MEMORIAL CAUSEWAY VISTA IMPROVEMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY - DRAFT FINAL REPORT
II
,
,
,
,
&t'
.
,
II
,
11
..
.
II
11
11
,
11
II
,0 \\1 1- vJSO
1\-15.Q9
Memorial Causeway Vista Improvement
Feasibility St~ .
Draft Final Report
April 9th, 1999
Prepared by Delta S't1;~ IncoTM
For
The City of Clearwater Florida
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L___
GSW0M
Memorial Causeway Vista Improvement
Feasibility S~
Prepared for the City of Clearwater Florida
By
Delta Stv~ Inc.
81. Petersburg, FI
Respectfully Submitted
Thomas R. Cuba, Ph.D.
Certified Environmental Professional
CEP # 96030328
File: Deha Seven incmemcwy12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Project Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ......... ... ........ 6
Current Use ............................................... 6
Ownership ................................................ 6
A4Jacent lAnds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
Legal Description, Zoning, Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
Site Description ........................................... 10
Alternative Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Trimming Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Analysis of Potential Vista Alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
Public Safety ............................................. 2 J
Noise ................................................... 21
Lights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22
Inre~rojectCoordination...... ..............................22
NetEnv&onmentaIBene}lt ................................... 23
Legal Factors: Federal, State, County, Proprietary ................ 28
Political Factors ._ ~ . _, _ _ _ ___ _ __ __ ___ _________ _ ___ ,. -- ---- - - - - 31
Cost ................................................... 32
Summary ................................................ 33
Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
Statement of Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 38
Notations & Appendices ......................................... 38
List of Tables
T 1: Existing site area data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . .. 13
T2: Recommended alternative site data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
Lis.t of Figures
F1: City of Clearwater Conservation Lands Map ...................... 8
2
File:DeIta Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F2: Existing island configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11, 12
F3: View diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
F4: Typical cross section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20
F5: Road realignment .......................................... 24
F6: Proposed View diagram ..................................... 34
F7: Recommended Vegetation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35,36
F8: Obverse View Diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
fP
PI: Aerial photograph of eastern end of causeway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cover
P2: Hedging ................................................. 15
P3: Lateral trimming, Windows, Combinations ....................... 15
P4: Lateral trimming, Windows, Combinations ....................... 16
P5: Lateral trimming, Windows, Combinations ....................... 16
End Notes. __ __ . . _. _ . . _ _ _ _ __ . __ ____ _ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ . _ ._ ___ _ _ _ H _ 39
The intent of the mangrove trimming & preservation act. . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
Public Interest as it relates to mangrove trimming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40
Health, Safety & Welfare .................................... 41
Management Plan as it relates to the ma.ngrove Qreservation act. . . . . " 41
Variances ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42
Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43
Appendices. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 45
AI: Chapter 11050 LoF .................................... 46
A2: Chapter 20755 LoF .................................... 49
A3: List of adjacent lands ................................... 51
A4: Perpetual deep water park dedication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
A5: Recreation! Open Space & Preservation land use
definitions and Zoning Code and Map ...................... 63
A6: Selected Excerpts from the City of Clearwater and Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council Comprol-.onsive Plans. . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . .. 69
A7: Noise report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . .. 72
A8: Letter dated Sep 18, 1998 from Pinellas County . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
A9: 1983 Montes De Oca letter; 1988 Harvey Hunt Letter . . . . . . . . .. 74
AI0: Salient excerpts ofCh 403.9322, LoF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78
All: Tinney Creek permit as a precedent ........................ 79
A12: Ch 373.414, LoF, The Public Interest Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
A13: Ch 373.414(8), LoF, Cumulative Impact Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82
3
File:Deha SevC21 Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Executive Summaty
Delta Seven Inc. was retained by the City of Clearwater to conduct a study of the feasibility of
improving the vista along Memorial Causeway - State Road 60. The action to be studied was the
possibility ofthe removal or trimming of the mangroves so that motorists could see the water. A
second task was the preparation of a permit application should the city decide to proceed with the
project. A review of the mangrove trimming regulations and other controlling documents such as
the comprehensive plan resulted in the identification of major impediments to the completion (\f
the project. Creative designs were developed to nullify the major ecological and sociological
obstacles. Regulatory and political decisions and choices remain to be made before the
preparation of a permit application. This document reports on the feasibility, recommends an
alternative for preparation as a permit application, and maps out the actions needed to procure the
permit. As initially conceptualized, the project is not reasonably achievable.
The recommended alternative of selectively trimming the mangroves into angled viewing
windows~ the revegetation of grassy and open areas to enhance the habitat and augment the
window design~ the incorporation of the revegetation into a mitigation plan~ and the development
of a site management plan to assure the ecological and sociological maintenance of the product,
appears to be attainable. Developing the management plan is expected to cost an additional
$8,000. Designing and permitting the appurtenances of the recommended alternative is expected
to cost an additional $63,000 but could be spread out over several phases. Total construction
costs, also spread out over phases, are expected to approach 1.2 million dollars.
Once approval has been granted (anticipated June 1, 1999), an application for trimming the
mangroves can be prepared in thirty days (July 1). Approval by the agency may take as long as 4
months (November 1). Bidding the construction may take up to 45 days (circa Jan 1,2000).
Construction is expected to take several months and project completion is not expected until mid
summer of2000. These estimates represent the minimum expected cost and effort necessary to
complete the project. Permitting delays or agency modifications have a greater potential to
increase costs rather than to decrease them.
4
File:Deha Seven IDe Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project Abstract
The City of Clearwater desires to improve the vista offered to motorists using Memorial
Causeway. The desired improvement is an element of the One City - One Future area wide
improvement concept and would serve as an entrance feature enhancement for residents and
visitors moving between downtown and Clearwater Beach. The major element of the vista
improvement concept is to provide a view of the waters of Clearwater Harbour. This view is
currently blocked by mangroves growin~ along the waters edge. The growth is thick in some
places and sparse to absent in others. In order to provide a view as described above, the
mangroves must be removed or trimmed. The project is to be explored through a feasibility study
and the preparation of a permit application package. This report constitutes the feasibility report
and a recommended permitting alternative.
.
5
File:Deha Seven Ine Memcwy29
u
1
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
City of Clearwater Conserva~ Lands i
~
<(
~
.J
<(
....
.,
(
o
l:
I
~
co
~
.
9
~
f-..:
~
~
U
,
,
,
,
I
-
\
.
~!
~~
\
"
....
'"
v
,
~
I
. '"
:::l
....
""l
...
~ I
$ ",
....
~T ,
, ....i' I
., I
,aT , r;fI
i I ~
.... A'\'" ' ~
~
" C>
~\\ 0 L
~' ,/ ~'~~ ' ,.'
, '
I c:::'.......\.
l
' ' t::'
110 :,'1
'r-' ~~~
l
~
~~
0"
...
~J
""l~
.l
._ ~;,I.A~f.~f~ _ 110
j ..
1
I'
...
~
""l
~r:.
;.
II
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Conditions
Current Use
The current uses of the causeway are transportation, recreation, and as various utility corridors.
Transportation and utilities as uses are obvious and need not be expounded upon. Observed
recreational uses are primarily walking.. jogging, and roller-blading along the path provided.
Many of the hikers also participate in bird-watching activities. There are occasional sunbathers
and people just having lunch or reading. Fishermen were not observed but probably use the area
occasionally.
Ownership
In 1925, submerged state lands were granted to the County of Pin ell as by an act of the legislature.
Chapter 11050 Laws of Florida 1 dedicated property to the county for the expressed purpose of
building a bridge from the mainland to the islands that would become Clearwater Beach. In
addition, other lands were dedicated along the north side of the bridge center line for the specific
purpose of public parks and recreational uses. The act contains a reverter clause if these purposes
were not respected.
The county developed the bridge designs and then transferred the construction contracts to the
City of Clearwater by resolution in 1927. It was not until 1941 that the legislature designated
Gulf to Bay as a State Road and identified it as SR 60 (Ch 20755 LoF2).
Only a portion of the 235 acre (mol) parcel needed to be filled in order to construct the island
which would become the causeway. For the purposes of this study, only the area between the
eastern and western bridges is considered. This portion of the parcel is 1300 feet wide and
approximately 6755 feet in length along the center line. Within these 201.60 acres, only 45.75
acres have been filled to create the island which varies in width from 220 feet to 430 feet.
The road bed has been filled to elevations between 6 and 8 feet MSL. The road itself is 60' wide
and includes 2 travel lanes and a median. Along the southeastern portion of the island, there is a
small parking lot for visitors. Island Way intersects SR 60 and provides access to the residents
and businesses in Island Estates.
Adjacent Lands
The majority of the lands adjacent to the site are submerged lands. Some of these parcels are
1 Appended: AI: Chapter 11050 LoF.
2 Appended: A2: Chapter 20755 LoF.
6
File:Deha Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
owned by the State of Florida and others by the City of Clearwater. Private properties are limited
to those along Windward Passage, and at the eastern and western bridge footing. A complete list
need not be generated until a permit is submitted. A partial list is appended.3 The parcel to the
north, and east ofIsland Way is a City owned Perpetual Deep Water Park (OR 259 Page-I 17). 4
Legal Description, Zoning, Land Use
There is no parcel identification within the property records of the county and the legal
description is only contained in the act (11050 LoF). Generally paraphrased, however, it is
described by a series of arcs and lines commencing at a point 601.65 ft west of the intersection of
Cleveland St. and Osceola Ave. The described arcs total 8549.09 feet in length and the properii~s~~~
extend 500 feet to the north and 700 feet to the south totaling approximately 235 ar~..e. C::J .-{e'.. ~~~~~/ /
( ./ ---------
The land is zoned Recreation! Open Space 6 and Identified as a Scenic! Non-Con1JOOfcial e-6ITfdor
by the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The submerged lands portio~the parcel is
zoned Preservation. The Zonin .. 'th,.mangroves to be zoned
Preservation up to a distanc of30 feet landward of the Mean Hi Tide. The Conservation
Lands Map as included in the ConservatIon emen 0 the Plan clearly shows the mangrove
fringe of the Causeway to be included as a Conservation Area (Figure 1).
Both Land Use and Zoning are regulated by the City Commission under the general municipal
zoning code and Comprehensive Plan's Land Use designation. While zoning and land use are
primarily controlled by the City of Clearwater but they must be consistent with each other and
also consistent with the Pinellas Planning Council Guidelines and criteria. The code limits
activities in Recreation! Open Space areas and includes the restriction that "public works projects
are to be screened with continuous landscape screen or wall." In this context it is probable that
roads in general are not considered to be public works projects and are therefore exempt from the
requirement. For parking areas and access points, sight distance must also be maintained.
Land Uses as defined by the County Wide Plan Rules generally allow the use of the island as a
park and should not create difficulties. The Land Use definition of Scenic/ Non-Commercial
Corridor, however, contains the direction to "...preserve and enhance the scenic quality found
along these corridors..." This gives ample direction to manage the vista and leaves only the exact
3 Appended: A3: Ownership records.
4 Appended: A4: Perpetual deep water park dedication.
5 Unless noted otherwise, area and length values have been scaled or derived from aerials
and do not represent surveyed data.
6 Appended: A5: Recreation! Open Space & Preservation land use definitions and Zoning
Code.
7
File:Delta Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
j
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
nature of the desired scenery to be debated.
The Zoning Code7 also promotes the use of the island for recreati
however, lies a definition that will affect the course of the proje .
addresses preservation lands. While the island is not itself zone
portion is so zoned: Division 31 contains the statement that "The tion District shall apply
to all surface waters and submerged lands thereunder." The language goes on to say that
''Furthermore, the Preservation District shall be applied to all upland areas 30 feet landward of
mean high tide where mangroves exist."
The code goes on to require a 25 ft buffer around all preservation lands and jurisdictional
wetlands.8 The buffer has a dual definition and the most restrictive must be applied. Where the
edge of mangroves lies more than 30 feet landward of the MHT, the edge of jurisdiction would be
landward of the preservation zoning district and the buffer would commence landward of the
wetland line.
The Preservation Use Limitations (Sec 40.585) go on to state that ''No...removal of established
native vegetation shall be permitted except as may be specifically authorized by the City
Commission, the USA Corps of Engineers, and the State [emphasis added].9 Most salient to the
point of this project is the requirement that the removal be specifically authorized by the city
commission. A finer point that alteration through trimming is not removal directs the
development of the vista improvement project towards hedging and trimming instead of actual
mangrove removal.
Chapters 163 and 187 of the Florida Statutes require that each community examine its future in a
comprehensive and holistic manner. The guidelines to achieve this future is then codified and
adopted subject to ratification by the State Department of Community Affairs. All Land
Development Codes and activities are required to be in accordance with these guidelines, known
as the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Plan. Superior plans, such as the Pinellas Planning
Council, th~ Regional Planning Council, and the State are relevant, not regulatory, but should still
7 Appended: A5: Recreation! Open Space & Preservation land use definitions and Zoning
Code.
8 Appended: A5: Recreation! Open Space & Preservation land use definitions and Zoning
Code.
9 Taken with 40.587(2) which says these restrictions are "cumulative and complementary
to state law.." it would appear that to cut an oak would now require approval of the USACOE
and FDEP. This is probably an error in semantics unintended by the composers of the plan and is
not expected to create problems with the current project. If taken literally, however, it could
become problematic in other projects. It is recommended that this language in the plan be
changed at the next regular opportunity.
9
File:Deha Sevm IDe Memcwy29
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
be considered.
