous bottleneck for boaters. Several other local property owners voiced opposition to the revised application. One local couple mailed in a letter of objection.

Ford's attorney, speaking in support of the requested structure, observed that the proposed structure would leave open an 100-foot wide and 5-foot deep passageway, in conformity with the only plat restrictions on his client's lot that he leave open a minimum 80-foot channel. He added that there would be a 4-foot depth at the end of the proposed dock at low tide which he said would ensure an absence of problems for large boats passing by.

Ford himself stressed that the proposed structure was in compliance with not only his lot deed restrictions, but also the Authority's rules and the City of St. Petersburg's zoning ordinances. He submitted a petition containing the signatures of thirty local residents who favored the proposed construction.

The City of St. Petersburg had approved the revised application; the Authority's engineering department had recommended approval of the revised application; and the United States Army Corps of Engineers had considered the proposed structure reasonable. Also, the northern boat markers are 72 feet from the north seawall: 22 feet beyond the southern end of the proposed 50-foot structure.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Authority decided to defer a decision on the matter of the application for a six-month period in order that concerned parties could impress upon the City of St. Petersburg its "responsibilities" to build a seawall on the southern edge of the waterway (in order to help prevent further shoaling) and to dredge the waterway.

Six months later, in April, 1981, the Authority resumed the public hearing. The minutes do not indicate whether the City of St. Petersburg in the interim had agreed to construct a southern seawall or to dredge the waterway. However, they show that the Authority's engineering department now recommended a denial of the application based on the restrictive nature of the...