The relevant policies of the adopted Clearwater Plan10 serve to very strongly discourage the
pursuit of the vista improvement project. Pursuant to nuances of interpretation, Policies 22.3.1,
22.3.2,22.5.1,22.5.3,22.5.4, and 22.7.1 would seem to make the alteration of these mangroves
either very difficult or impossible. This is not to say that the comprehensive plan could not be
changed to accommodate the project. Changing the land use designation and modifying the
policy statements could, however, be somewhat controversial. Such a change would certainly be
costly and time consuming.
Site Description
The road to Clearwater Beach was constructed as a long narrow island with a bridge at each end
allowing for boat passage and tidal circulation (Figure 2). The road lies generally in the center
and is 4 lanes with a landscaped median. To either side of the road there are open grassy areas
sloping gently to the edge ofthe wetlands. Within this area, which is broader to the south than to
the north, there are occasional palms, oaks, and sea grape trees. A combination bicycle path and
walking trail runs through the grassed areas on both the north and south sides of the island but the
two do not connect at the ends. The small parking lot mentioned earlier can accommodate
approximately 8 cars and is landscaped with Oleander. Nearly all of the landscape material is
composed of exotic plants the only exception being the oaks, sea grape and the occasional
cabbage palm. The grasses themselves are a mixture of lawn grasses and the native Distichlis
spicata in wetter areas or areas subjected to frequent salt spray. Other exotic plants noted were
the infrequently occurring Brazilian Pepper and Air Potato.
The shore is generally stabilized with concrete rubble and rock, much of which is hidden from
view by low creeping grasses or by the mangroves. The rubble is more extensive along the
southern shore.
Black, Red, and White Mangroves occur in varying conditions along the shore (6.96 acres). In
general, the largest stand of mangroves occurs in the northeastern quadrant while the southeastern
and southwestern shores are nearly devoid of all vegetation. In the large stand, the depth of the
mangroves reaches 100'. In many places along the southern shore, they occur as single small
trees.
The height of these mangroves was surveyed by City Staff in 1994. At the time, the maximum
height was 26' above Mean Sea level (MSL), the average being closer to 20' tall. Since
mangroves typically grow just above Mean Sea Level (MSL) they can be presumed to have been
slightly less than 20' tall at the time. Since then, growth has likely elevated the canopy above
these figures. Local observers relate that the mangroves along this island were severely frozen in
the middle years ofthe nineteen-eighty's. While these observations are valuable, they are
10 Appended: A6: Excerpts & Analysis of Comprehensive Plans.
10
File:Delta Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
a
.
"
,
,\
, ~
u ~
, ~
.~
0 ./~
;...
~
, -= J ~
~
e j
- ~ .(
)
0 .'
;... ~
- a i "'0.........
. ..... ? Q) ~
~ Q l=i Q
~ Q) o(/J
, ~ ~ ....... 0
en ~ 00......,
. ..... ~ l=i"'O
> Q) Q)
~ ~ ~ S Q
. ~ a ~ \8 ....... ::i
5--0 Q..-o
~ Q) $:I 000
1-<....... .0 l=i I-<
~ Moo I~ .~ Q)
, en .Q) Q) ~~
~ "ca Q) I
o....l:l Clb
U $:I Q) I
....... ;>
, ca .......
rj)~ J
. ..... ~ $:I
.;... 2'"0
0
, e M8
8--
~ ~.~
~
, ~
Q) .......
$:I ~
...... ...0
, ~ 0
...0 ~
<.) ~
~
, ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
probably not totally accurate. The tall mangroves along the northern shore would not have
achieved the heights recorded above in the post freeze years. The mangroves along the south
shore, however, show direct evidence of old freeze damage and the local observations may be
more reliable.
Freezing weather is the range limiting factor for our mangroves and the Anclote River is generally
considered the northern range limit for most of these trees. It must be noted that range limitations
are a broad line, not an exact one. Periodic freezes will keep mangrove forests in the Clearwater
area from achieving the non-perturbed climax status common in southern regions while not
eliminating them. Other perturbations or disturbances to the ecology include noise, lights, and
other human behaviours.
Wildlife observed on site fall generally into upland and wetland utilizing species. Upland fauna
were generally limited to birds including Fish Crows, Mockingbirds, Red-Winged Blackbirds, and
the exotic escapee, the black hooded parrot. Wetland utilizing species included Yellow Crowned
Night Heron, Snowy Egret, Fiddler Crab, and the Mangrove Water Snake.
a e Xlstmg lte ea ata.
AREA Acres Proportion of island
SR 60 Road Bed 930 acres 2031%
Island Way 0_73 acres 1..600/0-
Parkine Lot 0.11 acres 0.24%
Open Space 2&.65 acres 62.62%
Mangroves 6.96 acres 15.2l%
Submereeci La.nd.S- 155.&5 acres NLA
Total 2fiL6Q acres
T bilE .. S' Ar D
Alternative Development
Introduction
The traditional approach to alternative development was quickly determined to be inappropriate
due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the project. The Do Nothing alternative simply
does not satisfY the goals of the city management team. Conversely, the hedging of all the
mangroves along the island would have required a change to the Land use Plan and off site
13
File:Deha Sevmlnc Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mitigation, either of which would have made the project extremely costly and not feasible.11 The
development of alternatives was further complicated by a wide variety of legal and political
constraints. Alternative development was modified to be a process of hierarchically resolving
individual components of the developing alternative until a point was reached where the project
could be deemed achievable. Using this procedure, the alternative recommended has minimum
criteria as fixed components and retains flexibility in how some of these may be applied in the final
product. The sequence of problem resolution is presented in the following sections.
Trimming Style
Historically the trimming of mangroves has been limited to two basic styles: Hedging and Lateral
Trimming. In the first, the mangroves are topped and reduced to the desired height creating a flat
topped appearance as in a garden hedge. In lateral trimming the main trunk is left intact and the
lateral branches are removed. The canopy is preserved in this method and a view is allowed
through the remaining trunks much as in a park. These have been applied in two styles as well.
In one style the entire waterfront is trimmed using one method or the other. Alternatively, only a
section of the shore may be trimmed creating a window effect. Occasionally, these methods may
be combined resulting in a waterfront where a section has had the tallest trees trimmed laterally
and the shorter ones hedged creating a vertical and horizontal window effect (photographs 2
through 5, pages 15,16).
Consideration was given to hedging all the mangroves to a height which would allow the
motorists to view the bay over the tops of these trees. The height to which the mangroves would
need to be trimmed (less than 2 feet in places) was such that there would be little functional
difference between the hedging and total removal. Lateral trimming may give the motorist a
strobe like effect due to the depth of the mangrove stands and the need to retain a significant
number of upright trunks.
The creation of these types of windows did not meet the general project requirements of offering
a continuous vista of the bay.
Analysis of Potential Vista Alterations
Any evaluation of vista improvement must include the questions of what is to be viewed and from
where it is to be viewed. The analysis must also ask the question of whether the view obtained is
aesthetically pleasing or if it is better left obstructed. The stated intent of the project was broadly
focused to generally improve the vista but details tended to direct attention towards the
11 Modification of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan to rectify the policy limitations was
anticipated to be $5100 plus staff time to prepare and manage the change. Should there be
opposition to the change the cost could easily go as high or higher than $41,000 plus staff time.
Should off site mitigation have been chosen, the costs are expected to have been near $700,000
plus the cost of property.
14
File:Deha Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
,
,
,
,
"
,
J
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
Photograph #2: Hedging- Note vehicle behind hed~e,
,,'
""I
Photograph #3: Comhinatiorr of styles
15 File:Delta Seven Ino Memcwy;29
I
I
.
,
I
,
I
,
.
.
.
i'
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
Photograph #4, Combination of styles
Photograr>h #5: Combination of styles
16
File:Delta Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
enhancement of the vista of the motorist approaching Clearwater Beach from the downtown area.
The first analysis then is with respect to the view of the driver traveling westerly along SR 60.
Please refer to Figure 3 throughout the next few paragraphs. This driver is operating a motor
vehicle traveling at speeds of up to 60 MPH and as slow as 35 MPH (Personal Observation). The
existing view to the north is of a wall of mangroves until the motorist passes Island Way. After
this point, the driver is able to see the Marine Science Center and the boats in the adjacent marina
just over the tops of the mangroves. If growth continues, this view will be eliminated within a
few years. Just before the bend in the road, the view opens and the driver is presented with a
water view of the businesses and hotels along East Shore Drive. The view to the south by this
same driver is very different. The driver is presented almost immediately with an extensive view
of the waters of Clearwater Harbour that extends for several miles to the south. The vista is short
lived, however, and once past the parking lot, the view is obstructed by thin, but tall mangroves.
This wall, acting synergistically with the northern obstruction has been described as creating a
tunnel effect that lasts until the driver is several hundred feet past Island Way when the mangroves
thin and the driver is presented with a view of seawalled residential finger canals. It is very likely
that it is the disparity between the open water view presented initially and the combination of the
tunnel effect and the view of the developed waterfront that has led to the initiation of the project.
To improve this vista, the first instinct is to remove or hedge all the mangroves. It is at this point
that the other questions must be reviewed. Were all the mangroves to be removed, the same
driver would be presented with open water views to the north and south. Only a third of the way
along the road, the northern view would be replaced with a vista of seawalled residential canals,
the entrance to Island Estates, The Marine Science Center and the previously mentioned
waterfront along East Shore Drive. To the south, the expansive water view would not be
eliminated until nearly halfway across. The developed shoreline to the south is more distant than
that to the north and the vista retains some aesthetically pleasing attributes even when closely
approaching the western bridge. The results of these analyses are that the driver would prefer an
extended southern view over other options,
The second analysis is to examine the vista presented to the driver leaving Clearwater Beach and
returning to the mainland. This driver is presented with a northern view similar to that of the
westbound driver. The southern vista is different in that the easterly traveling driver is first
presented with a view of Clearwater Harbour to the south. This vista lasts until the driver reaches
Island Way and the view is blocked by the mangroves. The vista recurs once the parking lot is
passed, but is now a view of the shoreline adjacent to Pierce St. The Harbour is still visible only if
the driver turns his head almost ninety degrees to the right.
Were the mangroves to be removed, this same eastbound driver would have an extensive and
persistent view of the waters of Clearwater Harbour to the south. Of particular note, however is
the fact that this driver would also be presented with an extensive view to the north once Island
Way is passed.
Just as importantly as the view of the driver is the analysis of the vista in the obverse. Were all
the mangroves to be removed, what would the change in vista be to those residents of Island
Estates; the residents along Pierce St; and to those in the Devon, Brightwater, Bayside, Bayway
area. What affect would the change in the vista have for those recreational users of the Harbour?
17
File:Deha Seven !ne Memcwy29
I
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
.
.
.
11
.
~\~ .
1\
\; "1\
:'. 10
\ i' \
) '.<<J Q
\ ~ . 0
I ,
I" " ,~
l~< )fI
11111
~~l..""!!ii...~. t
)J/j ~i\~ '~~
~~ 1......,.! \
/ " \
~ ...., ,
] l,i
] /~ Ii!" ~
~ " {'ii ~
~;\ 1..Jit: ~.~f
~!l J~~
1~---;:::/, ,;
~ r~1Jl.
: -~~-
I G
l ~
i ~ ~:I
.\ it- :
l\'~
'~'\
~":',
\~>~._,;-,
~
~
0,
~
'i)
~
1=1
~
~
"0
.~
P<
'Oi'
.E
6
b {j
'S ~
""
~ g
!:1 '"
B 'g'
<lJ 8
6 ,g
~ -0
.B ;J
~ I
CJj "
:> (:,
1? ~
~ ~
<lJ '"
CJj 0
@ :;
U ;9
~ J
~ ~
~ .~
.S
'tl
.~
~
;e
'"
II:
t
t;j
~ t
i1 '"
D~
'€ ~
o ~
~ f'
~ ~
til
~
il
8'
)
oll
"
'0
II:
~
o
~
o
~
'i)
.~
o
<Zl
~
~
0;
.~
"0
~
s
o
-e
'"
II:
t
t;j
~
D
~
<Zl
'i)
~
t;j
~
il
8'
,!:I
::l
o
~
II:
t
til
~
~
D
~
<Zl
'i)
~
til
~
il
....!
~
"0
.~
P<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Would they prefer a vista of a tree lined island or of a denuded causeway and traffic?
Property maps were examined and it is apparent that the vista for numerous areas may be subject
to change as a result of this project. They include, but are not limited to properties along Bayway
Blvd, Pierce St., Drew, Bayside, Brightwater, Hamden, North Osceola, East Shore Dr.,
Windward Passage, Leeward Island, Midway Island, and Windward Island. The proposed
alternative must take these interests into account.
Residential property owners in these areas fall generally into two categories. The first includes
those owners who reside in multiple story buildings. For these people, the alteration of the
mangrove fringes will not affect their view one way or the other. The one exception occurs
where the multiple story facility has ground floor recreational facilities that are frequented by
residents. As these areas are equivalent to the backyards of single family home owners, they must
also be respected. The second category, the single family home owner, has experienced a view of
a tree lined island for several years and is likely to have become accustomed to such a vista.
Those in the Island Estates subdivision are the closest and most easily affected. Those along the
western and eastern shores of Clearwater Harbour typically have alternate views either up or
down the bay. Residents of the southern ends of the Island Estates finger fills have the causeway
as a major component of their vista.
When comparing the two views of the motorist and the homeowner note that the resident is
stationary having the same view all the time. The motorist is moving and the pure expanse of
view must be larger to accommodate the multiple points of origin of his view. While this may
seem to elevate the motorist over the resident, it actually has the opposite effect. The view of the
resident can be protected more easily as the motorist has other options.
Finally an analysis of how short the mangroves must be cut is needed. The driver is seated in an
automobile atop a road which is at elevation 8 and that driver wishes to see the water over the
tops of mangrove hedges that are as much as 200 feet away. Vistas tend to feel constrained if
peripheral vision impaired whether that be in the vertical or horizontal plane. An angle of three
degrees was used to being the analysis and cross sections were prepared (Figure 4). Based on a
few typical sections, the hedged mangroves could be extremely short. The impact of this may be
to reduce the angle of declination providing a more distant vista than originally desired. An
absolute lower limit of 2 feet should be used to avoid killing the mangroves altogether.
U sing the view analysis as a point of beginning, the recommended alternative was deduced
systematically by applying the criteria established in the feasibility factor analysis. Of primary
consideration was the achievement of the desired vista while reducing or eliminating opposing
factors. The recommended alternative must balance the vista improvements against the vista
degradations: maximizing the vistas of open waters while minimizing losses to residential areas
and recreational users.
The most desirable vista for the island user is that of open waters or of local attractions. The
Marine Science Center is the primary attraction considered in the development of the view
patterns. Undesirable vistas include heavily developed seawalled residential areas. It is fortunate
that these same areas are anticipated to be the source of most of the local opposition. By
eliminating the vista of these residential areas for the motorist, the obverse vista of the tree lined
19
File:Delta Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
......
~
llJ
'S
..
0..
...... i
5 ~
8=-
o =
~';jO
o 0 (;fl
1-0 llJ llJ
0.. V2 en
8 (/) 0
-tnfr
~ 0 ::s
......l-lo..
.~ U 00
>ca~
~ .E .....
~ fr ~
llJU-
tn~t:l..
a 0 1-0
UU&
-
~
. ....
1-0
o
E
llJ
:E
~
o
.-
.....
u
"a;)
"~
s::: B
"&J (:l.,
.C a
0_
~ 0 5b
o"sa
"t:l
s::: \0 QJ
.- .QJ
~25b
..... M QJ
-.a tl:S "t:l
.- s::: M
lZl 0 (/)
"t:l a
4)-_
gj e
,D l-o
o
(/)
::s
-
Po
IT)
\0
- r-.: t=:!
- --
N
0\
~ i I
~oo
-N
N
I
I
J
i
I
I
j
I
;1
: ~j
n
\ II
J J I
I .
I i
I i J
\ I j
s:::
a "~
, .- u
i "t:l QJ
i QJ l-o
i ~ ;.e
, "t:l ..=:
I t:i u
: Cd tI:l
:tIQ] j "2 ~
. I ~ a
i 'tI:l-
H~~
I i
o
M
(/)
~
~
a
~
"t:l
QJ
QO
"t:l
QJ
::r:
'I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
island is also maintained.
Public Safety
Several reports were made that the island was a haven for a criminal element and that removing
the mangroves would eliminate places for these people to hide. In fact, the record of arrests does
not support these statements. There is, however, ample evidence that the mangroves are
commonly used by people camping or otherwise residing in the woods on a regular basis. It is
beyond the scope of this project to eliminate unfounded fears of criminals in the shrubbery.
Another concern under this category is related to traffic safety. The posted speed ofSR 60 is
45. mph. Once a vista of open waters has been provided it can be expected that daily users of the
causeway will become inured to the view and travel at or above the posted speed as is common
now. Tourists and occasional visitors may have a tendency to slow down and enjoy the view.
The larger the differences in speed between the fastest and slowest vehicles on any roadway, the
greater the chances for accidents becomes (traffic friction).
Traffic safety considerations focused on attempting to maintain traffic flow continuity. Analysis
of driving patterns leads to the deduction that the most desirable vista is out the front window.
The center of that view will be the roadway leaving only the left or right oblique for view
presentation. Considering the need to have drivers eyes aware of oncoming and turning traffic,
the view out the left oblique is most desirable. Under these constraints the driver is not only
presented with the vista of the bay but the driver's gaze is directed across the traffic lanes.
The desire to focus the drivers eyes across the roadway leads to the development of viewing
windows aligned on an angle oblique to the roadway versus the more commonly seen
perpendicular arrangement. The benefits of this alignment are immediately apparent to the
resolution of the view problems. Arranging the viewing windows on an angle creates an effect
similar to that of vertical blinds on the window. A person aligning themselves with the angle of
the slat of the blind has a nearly unobstructed view while a person looking in on a perpendicular
angle wi~ not see anything but the slats.
Noise
The county expressed a concern that the existing mangroves may provide a significant noise
barrier. Such an attenuation zone was thought to buffer the waterway users and nearby residents
from road noise. Noise readings were taken on a week day over a four hour period both at the
edge of the roadway and at the roadside edge of mangroves various distances from the road. The
result of this study12 was that road noise is naturally and significantly attenuated. In most cases
the noise recorded had reached background levels prior to reaching the waters edge. In many
cases, the noise was attenuated before reaching the upland fringe of the mangroves to the south.
Recommendations from this study are to improve the overall sound profiles of the island through
vegetation management.
The angled or slatted viewing window alignment when conducted through hedging alone results
12 Appended: A7: Noise Report.
21
File:DeIta Seven IDe Memavy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in remaining mangrove stands of unequal width because the depth of the original fringe is not
consistent throughout the island. The noise concern, in combination with thin spots in blocking
the obverse view, leads to the extension of the mangrove slats by the addition of plant material on
either the wetland or upland edge. A secondary benefit of these plantings is that the noise which
currently inhibits the faunal use of the mangrove habitat can be attenuated prior to reaching that
area and the total habitat function is enhanced. This vegetative attenuation may be significant but
is variable pursuant to vegetation type. Newly planted upland buffering material will be selected
to alter the sound profiles such that the mangrove habitat is not acting as the noise buffer but is
instead the recipient of improved upland attenuation properties.
Because noise increases are not a major im;!l.ct ofthe trimming, the sound attenuation may easily
be offered as a mitigative measure. By planting upland and wetland plants, not only can the noise
profile of the habitat be improved, but the vista management and safety concerns can be eased.
Lights
The county expressed a strong concern that residents of such nearby developments as Island
Estates may enjoy the vista of the mangroves and not appreciate the new vista of oncoming
automobile headlights. Although not based on concerns expressed from citizens to the county~ it
is a valid factor.
Lights were considered to be a factor by county staff early in the process. Since view
management and noise were already leading to the development of angled windows, the headlight
issue is easily resolved by affirming the infill planting noted in the noise solution. The plant
materials to accomplish this effect must be leafy and thickly growing.
Interproject Coordination
Public Recreation
Public recreation as a factor has its foundation in the original legislative act. The recreational uses
most commonly observed include birding and the use of the walking path. The recommended
alternative must take these factors into account. Adding new recreational opportunities was
heavily considered in the development of the recommended alternative.
The location of planting new vegetation must also consider the current and anticipated uses of the
island. Given the observation that the walking path circles the interior and that little activity
occurs waterward of this path, those waterward areas were targeted for heavy revegetation.
Bridge
The City and the FDOT are currently engaged in replacing the eastern bridge to the island with an
elevated fixed span structure. The approach will be realigned slightly to the south. In order to
fully assess the needs for mangrove alteration., profiles of the new road bed were attained. The
new road bed will be elevated significantly and won't rematch grade until west of the existing
parking lot. The effect of this new bridge on the mangrove alteration is that the easternmost
mangroves will need less alteration because the line of sight is higher than under existing
22
FiJe:DeIla Seven IDe Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
conditions. The new bridge to the east and the elevation of the roadbed eliminates the need to
trim the mangroves in the most viable stand; the northeast quadrant. Drivers coming over the
bridge will have a totally unblocked view of the open waters to the left, across travel lanes. The
second affect is due to the realignment (Figure 5). The new approach will traverse a currently
sparsely vegetated area of the island and open up the old roadbed for potential mitigative
opportunities.
Western Gateway Improvements
The City is preparing plans to improve the western bridge and the approach to Clearwater Beach.
The recommended vista improvement alternative should enhance the new entrance features of
Clearwater Beach at most, and not be contrary to them at worst. A transition zone from a more
natural to a more urban landscape has been incorporated into the alternative.
SWIM & The Aquatic Preserve
The City has nominated Clearwater Harbour for status as a SWIM water body under the Surface
Water Improvement and Management Act. Sovereign State Lands in the vicinity are part of the
Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve and subjected to high standards of preservation. Each of these
classifications require the development of a management plan. The status of the City's Perpetual
Underwater Park is not known. Should the Island also have a management plan, it would be
nested within these two plans, neither of which has been written. Each of them, however, would
place a great deal of emphasis on the preservation and enhancement of local habitats adjacent to
their waters. Should the SWIM nomination be successful, the submerged portion of the parcel
would be subject to the SWIM plan for Clearwater Harbour. The Aquatic Preserve plan would
not directly cover the island or the submerged lands, but is relevant for purposes of continuity in
planning. All of these plans include water quality and habitat quality as major goals. They also
recognize the need to appreciate and use these resources. Mangrove alteration, therefore is not in
direct conflict with the general intents of these planning guides, but total removal would be. The
inclusion of recreational opportunities and educational programs is directly supportive. A
management plan developed for the island which includes these elements should gain mitigative
credits.
Net Environmental Benefit
The county has repeatedly expressed its fundamental criteria that the project must provide a net
environmental benefit. Addressing this criteria within the permit application is mandatory.
Having defined the operational and functional components of the trimming plan and vista
improvement, the plan must be evaluated against the test of whether it provides a net
environmental benefit in accordance with the county criteria, the public interest test, and the
cumulative impact criteria.
In order to provide a proper baseline for impact and mitigation analysis, an ecosystem
characterization is necessary. From this, weights can be assigned to various elements of the local
ecology and decisions on what is an appropriate loss and an appropriate compensation can be
made.
23
File:DeIta Seven IDe Mcmcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
""0
ro
o
"cG ~
'~ ~
.-
tj ~
---', Q)
Ir~\Z
n\;'\~
:,.' II \ \
\
Ci
, \'
\ Ii
... r I ,
\\1 \ \
\\\ \ t
\\\ \
\ \\ \
\ \\ I
l )\, \
II,
\--:I!,
\, 1\ i
f '
, ,
'l,]
I.
/}
))
! ..
I )
\ <
( ;'
\ ,
1.-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Existing Ecological Conditions
The existing ecology of the island can be generally expressed as poor. While there are significant
acres of mangroves, the value of mangroves is not simply the value of the trees themselves.
There is significant additional value in the fauna and flora utilizing the habitat created by the tree.
This point is even more salient where mangrove trees occur singly rather than in stands or forests.
The lack of depth in the mangrove fringe itself is limiting in overall habitat structure. Inhabitants
within the mangroves included several birds common to the area: Yellow Crowned Night Heron,
Snowy Egret. None, however, were noted to be nesting and no evidence of previous nesting
attempts were observed. Unoccupied small b. - 2 r.ests were noted and were most likely
mockingbird nests. The edges of the mangroves were inhabited by Fiddler Crabs, and the
Mangrove Water Snake but again, the paucity of fauna was notable. Raccoon tracks were not
noted during any observation periods. Mangrove associated gastropods were not noted.
The uplands associated with the mangroves are ecologically nearly barren. The frequent mowing,
the predominance of exotic turf and shrub species, the lack of fresh water, shelter, upland trees or
shrubs are extremely limiting to the development of significant urban wildlife populations. The
constant noise of the roadway certainly does nothing to enhance the value of this area. As noted
previously, the cycle of freezing, while lengthy in periodicity, has certainly played a role in
inhibiting the development of a broader fringe of mangroves.
The above notations should not be considered to be an opinion that the mangroves have no value.
They still contribute leaflitter to the marine system, stabilize the soils and most importantly,
buffer the nearby shallows from the impacts from which they themselves suffer. The shallows,
particularly those near where the mangroves are thickest were often used by wading birds in their
pursuit of small fish and crabs. The freeze cycle also should not be looked at as a reduction in
value. Range termini often produce stunted or intermittent growth patterns and the local fauna
have adjusted and evolved to use that habitat in the same manner as fauna associated with mature
forests have done.
Turtles
Marine turtles' have rarely been reported nesting on beaches interior to the barrier island system
and nesting on the causeway in areas where mangroves do not occur was raised as a possibility.
There is no direct evidence at this-time that any turtles nest on the beaches of the causeway. The
Clearwater Marine Science Center has no records of nests or false crawls. The rubble along the
waters edge may also affect the ability of turtles to use the site, but the lack of false crawls
indicates that it is not a significant factor.
Proposed Ecoloxical Conditions
Vegetation management is the primary activity and the one which will provide the vista desired.
The design protocol is to hedge those mangroves in designated sight windows and then to plant
new native vegetation, either in a low grrmring form or in tree form, to complete the window
effect. The entire area waterward of the existing bicycle path will be converted from exotic turf
grass to native vegetation. Bearing in mind the observations that trees, shrubs, and grasses by
themselves fulfill only a portion of the habitat requirements of most wildlife, it was noted that
adding a source of fresh water to the island would enhance the habitat suitability greatly.
25
File:DeIt.a Seven Ine Mancwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The result of the vegetative management plan is presented in table two. While the total mangrove
replacement is not equal to the mangroves trimmed, other compensatory factors should be
considered by the county. The test of net environmental benefit lies in the consideration that the
native habitat area would increase from 6.96 acres to 15.92 acres. The added benefits offresh
water and noise abatement will significantly add to the ecological value of this island and county
biologists will recognize that fact. The question of the sufficiency of such compensation must
await a permit review.
26
File:Deha Seven Ine Mcmcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table Two: Recommended alternative site data.
Area Action Acres Pro of island
Mangroves Preserved 4.1i 1 0.10
Mangroves BPligPli 2.35 5.140/0-
Mangroves Planted 1.04 2.27%
Mangroves-Sub Total 8.00- : 7.-490/.
Upland Native Trees- Preserved Q20 Q 440/0-
Upland Native Trees Planted 4.15 9.070/0-
Native Palms- PhmtPli Q51 L16%
Upland-Trees- & Palms-Suh Total 4.88- 10.670/0-
Native grassesLgrOlUldcover13 Planted Ilpl~mcl L.69 1.690/0-
Native grasses! marine PlantPli 10wLwetland 135 2.950/0-
Grasses- Sub Total 3.04- 6.64-%
TOTAL NATIVE VEGETATION 8.76 acre increase 15.92 34.80%
Open Spacel4 9.15 acre decreaseIY 19.50 42.62%
Island Way No Change 0.73 1.60%
SR 60 Road Bed No Change 9.30 20.33%
Expanded Parking Lot 0.19 acre increase 0.30 0.66%
Fresh water source .02 acre increase Unspecified location
Submerged Lands No Change 155.85
Site Total 201.60
Net environmental benefit can be measured in two ways_ The first is the classic interpretation or
what may be referred to as the net ecological benefit. The second relates more to the benefit the
ecology derives from having a more sensitive and educated public and indudes educational
13 Non-turf type grasses.
14 Turf Grasses.
15 Discrepanc)' of 0.2 acres is due to the upland native trees having been included in
original open space figure. Note that the area needed for management plan related improvements
is not included.
27
File:Deha Sevm Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
programs common in mitigation plans in recent years.
The proposed vegetative management plan does impact the local ecology by removing the canopy
from 2.35 acres of mangroves. The impact area has been carefully chosen to confine the hedging
to those acres in a somewhat less than pristine condition and to preserve the best mangroves on
the site. The addition of fresh water, marine coastal grass habitat, upland forestation, and coastal
scrub will augment the mangroves considerably. The increase in total mangrove acres and the
creation of these native habitats now extant from the island will improve habitat diversity, the
overall function and capacity of the ecology, and the recreational advantages to those engaged in
observing nature. With respect to the plan as developed to this point, it should be noted that in
general habitats that have several components are more valuable than single component systems.
The existing mangrove strand combined with mowed grasses is not supporting viable populations
of urban fauna. The proposed habitat clearly represents a net ecological benefit.
Legal Factors
Federal
The US Army Corps of Engineers was contacted regarding the concept. The USACOE does not
regulate the trimming of mangroves in any manner. It is imperative, however to note that should
the trimming result directly or indirectly in the death of any mangrove or wetland species, or in
the erosion of a shoreline previously stabilized by the mangroves, the USACOE would consider
the activity to be mangrove removal without a permit or an activity leading to the filling of
wetlands without a permit and either would be considered a violation of the federal regulations
protecting wetlands.
State
Mangrove removal and alteration is regulated under Chapter 403.9321 of the Laws of Florida.
The act itself sets forth exemptions, criteria for more general permits and a requirement that all
other activities will need a specific permit. The latter has little approval criteria associated with it
other than the. need to consider net environmental benefit, public interest, and cumulative impacts.
Provisions to accept mitigation for otherwise unpermittable activities are .included. It is
inescapable that one of the primary goals of this act was to preserve forever the vast majority of
all mangroves in public ownership.
"It is the intent of the Legislature that no trimming or alteration of mangroves may be permitted
on uninhabited islands which are publicly owned or on lands set aside for conservation and
preservation, or mitigation, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare, or to enhance public use of, or access to, conservation areas in accordance with approved
management plans. "- FS 403.9323(2)
While there are statutory opportunities for variances16 they are not likely to be granted. A more
16 End Notes.
28
File:DeIta Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
.
I
I
-
-
-
-
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
'E
rn
p..
b
, ,
rn
IJ)
~
rn
rr.1
]
rn
......
:
/
~
/
"0
(\)
"0'
;....
~
~.
(\)
S
(\)
;>
o
;....
a
" ..-i
~
c.\i
.......
r:f),
" ..-i
:>
~
~
r:f),
g
u
ca
"..-i
;....
o
S
(\)
~
~ \~r i --M-OO
~---~ !~\\ ( ~
(1)
.S
H
~
~
:2
'~)
. l
i
~ '" 1
, I
~ --J
(1)
.S
H
~
o
~
:2
(!)
"'d~
~ 0
orf.1
-'--' . ,....; 0
OJ 00.....
~ (\) 5"'d
: '";' ~ ~ ~ .s g
~ bO ~ 10 Q"'d
'~i~ j ~ 1 S .~:
I ___~_ ~ ~
l-I .....
, ) Q z
;E'" .-
.~ \)
lil1;l
~ IJ)
....u
IJ) IJ)
t;j ()
~.~
1J)r:/)
CJ
I'-~I
~
p:;
@
~ ...... bO
~ rn'~ ]
-0..0 IJ) ....
<:l 2 t;j OJ
oJ..<:: "<' p...
-0 r:/)"<; C
~ -0 @ l:!
-o..~p:; 8.
:: ~ Ii: 8
Oleo IJ)
f-< f-<....:i f-<
(~ i
\ I
\ 'ii
, "
I,' '\ ~
;J
'"
IJ)
'"
'"
'" OJ
IJ) ....
~CJ
.... IJ)
W.8
~~
IJ)..<::
bO....
1l'~
:I::::::1
-.......---~--:::.: ::g
,..-----
/~-
I
1
I
, L,~ ',",'
'~".
,L :
\~~-
bO
~'E
.@]
-p...
p... IJ)
IJ) ;;.
IJ) 0
.... ....
f-<bO
-0 ~
~~
-0..:::::1
;:J::g
'I :
:1 ;.-,0
: ~I
I' ~:
0:
0::;,
~
j '~;
:: 8'
'\' ;
\:. :,
I, I
"'X'" "
,I', ,
~
/~
/
~
p:;
t::
IJ)
()
()
~
t
t;j..<::
~ g
oj II)
IJ)~
CJ
I
I
I
,
,
,
.
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
~ /-)
.S
~
"b
en
0..
~
I
en
l!)
$
OJ
~
~
r;J
>-<
~
t)
(1)
'S
;....
~
1:5
~
;;>
o
;....
.~
I--l
c\S
~
......
:>
~
~
tZl
~
U
ca
. .....
;....
~
~
~
?v
/
~
'D
~
Q)
.S
~
.-e
tti
~
I I'
I
I
I .
!!_~-~
\ ..-:-n I 1 \
\., I,
'i~ :'tt,
ti
<ZJ
(l)
.S
H
.-e
tti
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t)
Q)
.0' ~
1-< .....
p.. ~
-s %
Q) l5.
S ~
~ ..g
6 ~
1-< .....
0.. ~
E ~
..... ~
H e
ro l'i
tn ~
0"-; -d
:> 0
>:0 ~
ro .p:
~ g
gj
u t
..-.0
ro 1:)
..... II)
t) re
S
Q)
~
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will not be visible, only the top halves of the vehicles will be seen and only for a short time
(photograph 2). These views may be of minimal adverse impact due to the narrowness of the
obverse window and the distances involved. The remaining low vegetation will also block the
headlights. The few homes which are affected are more than 900 feet from the road.
The water way user's view of the island will also change. Due to the mobile nature of such a
user, it is not possible to quantify the change in view. It is possible to determine that qualitatively,
the view will generally include more tree lined shores and fewer vistas of rubble and traffic,
especially from the main navigational channels.
The proposal therefor increases the quantity of the motorists' vista by approximately 79"10 while
only minimally impairing the view from a very few backyards of adjacent residents.
Current Sitm~tion
In conclusion, Delta Seven has defined a feasible alternative which will achieve the general goal of
the project: To provide a vista of the waters of Clearwater Harbour to the motorists using the
Memorial Causeway Scenic Corridor.
In order to achieve this, a decision must be made to pursue the recommended alternative. A
management plan must be prepared and approved prior to the submittal of the application.
Appropriate budgetary modifications must accommodate this latter choice. The management plan
could be prepared and submitted with the application on July 1 st. The municipal mechanisms of
approving the management plan have yet to be undetermined.
Statement of Feasibility
The recommended alternative is considered to be realistically permittable and achievable. The
alternative clearly provides for a net environmental benefit~ meets the public interest test; meets
the cumulative impact test; is not contrary to the existing comprehensive plan; and is not contrary
to the intent to preserve mangroves. The latter two statements can be made because the resulting
mangroves will be more extensive and augmented with upland habitat. In the worst case, the
amount of mangroves planted may be required to be increased from 1.04 acres to 2.35 acres in
order to provide for a one to one replacement of hedged mangroves. Should this occur, several
options are available including the narrowing of windows~ the elimination of less critical windows;
the reduction in trimming; excavation to wetland elevations; or a combination of the previous.
38
File:Deha Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
viable approach lies within the exceptions to the prohibition contained in the final phrases.17
The statute provides for an exception to the prohibitions where an approved management plan
exists. There is some uncertainty in the interpretation of the statute as to the exact meaning of the
term "approved management plan." The county was willing to accept a plan that had been
formally adopted by the City Commission provided that it met the tests of consistency with the
comprehensive plans. In the absence of any approval of other alternatives the development and
enactment of a management plan for the island could result in a viable assurance of net
environmental benefit as well as allow for a technically acceptable pathway to approval. The
formal adoption of the management plan would also serve to resolve the comprehensive plan
issues as both would have been adopted by the same body of elected officials: The specific plan
could take administrative precedence over the general policy statements as long as it was not
contrary to those statements and furthered the overall goals of the City. Capturing the vegetation
plan within a management plan will enhance the probability for success.
County
Pursuant to Chapter 403.9324, Pinellas County has accepted a delegation from the State of
Florida. All trimming and alteration activities not associated with other state wetland permits are
being.processed and enforced by the county's Department of Environmental Management.
While the regulations make reference to Chapter 120 Florida Statutes as a means of relief, neither
the state nor the county is required to publish a notice of intent to issue permits under the act and
permits are normally issued administratively. Each of these agencies, however, reserves the right
to advertise a pending permit and hold hearings should they determine that the public may be
better served in this manner. The county further reserves the right to waive administrative
approval and schedule the application for a decision by the Board of County Commissioners. In
either situation, an aggrieved party may file an appeal under the provisions of Chapter 120 Florida
Statutes.
Conversely, neither the state nor the county are subjected to the sections of Chapter 120 which
are designed to assure applicants of an expeditious review and approval. The section commonly
referred to as the 30 day clock does not apply. Under normal circumstances the county performs
at a level which meets this clock and it is not expected to present an impediment to obtaining the
permit.
The question of whether the delegation also entrained the ability to enforce the habitat protection
codes of Pine lIas County's Land Development Code has been resolved in a manner that eliminates
such an extension of the regulations. 18
The statute clearly provides applicants the opportunity to mitigate for impacts of mangrove
alteration where a permit cannot otherwise be issued. In the current situation, the options to
mitigate may be either on the island itself or in a nearby coastal area. It is also within reason to
17 See the End Notes for more in depth discussions.
18 Appended: A8: Pinellas County letter dated Sep 18, 1998.
29
File:Deha Sevcnlnc Manl.wy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
develop mitigation plans that are not a strict one for one or type for type replacement of altered
systems. In urban settings it is often more desirable to provide for complete ecosystems rather
than to simply replace the wetland fragment. It is common for the ratio of mitigative
replacements to be higher than one for one.19
In consideration of the statutory issues, the alternative must include mitigation. Mitigation being
a certainty, a location on site was determined to be highly desirable over an off site one. As the
determination had already been made that some vistas were desirable and others were not,
rearranging the mangrove pattern became contributory to both vista and mitigation planning. By
planting mangroves to block less than desirable views, on site mitigation could improve the
overall setting.
The use of angled windows reduces the amount of initial trimming needed thereby reducing the
amount of mitigation required. The extension of the remaining vegetation into longer slats will
generate some mitigative credits. Establishing angled windows in currently non-vegetated areas
completes the vegetative mitigation plan.
The need to adopt a management plan benefits the feasibility in two ways. The first is to bring the
city into a position where a statutory exemption will apply and the permit can be issued. The
second is that by enacting a management plan with public educational and recreational
components, the resulting island ecology will better fit with the SWIM and Aquatic Preserves
Management plans and these aspects will generate mitigative credits and help to satisfy the public
interest and cumulative impact criteria.
Proprietary
During the investigative phase of this project, the parcel origin and history was discovered and has
been documented as above. This investigation was needed in order to determine whether the
mangroves to be trimmed were within the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve or whether they were
in fact owned by the City of Clearwater.
The records reviewed included a letter dated July 11, 1983 from the FDOT and signed by
Mr. Montes De Oca20. This letter indicates that a ROW was never dedicated to the FDOT. A
further review led to documentation of the land transfers from the State to the County and the
County to the City. Municipal Resolutions 57-46 and 60-16 indicate that the City is maintaining
the property. There remains to be discovered any documentation of any ROW dedication to the
FDOT. The lack of such a document raises questions of what effect Chapter 20755 LoF has on
the underlying property. This act does not dedicate ROW or easement, but simply claims Gulf to
Bay as a State Road. The Property Appraiser does not list the parcel but does map it with the
19 Appended: A6: Ratios suggested by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. There
are no ratios as approved by the county.
20 Appended: A9 Montes De Oca Letter.
30
File:DeI1a Seven Ine Mancwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
annotation of ' 'Road ROW.,,21 The letter from the FDOT indicates that the island is wholly
owned by the city and the FDOT is only responsible for the "road surface and shoulder."
Political Factors
Intergovernmental Relations
Pinellas County has a long standing policy of maintaining a certain distance from municipal
politics where permits are concerned. In enacting that policy, the county insists that an
appropriate level of public and political support for a project is generated prior to issuance of
county permits. Similarly, should there be suL ~antive opposition to a permit application, the
county will implement their policy by remanding the issue to the City Commission for resolution
prior to scheduling any hearings or issuing any permits. The information at hand indicates that
there may be opposition to the project as originally conceptualized by the city, but the level of
interest by the citizenry has not been tested.
Precedent
While the legislative intent22 contains the clearly stated goal of preserving public mangroves within
certain land use categories, Pinellas County has issued permits regarding the alteration of
mangroves within Preservation areas in the past. Two of these permits are salient. One was
issued to the City of St. Petersburg and is known as the Tinney Creek Permit. In this permit, the
county allowed the trimming and removal of mangroves in an area designated as preservation on
the St. Petersburg Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mitigation was not required. The county
states that the underlying property is in private ownership negating the precedent. The law itself
makes no such distinction.23 The second precedent is the allowable alterations to mangroves
along Edgewater Drive. This permit was also issued for mangroves in a publicly owned
Recreation! Open Space area. The county maintains that this precedent is also invalid as the
permit was specifically for newly recruiting mangroves and not existing trees. The Edgewater
Drive project contains another important message in that the permit, although issued, was never
acted upon. This itself is one of the arguments that the county used to attempt to negate the
precedent, despite the fact that the decision alone is what sets the precedent, not the enactment.
The reason for the abandonment is that the local residents, upon hearing of the details of the
permit, individually and collectively petitioned the City Commission to abandon the project. The
process of adoption of the management plan for the Memorial Causeway should be sufficient to
avoid a similar situation.
Municipal Boards
Toe Marine Advisory Board, the City Beautification Committee and the Environmental
21 The map shows the entire 23:' acres as ROW including submerged lands, not just the
roadbed and recovery zone as would be expected.
22 End Notes & Appended: AlO: Salient excerpts ofCh 403.9322 LoF.
23 Appended: All: Tinney Creek Analysis.
31
File:DeI1a Seval Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Advisory Board are all expected to hav~aninf1u~oatheJinaLproject design. During the past
five years, all of these boards have heard various alternatives of the conceptual project with mixed
reactions. Any management plan or trimming applicatioasl1ould be reviewed by these boards.
Cost of the Project
Hedging of the mangroves has been roughly estimatedh}'- VMOUS- contractors at $50,000 to
$90,000. Mitigation as proposed is expected to be $298,.000. Should off site mitigation be
required costs would increase by a minimumof$35MOO plus land acquisition costs. If the
county requires a mitigation ratio of greater than one toone, the cost would increase ratio-
metrically. Maintenance costs oftrirnmedma-zroYeSjMY_vary from as little as $18,000 to as
much as $90,000 per year.24 Maintenance is required because if the trimmed mangroves grow
back to their current condition, new permits would need to be obtained. Maintenance of the
mitigation is expected to be $53,000 per year for 5 years. .
Construction of the non-vegetative improvements contemplated in the management plan is
expected to cost 1.2 million dollars. Maintenance costs of the constructed improvements and
educational materials are not estimated but shouldIesult in one full time employee plus the
associated overhead. Money currently spent maintainingJhe island should remain, but less
mowing will be needed resulting in some savingstnoffset a portion of the anticipated costs.
The economic benefit of the project is more difficult to define. There have been numerous
statements made during the course of the study that. thejmproved vista would enhance the local
economy. References have been made to impressions thattourists have when they arrive and
leave and that these impressions will Jp~ti to r.epeat touri"m business... References have..heenmade
to the general ambience of the improved vista. There were no studies done to verify these
statements. Delta Seven recommendedJhat such studies._outside the scope of the current project,
be added or otherwise addressed. Of particular note in this issueis the observation that many
users of the island are engaged in birtiing actiYities-.Accarding1o a 1998 study by the Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission, the economic impact of enjoying wildlife is significant.2s State
wide, one person in five participates in..ohserYing,.wiltilife recreationally (1.8 Million peopl~ 44%
of whom are tourists) and they spent 1.6 Billion dollars in 1996 on this hobby. Of that,
138 $Million was spent on tourist lodging.
Therefore while economic factors are important in the determination of the social value of the
project, appropriate data is not currently available_ Ithas.heeareported that the Clearwater
Beach Civic Association and the Clearwater Chamber of Commerce support the project based on
economic need and they may be able to assist in conducting a.study as noted above.
24 Maintaining the mangroves at less than the height needed to keep the permit would be
needed much less often than maintaining them at a heighLand evenness typical of manicured urban
landscapes.
2S The 1996 economic benefits of watchable wildlife recreation in Florida, 1998,
FGFWFC.
32
File:Deha Seven IDe Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary
The recommended hedging of mangroves in a pattern of angled windows allows motorists
traveling in either direction to have a nearly continuous vista of the harbour (Figure 6). The vista
is not, however, available in all directions but is restricted to the view from the front window of
the vehicle. Mangroves are retained where the vista is less than optimum. As compensation for
the trimming, both upland and wetland planting ~posecL Of the 6.96 acres of mangroves
existing, 2.35 are proposed to be hedged and 4.61 to be retained. The western end of the island
will be landscaped with native palms to provide an entrance effect to Clearwater Beach. Other
low use areas will be planted with native w.Oet....l ve material ranging from low grasses to
replacement mangroves and upland trees._ L04 acI:eS-willbe planted with mangroves to directly
offset the hedged material and an additional 7.72 acres of both uplands and wetlands will be
planted to augment the system. The basics of this alternative are presented in Figure 7.
In this manner vegetation will be hedged or augmented in order to create the series of angled sight
windows along the north and south borderu>fthe i!;,land _ Amotorist traveling in either direction
will be presented with a constant if not continuous or expansiYe view of the open waters of
Clearwater Harbour. The less desirable vistas will remain blocked. Vistas for island users
engaged in bird watching and related activities will be enhanced. Walking and jogging will still be
available. The obverse views from the residentiaLdevelopments will be largely protected and in
many areas will be enhanced. The view from the Aquatic Preserve users is altered but the design
protects the view in all but those areas directly waterw~ofthe angled windows. In many areas
the view will be enhanced offsetting the impacts. The angled nature of the window allows for
obverse vista protection and directs the driYers e}'eS across the oncoming traffic.
In order to satisfy the legal restraints, the recommended vegetative plan is subordinated to a
formally adopted management plan. The plan incorporates a variety of educational and
recreational elements. These are nature trails and pavilions~ educational kiosks and displays~ an
expanded parking area~ day slips for waterborne. visitors~ fi!;,hing piers~ and a freshwater source for
the wildlife. These recreational and educational elements have been designed to achieve a clear
net environmental benefit. Incorporatinglhese elements into an actual management plan has not
yet been authorized.
/
The final analysis of the suitability of the recommended alternative is whether it meets the
intended project goal of providing an aesthetically pleasing vista to motorists using the Causeway.
The best analysis of this is to assess the views gained to views lost ratio. In its current state, the
motorist is presented with a front and side window view 48% of the time traveling to or from
Clearwater Beach. It is significant that the 52% ofthe ~ when there is no view occurs in the
very center of the island: Where the view OI the water would be greatest were it available.
In the proposed condition, the motorist traveling to Clearwater Beach is presented with a view for
86% of the time of travel. All but the last portion of this view is to the south over the open
waters of the bay. The motorist traveling.fmm.Clearwater..beach to downtown is presented with
a water view for 87% ofthe travel time. :-:.1S view is of the south bay waters for the first portion
of the trip and then the north bay for the last p&rt.
Most of the residential areas will be presented with much the same view or an improved view
(Figure 8). Where views ofmangroves_~impacted ancireplaced with hedge, the roadway itself
33
-- File:DeJta Seven Ine Memcwy29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
)
/
j
1
'8
i
d
Q)
El
Q)
:>-
8
,~
.......
.s
'"
;>
~
,$
Q)
'"
g 'f
u "
c;j ;>
'c: -0
g ~
~ g.
~ A
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Notations & Appendices
End Notes
The intent of the manwove preservation act
"(2) It is the intent ofthe Legislature that no trimming or alteration of mangroves
may be permitted on uninhabited islands which are publicly owned or on lands set
aside for conservation and preservation, or mitigation, except where necessary to
protect the public health, saf~ and we~ or to imhance public use of, or access
to, conservation areas in accordance with approved
management plans. "- FS 403.9323(2)
The intent section of the statute is very clear. To fully appreciate the intent, it is
imperative to avoid taking excerpts of phrases in isolation and that entire
sentences, paragraphs, and sections be read together. The key to understanding
403.9323, lies in first obtaining a.complete_understanding of 403.9322, the
legislative findings. 26
Simply stated the mangrove trimming and pres.ervation act is an attempt to strike a
balance between the recognized need to preserve the mangroves and the expressed
wishes of many waterfront property owners to avoid having mangrove growth
along their private shores. In the research that went into the development of this
act certain observations were made. These aI:e-reflected in the legislative findings.
The findings recognize four items of importance: _
. Mangroves are valuable.
. Mangroves along populated shores tend to be in narrow fringes rather than
large stands.
. 80% of mangroves are subjecL to. pres.ervatioaby means other than
legislation specific to mangrove protection; Leaving less than 20% subject
to homeowner trimming. 27
. Trimming done properly by professionals ~unlikely to cause unintentional
death of trees.
Armed with these points, the legjs.latnre is. able ~conclude that if all the
mangroves on waterfront lots were to be trimmed, the total loss to the state would
be only 20010 at its maximum. The legis.latnrefelt.s.ecure in the knowledge that
26 Appended: All: Tinney Creek permit as a precedent.
27 It is less than 20010 because some mangroves fall into neither category.
39-
End Notes
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
80% of the mangrove forest resources would be preserved in perpetuity and it was
therefore not necessary to continue to impose the perceived hardship of restricted
trimming on homeowners. It was this logic that allowed the legislature to loosen
the regulations on waterfront property owners.
In expressing this intent, the legislature is clear. thaLthere is to be no trimming or
alteration of mangroves in the areas recognized as the 80% otherwise preserved.
But the legislature also makes.recognitioILOfthefacUhat some of the mangroves
otherwise preserved by virtue of public ownership would eventually interfere with
specific public purposes. During_the development. of lJ..i.J.S.. intent, examples CLL this
potential were given: Mangroves growing alongside a public boat ramp can grow
in a manner that would restrict or. impair.the llse of the ramp. In these instances
the need for the trimming of public mangroves to restore the function of public
facilities is obviated.
The legislature also states. the intent t.o...nat I>lace- ~ public health, safety, and
welfare in jeopardy through this act. The language of the act is strong enough,
however, that the removal or alteration of mangroves may not be the first response
to situations which threaten this priority. In instances where public safety is
impaired, other abatement measures mu.st..he considered.
It is this balance of strongly preserving the majority of the mangroves and only
loosely restricting the trimming of private mangroves that assures the preservation
of the resource while still being responsive to private property preferences.
The exceptions to the intent are
1.) where necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
2.) to enhance public use ot: or access to.. conservation areas in accordance
with approved management plans.
The only options beyond these two are to seek a variance or to change the
designation of the lands to a category other than conservation or preservation.
Each of these discussions are presented elsewhere in summary fashion.
Public Interest as it relates to man~ove trimmini
It is critically important that the Public Interest requirements of Ch 373.414(1) not
be confused. This citation is common~J referred to as the public interest test.
What is important to recognize is that the public interesr8 and the interest of the
publif!9 are not necessarily equivalent. The venues for public participation speak
28 Per statute: A12: Ch 373.414, LoF, The Public Interest Test
29 Per public opinion and consensus
40
End Notes
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to the latter. The statutory public interest test is clearly laid out in the law and the
operative pennitting phrase is contained in Ch 373.4l4(1)(a), specifically "...shall
consider and balance..." the criteria as listed. There is significant latitude in this
level of direction. It is this test and the cumulative impact analysis that comprise
the statutory criteria for permitapproval.
Health. Safety & Welfare
Considering the guidance phrase excerpted from 403.9323(2) regarding public
needs raises the possibility of another exception: "...no trimming or
alteration...except...where necessary to...protect the public health, safety, and
welfare,... "
Public health issues do not seem prevalent. Public safety issues are not supported
by police reports. Public Welfare may be identified in terms of the economic well
being oflocal businesses. This is an important issue and one raised elsewhere. It
remains to be seen if it is possible to show that beach businesses will do better if
the mangroves are trimmed. Public opinion may also be pertinent to developing
this line of argument.
It may be argued that the trimming of small mangroves now could reduce the
possibility of future economic hardships brought about after they have grown large
enough to obstruct the existing view. The economic impact would still need to be
proven.
ManaK-ement Plan as it relates to the manwove preservation act
Considering the guidance phrase excerpted from 403.9323(2) allows for the
creation of a site specific management plan: "...no trimming or
alteration...except...where necessary to... enhance public use of, or access to,
conservation areas in accordance with approved management plans. "
The history of the reference to approved management plans lies primarily but not
exclusively with the aquatic preserves regulations which require that all aquatic
preserves have management plans. The phrase was written to allow preserve
managers to avoid being unrp.ali~tir.al1y bound by a.statute without flexibility. The
interpretation of this phrase to include management-plans by other state agencies is
a foregone conclusion. The ability to include municipal management plans for
municipal lands would revert to the interpretation of the word approved. The
question of approval by whom i5- salient to detennining the ability to proceed under
this exception. While this cannot be fully determined at this time, it will fall into at
least one, if not both, of the following categories: city approval or state approval.
The city approval will require a finding of consistencr> with the municipal
comprehensive plan, perhaps triggering state involvement, and certainly triggering
citizen involvement. The state approval may -11ot be delegated to the county and
30 At a minimum by staff and ratified by the commission.
4-l-
End Notes
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
would be subject to the same public interest test as is the permit.
Pursuant to the possibility that the Causeway may be managed in accordance with
an approved management pl~an.cLthat ~ pla.n.may include the alteration of
mangroves, the discussion encompassed the possible contents of such a plan. How
the plan would be fonnalized-Was....also discussed.
The plan should be a part of the permit itself The controlling function is the need
for the County to have assurances that the. contract of the permit is adhered to as it
was written. An alternative would be to prepare and adopt a pla.'1 as a part of the
city comprehensive plan. The direct association with th~ permit, however, is
broken and it is probably not an acceptable approach. In considering this, it should
be noted that a permit can be modified in.futur~years should that become
necessary .
Other considerations are how this management plan would nest inside the
Clearwater Harbour SWIM Plan or the Aquatic Preserves Management Plan,
neither of which have been written Thepennit plan may be for the mangroves or
the entire causeway. It is conceivable that it may extend.beyond these boundaries
pursuant to mitigative optians..selected.
The plan must clearly address the terms and conditions for mangrove management
as itemized in the legislation to assur~ compliance with the overall intent as well as
the permit specifics. It may address both access to and through the mangroves.
Statements of justification and rationale must be presented and supported.
Extensions of such a plan may include issues related to Edgewater Drive or similar
projects, spoil islands, stormwater issues,. marina issues, upland buffers adjacent to
mangroves retained, trash pickup, environmental education, fisheries management,
on site or off site exotic species..comrols, an.cLother. options which will define the
project clearly as one which carries with it a measurable.net ecological benefit.
Extensions may be offered as mitigative mPJisure.s...... Should a plan be presented it is
critical that the mitigation and the proposed impacts be well documented, detailed,
and justified.
Variances
"403.9333 Variance relief--Upon application, the department or delegated local
government may grant a variance from the provisions ofss. 403.9321-403.9333 if
compliance therewith would impose a unique and unnecessary hardship on the
owner or any other person in control of the affected property. Relief may be
granted upon demonstration that such hardship is not self-imposed and that the
grant of the variance will be consistent with the general intent and purpose of ss.
403.9321-403.9333. The department..or delegated 10caLgovernment may grant
variances as it deems appropriate."
In order to meet the variance,.. the_City would neW to prove a unique and
42
End Notes
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
unnecessary hardship. This possibly may be done on the basis of economic
impacts to businesses but would need to be strongly supported.
The point that the hardship was not self imposed was granted by the county during
pre-application discussions.
The final point of the variance SectiOIl refer5- back to the intent section. While this
is limiting, again, it leaves room to rearrange the mangroves along the causeway
thereby meeting the intent but would not allow the total removal or full scale
trimming or hedging.
Mitiaation
"403.9328(2)(a): "If the applicant is unable to meet these criteria, the department
and the "applicant shall first consider measures to reduce or eliminate the
unpermittable impacts. If unpermittable impact~ still remain, the applicant may
propose, and the department shall consider, measures to mitigate the otherwise
unpermittable impacts."
"403.9332 Mitigation and enforcemenL-.-{l) ~ Ifmangroves are to be trimmed or
altered under a permit issued under s. 403.9328, the department or delegated local
government may require mitigatiOIL The department or delegated local
government shall establish reasonable mitigation requirements that must include, as
an option, the use of mitigation b~created undeLs...J73.4135. where
appropriate. The department's mitigation requirements must ensure that payments
received as mitigation are sufficientto off~t impaC!.S-and are used for mangrove
creation, preservation, protection, or enhancement."
It should be noted that minimi7.atioIlistheJirststetl-and mitigation the second step.
There is no requirement to accept mitigation and no ratio stated. The inference is
that the city may be able to meet the.intentJ.hrough the.Jollowing argument.
If the mangroves are to be trimmed or removed from the 80% targeted to be
preserved and an equivalent or grea.ter amount is replaced through mitigation then
the post project total acreage of preserved resources is equivalent or greater to
that being preserved prior to the pr.aj.ecL Upanthis basis it is arguable that the
intent of protecting at least 80010 of the resource existing at the time of passage of
the act would be preserved.
Of note when considering this possibility is. that. the cited section .regarding
mitigation is designed to offset the inability to meet the public interest test and the
cumulative impacts test.
Mitigation may occur on site or off site.
On site mitigation could occur under the variance_procedure allowing the intent to
be upheld while allowing trimming to occur. Under this option some areas would
4-J
End Notes
;1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
be trimmed and others would be thickened. Mitigation may be possible in the area
east of the footprint of the bridge landing where cars will not require a view.
Mitigation may also be possible off site on spoil islands or other public properties.
Mitigation details must be contained in the permit and in the management plan.
In any mitigation or permit without mitigatio~ the application must demonstrate a
net environmental benefit.
44
End Notes
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendices
AI: Chapter 11050 LoF .................................... 46
A2: Chapter 20755 LoF .................................... 49
A3 : List of adjacent lands ................................... 51
A4: Perpetual deep water park dedication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58
A5: kecreation/ Open Space & Preserv?._~.Jn land use
definitions and Zoning Code and Map ...................... 63
'.A6: Selected Excerpts from the City of Clearwater and Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council Comprehensive Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69
A7: Noise report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72
A8: Letter dated Sep 18, 1998 from Pinellas County. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
A9: 1983 Montes De Oca letter; 1988 Harvey Hunt Letter . . . . . . . . .. 74
AlO: Salient excerpts ofCh 403.9322, LoF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 78
All: Tinney Creek permit as a precedent ........................ 79
A12: Ch 373.414, LoF, The Public Interest Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
Al3: Ch 373.414(8), LoF, Cumulative Impact Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82
45
to preyent the occnpuncJ' of said Imildillg, structure, or Chap. 110iiU.
land, or to prcycnt HnJr illegal act, COlHluct, busincss, 01' 1925
usc in or about snch premises.
:::lec. 9. Con[1 ict lVith Other LalVs.- \Vhcrever the regu-
lations made under authority of this Act require a greateJ'
width or sizc of Yfll'(ls, vUllrts, or other open spaces, or re-
quire a lower height of buildill~ or lcss number of stories,
or require a greater percentage of lot to be left unoccupied,
or impose other higher standards titan are required in any
other statute or local ordinance 01' regulation, the provisions
of the regulations madc under authority of this Act shall
govern. \Vherevcr the. provisions of any other statute or
local ordinance or regulations require a greater width or
size of yards, 'courts, or other open spaces, or require a
10wcL' height of building or a less llumber of stories, or
require a greater percentage of lot to be left unoccupied,
or imposc highcL' standahls than are required by the reg-
ulations made under authority of this Act, the provis:om;
of such statute or local ordinance 01' regulation shall
goycrn.
Sce. 10. 'rhis Act shall take cffed lIpon its passagc and
approval by the Goyernor,
Appl'ovc(l JlInc 2, 1923,
I
I
I
I ..
I
I.
I
I
I
~~
I ..
I
I
I .',
I
-
I~
I
I~
I
.'
'.,
L.A \V8 UP FLOHIDA.
-
"If
,~
CIIAP'rBH 1l0;;O-(.Ko. 1028).
AN ACT to A lItho)'izc and Encourage thc CountJ. of
Pinellas in the f-)tate of Plorida, to Build flnd.l\1aintain
a Free Bridge ami Causcwa~' Acrms Clearwater Bay in
the City of Clearwatcr, Statc of Floritla, H1Hl to Grant
the Land Necessar,Y for snch Pm'posp;.;.
........
\Vhereai>, Sppcial Hmul alltl Bridgc Di~;tj'iet No. G of
Pinellas County, Flori(la, has issllcd and sold bonds of
said district foJ' tllc ercction of a free bridg\! and causeway,
from the mainlnllad in the City of Clearwater to the Island
\V cst of saitl City, n (lista~lce of about one aml three-qual".
tel's miles; alld
\Vhcrcas, the bOlLmlaL'ie~; of saitl ~pccial Hoad and
Bridge DistJ'id are llractiealI~' iaentical with the boun-
daries of the ('ity of Cleal'\\'atcl', the !;aid city being em-
bracell whollr witl.:" saiel district; aml saill bridge and
canseway bt'iJl~ wholly within saill cit~.; and
:3773
,-^--.,
:3774
~
Chnp. llOGO. "\Vhereas, the propel'ty embmced in the City of Clear-
1925 watel' pays practically nine-tenths of the taxes of said
special road and bridge district; and
Whereas, full authority has been granted to the County
of Pinellas to Pl'ect said free bridge and causeway from
thc 'Val' Departm\:;..~ of the United Stat&:;i
Cnullewny.
,
LA "\VS Ol~ l~-'LORIDA,
~ ~
I
'1-
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Fl01.ida:
Section 1. That in order to secure, encourage and pro-
n],ote the erection and maintenance of said free bridge
and causeway by the County of Pinnellas across Clearwater
Bay, in the City of Clearwater, and County of Pinellas,
a strip of the submerged land belonging to the State of
Florida, five hundred feet in width, lying and being on
the north side of the following line, to-wit:
Conunencing at a point 601.65 feet west from the inter-
section of the center line of Cleveland Street and Osceola
Avenue, accoi"ding to the map of the City of Clearwater,
Florida, as of May 1st, 1925; thence west 149.5 feet;
thence following the arc of an eight degree curve to the
right 312.5 feet; thence north 65 degrees and no minutes
west 994.6 feet to the point of a cnrve thence follow the
arc of a one tlegree curve to the right 1400 feet; thence
north 51 degl"ces no minutes west 4240,6 feet to the point
of a curve; thence follow the arc of a 5 degree and 30
mlinute curve to the ldt 808.49 feet; thence south 84 de-
grees and 32 minutes west 1538.6 feet to high tide' on Sand
Key, sai<l land being in Township 28 Routh Range 15
East;
And also a strip of land seven hnndre<l feet in width lying
and being on the south si(le of said line, be and the same
is hereby granted unto th(' COllnty of Pinellas for the pur-
pose of erecting, building and maintaining said free bridge
and causeway. The said county is hereby authorized to
enter upon said lands and to excavate, dredge, fill or
otherwise improve the same in such manner as may be
necessary for the nlll"pose of building pnrl maintaining
said bridge and causeway; provided that all dredging for
said causeway shall be made and done on and from the
said land on the south side of said line; and provided
further, that this grant shall not affect the riparian rights
of the property owners on the eastern and western ter-
mini of said strip of land; and provided further, that
I
!
_ '_ ~ .i. ~
rI-
,
.- ~
~ '
,.'
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
---
I
I
I
I
I
~
- .
I
I
I
I
tt'
J.JA \VS 01." 1.'LOHIDA.
;...
j
J .'\
parties purchasing or otherwise acquiring the state owned
land abutting. said land on the north and on the south,
shall have access to said bridge and causeway, and to this
end shall have the right, under the direction and control
of the governing bod~r having jurisdiction of said land,
to build the necessa ry streets, roa (' " bridges, fills aJ..~ ctp-
proaches upon anu over said land; and the owners (present
and future) of the land abutting said land on the north,
the city of Clearwater or the County of Pinellas shall
have the right to fill said land lying 110rth of said line to
be used for public parks and places of recreation only,
the same to be m,aintained by the said city or county, or
both. Provided that no carnivals or shows of any char-
acter shall be placed or allowed upon the land lying north
of said line; and provided further that should said prop.
erty ever cease to be used for publie pHl'ks and places of
l'ecreation only, same shall revert to the State.
Sec. 2. 'Vlhen said bridge and causeway shall have
been completed, or at anr time l)l'ior thereto that the
Board of County Commissioners of Pinellns County may
determine, the said boarel shall, b~' resolution, surrender
to the City of Cle~rwater. J."lorida, conCUl'J'cnt or exclusive
supervision and jurisdiction over a 11(1 maintenance of
said bridge and causeway and the grant herein made to
the County of Pinellas, shall revert to the City of Clear.
water and the property herein described and granted shall
become the property of the City of Clearwater, to be used
by the said City for public purposes only. Provided that
if said property shoul(1 evel' cease to be used for public
purposes, the same shall revert to the State.
Sec. 3. \V ork on said bridge and causeway shall be
started within six months after this act becomes a law,
and completed on or before J ul~r first, A. D. 1927.
Sec. 4. This Act shall become effective upon its pas-
sage and approval by the Governor, or upon its becoming'
a law without such approval.
Approved l\Ia~' :?G. 1!12G.
...
!.
..-
~
~ .
~
3775
,--^--.
Chilli. 110;;0.
1925
I
I
I
I~~
I
d a
I:~
Ild
st
, in
I
"use
I~
by
I
~~n
I
I
I
I;
I
LAWS OF FLOHID.,\ 2057
r-^---...
Eau Gallie, at the intersection of Ninth 8trpet with Magnolia Chapter 20754
Avenue, go 'Vesterl,'" on )IOlltJ'l'lII J\n'lIue to the 'Vest bOlllHlal'~"
of Section 21, Towllship 27 ~ollt h, Hange a7 East; t hellce go
Southwesterly by the most }U'lIctil'ahle route nlollg and IIl'l'OSS
Sectiolls 20, uno 19, r!'ownship 27 BUilth, Hang-(' 37 East, and Sec-
tions 24, 23, 27, 28, 29, 32 und :n, Township 27 South, Range 36
East, to intersection with Stat~ HOilll ~o. 2-1, in S('ction 36, Towll-
ship 27 South. Bunge 35 Bast.
Section 2. The State Boad J)r]lurtmt'nt of I"lorida shall cause
a number designation to be gin:!1I to the J'on<l hel'eb~r ('stnblished
and said road shall ther~llftcr be known by such nllmber desigllU-
tion until changed by action of the :-;tate HOlIll Department or by
law.
Section 3. This Act shall b('come ell'('ptiw illlmelliatel.,' upon
becoming a law.
Approved by the Goyernor .June 10, 1941.
f
," ,~
'*"'.,"",.l;"".~'.1" .
J\~ ",
'.!I~~I.f
I
.."~ . .,....ijll..
..,'~l(.~l ,'1 ., -~~
Filed in Office Seeretary of State .Tune 1], 1941.
\
CHAPTER 20755 (No. 547)
HOUSE BILL NO. 1174
r---^---....,
Chapter 20755
AN AOT to Desi:,!'llllte mill Establish Certain Hoads 1Il Pinellas Dealgnating
and ElItablish_
County as State Roads. State Roads
In PlneUall
Count",
",
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section A. That the following' Illlmed, (lescl'ibed nnd desig--
nated roads in Pinellas COllnt~" ill the sl1eeeelling' Sections hereof
be, and the;\" are collectiyel~' llllll se\'(')'IIII.'" hereb;\r declared, des-
ignated and established liS Stnt(' Bonds of the S,'"stcm of State
Roads of the State of Florida awl entitIell to ellju~' alld partici-
pate in all rights and pl'i\'ileg-es of desig-natetl State Honds.
Section 1. No. 76 (F'lol'illa Anlluc) from S'V pomer of Sec-
tion 14-27-15 N. along- the Sediol1 lill(, to Anelote Hi\'er. IJength
in miles, 21h.
Section 2. No. 46. (Gulf-Chilito Strl'l't) Beg. on the S. line of
Section 10-27-]5 at S1. Joseph's Ba;\" and run E to the S14 cornel'
of Section 11-27-15, thence NE 'erl." along platted street to E. side
of Tarpon Ba~'ou. Leng-th in miles, 2.
;.: I,'
,1:1,
';:,.'
" ,.;
~, '
2060
r--^-----,
Chapter 20766
LA "'S OF FLOHIDA
corner of the S,Yl/t of the N'Yl/t of Section 23-29-15 and run
thence S aloll~ the 40 acre linr to intrrsectioll with Co. Rd. No.
112 at the SE ('01"1)('1' of tile I\\V~/I or till' S,Yl/t of Section 26-29-15.
Length ill miles 1.5.
Srction 20. No. 29 (Gulf '1'0 Bar Dlnl) llegin at the El;4
corner of Sretion 18-29-16 ami run tlleJl(~e \V along the center line
of Sections 18, 13 and 14 to tile SE corner of the S\Vl)&, of the
N\Y% of said Seetioll 14-2D-13, thence N\V'erly to the SE cor-
ner of tile NE% of the NEIll of Section 15-29-15, thence \Y along
the 40 acre linc to intersection with SH No. 15 on Ft. Harrison
Avenue in Clearwater aIHI continue "... ulong Cleveland Street
to the waters of Ch'Hl'\\'ater Harbor, thence N\V'erly along the
Causewa~' to Clearwater IsIHlHI, tllence \V to the Gulf of Mexico.
Ilength in miles 6-%,.
Designating
State Roads.
( Pinellas
County)
I
.;
c
Section 21. No. 28 (Druid Roaa) Begin at the NE corner
of the SE1;4 of the SE% of Section 13-29-15 and run thence W
along the 40 acre line to the N\V corner of the SE1;4 of the SE14
of Section 16-29-15 to intersection with SR No. 15 on Ft. Harri-
son Avenue, Clearwater. Length in miles 3-1;4.
<:L
Section 22. No. 26 (Keene Road) Begin at the NE corner
of the SE% of the SE% of Section 14-29-15 and run thence S
along the section line to the NE corner of the SEl)&, of the SElJi
of Section 26-29-15, thcnce S\V'edy to the section line, thence S
to intersection with SR No. 64 at a point approx. 800' E of the
center of Section 35-29-15. Length in miles 3.
Section 23. No. 114 CC'C" Street) Begin at the SE corner
of the NE1;4 of the NE% of Section 23-29-15 and run thence W
along the 40 acre line to the SE cOl'ller of the S\Vl)&, of the NWlJi
of the NE% of SeC'tion 22-29-15, thence S\V'erly along "e"
Street in Belleair to inter~ection with SR No. 15 in Section
21-29-15. Length in miles 2.4.
Section 24. No. 4 (Largo-Indian Rocks Road) Begin at the
N\V corner of the NE 1,4 of the SE % of Section 32-29-15, thence
S\V'erly thru Sections 32, 5, 6 antI 7 to the N\V corner of the
SElf! of the NElf! of Section 7-30-15, thence S along the 40 ac~e
line to the S\V corner of the SElf! of the SElf! of Section 7-30-15.
Length in miles 3.
Section 25. No. 19 (Oakhul'st-IlHlian Rocks Road) Begin at
the NW corner of the NEl;1 of the NE1;4 of Section 18-30-15 and
run
SE~
ner
con
aloll
of ,
I
S
I~oa
the]
the
S a
of f
ters
the]
Rd.
Ilen
S
corl
~' El
SE
E
11er
run
Jill(
64
t
SR
the
tiOl
(
>-
No
ala
mil
(
"
Ni/
lin,
LeJ
I
I
1,_ ,
...<~.~ :
I'''!~ :
'-', ,"
.~.
I....~-- ,'''--
..."-' ,,"
_ "_. ~::. .~":'J t':, :,..'-" H ' t:. :-'-. ~
-. r::., r" .,::,. ..:-~. -... .:~~ E:
,=::;... E~PtF(.;.~A TEr=;~,
c:::.:: u r.: Tr~' y
...., --r..1 ,-,
....... ~.t' C.~
!=. : .: rn ~:.~.:: '=. t .3. -;: '_i. '::;. ~
I
~ '::;.,::;' ,~,
.'. ,=-....
r"';.:::,_ '0""', ~;: E: ~
I.. --.-..- -_..- ---.
~1':::;, :=.. '=' ":.::. ":.:. t::' :.-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'.- .=,. 1-' ..
.e, . ~ .3 ::' .~ ;=: ~
'-':: :F.;~'I'
-!t=::.~'1c. -;-' I::. Lj ... C ~ .2E ~
"+
,.. ~.
"'".-' H ~ ,_::=.
~~':_'t;=: .. "'::":'.; ~_..'
~'.)-::::" .:.:.!".),
,;... -
,--:i""i.-"'..
",,_' '_. .","" '. n.., ...., ,...-, "
~_.~ -J '... I "
_.'1 "
: €:-:: i-~ .S. :-; ':::........
:.::. .< E r.'! F':" I ::=. r-~ .::"
...~.j ><
2: C; ::::' '\ :~ :~_, I. .;
;.-; u,,,
....::.,.,.24':.
;_"Sf.? :
. ,_';'" _
=I~Y-COU~;-'-Y-STA'TE
. 'i!: ,;
;....' ,-' .~.. ..
':-:" _, '= .~~:: ..." (.: ':."':.J
- '~"
~_'I!-,'.~,Cj :
,_: '::. E:: :
:-', t
" "
... II "_
;::/..
,-, ._~
, :;"'...
i 1'.";~
......:.;.. ::::"- j.
-- -. .
_.' :_-' .".,' ~ ~
.. '_.' -..i.... _ .
:'_' ,_ '._. -I
+_ .:: ',-'- '-, '" r.
....---'.-. '-."
\jc)"G ::..::: ~
;.-' :=.':' T :;. :.:: ~. ::~ r J 1:1: ~
::,Dc'= i .::;i,,>:.
H j-' t-"':-<
(1 ~;~ E= ~:~ ~
,..
-, .-.
I
I
- .. _no ....l.::\ ~
. '_, ,_no .~~,
-- - - ~.
-. ~ -,':
-.
:,..'_..'
r\! ,-,
'-,,/' f:::': ::=: ~:'~'! 1'"< -:-
t.!! .!J, ,II. I'.' ..:..... ".!" J
!:) 1. ()i:)
I
~ -.
~' r" Ci [:) f--": ::: C i'. :
C. LEA ~:. t!.~ ~'i -f" E F;., ~
'-...... ,\( '_.i r"
"~ '':
; i" .::::: '.-.
......-.., -' -'"
F- r. ~-'::i t:i L..i =,.~ :
.... '.:.!
L ri cj ;j'Si=:
::.7,' c~
1=-- i r.e [.'::' ':=;. t: :;
. 1 .
I :;'::;
.~...J.. ..
;=:,[] E;[: >< 47"::;.:;::'
:.:F.
': 1. itC=:'
;--' -, .
, .~.
':)~:C'4
I:r:. 0 :
I e ,-'! a. if C\/ ~
t~ S C r:.!.) ~
-'! "
:L:::~F{WATE::;:
FL. CDU~.TP,'y:
r\~ .=1 t E' ~
I -~-7-'1:: ,-,
I. : ... . ; ,-': .:.", ./ .4,.. e;
- -- _. -,-
:-"E'"C- :1
E >:: r;-: =i '!,:: "::; ';.:: C", '1'~ U. =:_ =
. ,
"'- .
..:...,
~5 :.1
,::;, ,;
:.:,:) ,.'
I~
1 ,::;.':-;,'::'
': qq:::::
\i p;~ L. !_i E
E:':(~:-r;F'-;-'
-. ,-,n .-.
.;. ,-'; \, ...::
--. I:, '.~ ::' .::
.... .--.
'. t,-- ..-
'.' I_~ ::. '_'
f'r'].:?. T""~::E:t =
1.6U.7C<" hi:
_ F' c '::: i. i,) ;,_.1 i.)
~":"; ,.-: : .'-; ."
, i!!
I ~SS2sseC / Cae:
,;.. ,.
.......;.'. ::I
_ i::' c:: t: ; !l ~i : ':.;'E; ~""'1 i ~. 1 ~
-
...... _._ 3 .' _.. __ _
:'c, '........'.(1 l).:r..~
-- .p~~~ 1&1.)(.)(_) Spec i2~<:
l ,~,'J . .. i .!()
-.. ~
! .;;!.:'< 3. t:~ l. '=. :
!:.-I A >< ~
x ~.
~ .~. c., " ~, .... "'::1
I
:-; ]',~ .'. :
;-; ;1"
..---....-. ,"-
.~~:.::::.i-'i. :
c.,)
'f:
:.: :2:: " ~~~. (:: l~:'
H -:-F;~AC:~- [!F ~\ijBr~; ;...H!'-.j~
"... .'''1E:''1'JR,:: A L :::{~U~=,E;"A\( ;',
3 4 ::) (j F .; ;"") !:: L .:... ; ..., :::' ~!. ....... ~J.j ;_ I r...j E
jN~.E~COAS1';iL WAT~RWAY 24(:)(:)
~1 F' t=:: ;:..(
-+ * r1'~) FE
t::;R.E~'i :
.:: :-~
:... E G ~i L. ~3 ::: >: I::: -r ~. *
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" (" I -- :,.,; ..'? T' -, ~~ C,? '::: :::.
. .. --
1 ~ ~ .:".i. ::. ~ :. ..:.:.
." -1
.; :::
... "_.'
'),_, ,J!)'_'
LI..3C' ..:' ():_ ()()
1---- ----'.-.--. -'- ------ _u ---- ----------. ---- -.------- ---. ---- ---. --.------- ------. -. -. .--------.-- .. -.. _u -- -- -- ..
JR BOQt::: ()~4(:)3 ~20e~ ()5(:)~
A -~~~AC~' OF 5JBM L..AND
I. - ~~ .:~ ~;:: - .-: .:\ ::. ;- H ~ ~'J H T:::'Y ,.) Ai ..::: 4)') ;:::- :-.'! CJ ;... (1) I[) E 1 E=;;' ;1=: F. :=::.:: I"'] ;... L... I E E, n\i S E i::': :: ,.
_,-,_,,_, M _. _ !:. b)
:,4()f)F~r
MOL ALG 5 R;W LINE
.::':iF 1'1 EJ'T: F. = .:::; L..
C Pi U :=:; =: ;}j r:'i \( ....J
,
.... '.--' ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
... ..i..
I
,.j i-~
;") A ;:: A r< .,".
~ ,::;
: -; ",,' ," ',(',
.,,;~
I..; 1: ::::... t~;::r,~;.l'JA Tt:::=::" ' " __
; "oJ -:... ~
I..~'-~, :
:.: ..
I .
.t;:U.:::.
~1,7'"~e
i:=: L ':::AF:.~~JA :'E~,
F
C':iJ!ji\~T?\/ :
I ~~:::7::':,::: 47.:1.::
,-- : iT! C; -~ :::; t .::~. -:: u. s ~
I
1 q'~(':;'
"1 Q~':= '-)~~L.i-.iE
~''''i .e. 'f""" ~:: E2 t :
. ~_ - ~. ~ o.
J.. / ::::." :':::::)i_p
I'
c:.::u::: :
-: 7.=: .-,;.:-,((,!
.... .. ~ iii..... '..' '.'
--~-__-_I
'=. "=. l::' '~ ;::. "= ~.J
: .:";;; ::< .s. =1 1 e ~
I :::-~'::,:=)r,,;
rJV
'_:Ur-:. [iF
bt:..:_:
..L'='
LINE OF SEe FOR oDB IH N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.::;(:!
~j :.( :
~,! >: :
D\:
T:X: :
() H..!., ~
r1r~{ :
F~ ;_1 r\~
1 '_:' - .A~'l .::\ -- - -, - -,
r' r-' Cl ~:1 j:'i ::' c:: r\ :
.: ..:.~.:. : .-1 ,_-, ._' :.....1
~ ;;~ ":-:' l.) 1 '=:;.":;: '_. .
::':F, E;f.
~:. '"'" D ~:; Li ':::. ''2 ~ ::;:' i 3 L. r: CJ U "::. e ~ :::: '7: ~- 1 r. 1"2 ;..... i '=- t ~
L: :L CoOl ::
! e"': .=-. ;! c \/ ~
4:l
E X ~i""'1 p4!" I i::r<':;.
1 ?;::: II: ",:::()(~',
.-. ~ :ii:)FT
1:1r.~
(:; J. ..:'.1. 2 ::~
CITY-COUNTY-S-ATE
-. .'. -.,. : -..
!'-'CI: !..,.!..;;;,:=..":;',
U F'.~-=t:
_ ;: ct:
i)
--:-....;;::'.-.,. "'
I .,'~, ,_ ,_, .
"-i \: ;:=1F~E~I:
5C)~EG 45' W 116(:)F1' 1'~ N
~ . Pi L C! t-\j C5 r..)
.: ,. 'I j' '~i !
.J. .. '_"_' '_'
I' "i'ii'!
1 .. ()(:r(.i
~:: S C~ r. !....} :
1\;. CI t: E' ~
;:::'~'l:;itlC. ~i::
h.'
=7'E; T ::;-"" ,.
'7' :::: ;"11 I I :
E; pe c:
. _ ..\ ar
t:. :~).;
APF'~:. H!~t:..f~ ~
t:; .:
_.21.\::3
~1 '. _' '_
. --' .,
..... .._. II .. N_ H_ ..
" !.)<.'
'_.:_ 1...1.....
.':'.'-"-' '" '-....- ,._,
.....'..~..:... '" ..;... ." ....:..
**MOF1E LEGALS E/:S-~.~.~.
t;:---,
......:::'
I
I
,_r.. C'.!'" -. -'-'-"
_.1 ~ ;;l~'::l ~ 4~;
E:F:,
....: - -.
U':::,
:' !!:)(.'!i '.
i.f..;,;.,i.)
! i ." "1('(
1- -----...-. --- --. ----- - -- ,-.. - -. -.--- - - - - !~.~; --~~~~:-;-;-~~; ~ -- ;.;. ;~~-- ;;~:; ---- ----- -- --.-.--- -- --. ,.-- -'-'--'- -- ---
:::. ,:;'. C) ;"""1 >~ ~4J C: D r~, C: F =, ~ c: ... '_' ;~ :J r.,~ E J. ~~ () F ;" ':::; r\ ~ {:..i I j-: r I t=:, ~.~ L I r'..j E-:~ C: F E; E C: ;:. C' F;. F' C' 2 ..~. !~ i ',;
I:'(~;;~;T 4~:M
" - -- - , ,--, '." I
bt:. .;. :\Ii.= 1,'.,
~j..; :. 1 '::' (, ~= T .-- H 1-..j
1 () [) r::: C5
(If'i'
l.l,! :. 2:.::!rT T~; "J 18::!
For 'Tt-": E;
)ODEC3 ''::;C'
v.~
, ,
E 1:'; ::; () ~. ..;- ;" i-~ r',~
1 <~DEG
4~, "
_. ~I :. oJ ~:= -:" -r- H r..J ~j ()
JEC3
..... t:::'
~.__i
~~.;, ::~2 ::,j="!".
: ~_: r-'j: H
~3EC: =:: E;"I S' .. ... ,~, t:
l? "
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'J
~...>.~.//.., '
-y....'...::...:"'. .... ,".:".
0' .~.
I. 'J., "~ ','
"of,'-' ~ .
I t' \ .' t, !
I'C~:)';f~ .."..t.
-"J'r ...,....~... ....} ~
., ~ ~;" ..;.~ .
I'
I
1
I
I
.
<~
-' ~..:
t'._;
',_.J
~:. (..)
t-J __:":
I
I
I'
.:~:.~.
. ~ :::
.. . . \ ~
:..'~ .~
~., ..:.>
[""'; ~::
~:: ::...
': : j
l-,', .
", ......:
~
I
I
'I
,
. ,
,
,
,
I
J
.
~~
;~; ~.~
r:::->
iJ _:.
('~~~:j
. ~., ..
-,..
~~~~
~_~ .. I
... i..j
. 0_:
! :.:.
1::'_
.....
.. ,
::.!:~ ~
(.~ . ;.
t--..... :~., ............ -:" .. ...
,.i... ~ '::'.: .
.' ..... " ....\
..!-~.~~-~ .~.~~~
.,~-:-" . -. r
O.R;-43!- r;.~t-C40:=:..- ~
l.
~ ;. ,
'-.~.....
.... . I ~ :
. . .\ .' /;/
,}~.;:l.:.;.;:. ,,<~~,
. .':1....... ,t: " ." ~..?:':: .'~V I '_.
-'..< .., ';'.' 1/'
4 'J'" 1 02 i\ . "i,. >,,,;.,o.:~:;,~5Y'>fi:~~f~.J:.~~..., :~~-..~
,...... .~..I~-. . ... ~'''~ '..; '. ". .... ...........':r....~............. '.. ......-.~...........-........'..."'........'...~.. ...t.....~................ ....J:it.... ........'... .....................~.....~......:.+..~....~..............'..;1...
'1~'Vf) ~"':~:~~~---:~'; -;.:. .' '. .' . .~
. .' . t:' ."'. .':., .. ~'. . ". .
DEDICATIOII ';";.:..'
..'-" .
;1
water Island Bridge Company", a Florida corporation~ma.;:tSJ.8iid ESt&t,..;\~:~':lf~~;!~~(, 'c:!i~'~
. . . ':':""f/v
Incorporated, a Florida corporation, as the First Parties, to. the City ~
C1earwater, Florida, a JltIf1icipaJ. corporation, as t.he Second Part,-,
WITNESSETHz
l'ha.t the First Parties, for ..~d in consideration c: the sma of Om
($laCO) D611t:.!" ca~h in hc>.nd paid at Cl~d before the sealing 2nd delivery
of these pre~~nts, the r~ccipt of l!hich ~U."l is hereby acknou1cdgcd, and
:to::' otter go~d ..:lei. val':lClblo ccnsidrl'atiocs, has ds(lj.cated, gra."1ted and
cor.VGj.C~, a.nd hl;l'C~j. cieGicc:.tcs, gra."lts ~'1d conveys ~to the SocC'.nd Party,
c~t~.in r€;aJ.. P~'Cl:_m-ty consisting of sr1.~grE;6d la!'lt.~ located in st. Joseph r s
Sou,,"1d, Clr;ar-.;crts:!" Ba~', u.!l.i bsing in th~ City of Clc[".......~atar, c.:'unty of
Pinr:~llr.5, St::.tc of Flor~cl;:., cioscl"ibcd as foUo..~:
F ... - ."" r1::~-:: "'.. . .
ref.'", ...t~.; 001:..7:;,,,..oJ cc.rnc:-- o~ l.r[.c'c:-,,(,:,!,,"(cll Sectl.cn 9, T~n.-
::Jhi~) ;~;i [:", 'L::. ::-,.~ 15 L~~t.. r~::-J. ~j ~5u 2L= 16u 1: 4c7EV::
fcc;':~.:_':2:r. ;,('~.': :',' .::~ .::c~:: i.,~ ~:.:;i.:~:; c. i~.lG n:Jrt:l',~'~"l:r
lil:,O C . ',.J::~ ~__:.. ,..'t- . -- "", ..;~~t:~~::~:..... :-..~lt::~lLIr~.~~~.::::~.." fer ?oi~J.t ei'
La D- r...rL.~ Z~ i '~; 'J 5 . ~. -:)
Thence run N 490 23' 41n W .aJ..ong said. right-of-way line
(said line being 500 feet northeasterly, measured at righ\
angles, from the oenter line of said oausewe;,y) 1997.78
feet; thence ~ H 400 36' 19u E, 320 feet; thence S 490
23' 41tt E, 851.L2 feetJthence along a ourve to the loft
of.170 feet radius (chord bearing S 000 261 198 EJ chord
distance 65.10 feet) 65.50 feet; thence run S nO 281 2'" E,
5S5.24 feet,; thenoe aJ.ong a curve to the left of 170 feet
raciius (chord bearinE N 490 26' 48" ~, chord distance
291.67 feet) 350.57 feet; thence along a cO"Ve to the right
of 150 fest Tadius (chord bearing Ii 00 20' 1911 E, chord
di~~~nce 51.93 fe~t) 52.19 feet; thence alrng.a'ourve to
the left of 7350 feet radius (ch,,:rd be~r:i.ng U 00 10' .55:1 E
chord dist~nco '25e~!.30 faet.) 25~7.87 .f~()t; thence along.a
curve to the rig.~t of 150 feet radi~~ (chord bem-me N 00
Of I a.~J. 2S" B, chord ci..bl;.ance 51.93 .f'.aElt) 52.19 feet; thellCO
C'.lcn~ a curve to tho left of 170 feet radius (chord bearing
n 16 O~, 52tt U, chore.' distance 1l~9.26 feet) 154.52 feet
1:.0 a point on l:.r...e L; I J.:,' .Coun~r of Tract roE'; of lands con-
VC~lrf.d by :r'~cd 'E~. 17.:6) fl'on t:-.o Intc~aJ, ::.::;r>l't:ve:".Jm:~i l-:o<.:.rd
o~ t~r' S~:~t,e of' j?l'~~"~_,.".~.:~: the~~~~~~ clC'11~ the 1:;3:1y ;';';:J.o. I~tJ.:/
bO'DJ1(i.:"~.-"" (ii." ::':--.~.Ct I.~\.:...:",..>:.. a~~t c.~ ~:}-,:.; fC'll("~~'"in:" -::01.:':9~~(~S~ S }.20
~ . -' ~ +
C~'t ':" -! .,'::,' "r ':'--.. .;:- ., :~o ?t'- -'. .('i.q f .-.'.. "" ~'.J c,~.t ...
.J ~.: .... ......u.I.J ~~:; : ".J .1..'__ -,.).. ....., 4..... c:.:....,;..; 'v ,_, ..~
1'.~G'~ ';'~'I~-" : ':':-. c: /,} ".'i~ ,., -: C:":~ <~!, of","'"'.... + ," ~.....~ -4- . t~"'
-.....#''''' .....)...., .....'-.......- ',1,,1 ,., .J...",,-" .0.,;.....> _...C", ...0 ,. lX..,....... c.n "~O
;lIJ:/ rj ;...t-:)~~~_.)..;~;]- ~L~:'.:~ ()i" C:'.c:.;;.; i\~~~..J,,~"'::' C.~;,~l~,n..-~~r; t.hence rUil
~~ 6~o ;(~: "3~!' jl .', '~"'1' r."a;..11";"'-'&.'_'''':'..'!.~-7 '':;.-.", ueo ~{ol -rel3t-
. "IIi ,.4 -~.. -~. r. ..-;...,.......c: ~ _\.04. _....... ..._ '\c.;..,. ........1_.. Uo..,U 4. ,
Tt.f:;:,)"~"-):--'~'~~:
.--" .,.,.
~'a.
. i ~
'. .
;...~.~. ;!
~~~.:.:.~t~:~!_ ':!~--'2.~ '._~~~~'_~:~~"J~~i:":! V ,;::-: ,':1 ~ 'S j;::--;!lC)is .
r.. 'f""'" r.'r::'n' ~'f'." F'\" II ~ I "hot
.....",.........,-_....,- -.'........"
"r. r:' roo r. rn 'JV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
.1
I! (\ ..' ,.." ! ~
C.R~d0 i-. ..'r.......~l.
-- , "..H.. /....,'-.:, ..
"1- ~~ ~.l:8
:n.R. LJb f'!.GEJ.Jr
thence continuing on said ri~t-oi'-w~ line on a curve
to the right of 5229.58 feet radius (chord bearing
N S60 17' 07- W chord distance, 1254.83 feet) 1257.85
feet; thence.N 490 23' 41" vi along said right-of-t:~llne
524.98 feet to P.O.E.
TO HAVE !.~D TO HOLD the described and conveyed property to the
Second party and its successors, solely for the use and benefit of the
public gencre1ly upon and specificelly subject to the following eJCpress
con(~tions and restriction~:
(1) Until th9 co:::?lc;t,ion 0: tho project l-:nOl.;n as "Isl.'.ud E~k.tL.~~11
in st. Josc~hs s S;)und,. Clc2.-:~ater B:..::--, the Ormel'S and c.::7s1cpers thcr(;~'f
shill rO:!CI"'Y8 t!;~ right tel r~,.:?']:s fro::: said. d.edicated area such foil'
It;..:. ~{;riu :f or th~ pu--pcse:s 0:" th~ir c.::':T:lc:r::"1ellt "-S t.he;;, ili:ierr. ncccssu-y.
(2) 3~ch dodic~t:~ ~ca shill rc~ain othLrwisc undistrubed ~~~nd
ULa1.tc.!'ed a~ OpC:l ,(<;2.t~ and ~t no ti:.:e or u.llccr no cirr:u;:,~t~.nces s11&.11
t.hf.,e ey~:r be cC';;::t.r-::ctr:-:::. cr p~::":'J.itt.:~ an:, b1:11,hs.:.di...'1.g, filling, or oths-::'
o1::..:t::l:::t.i':~1 c r t,l:Q
~-,:~::-::: (:.:.~:;:.~::~-:c: of 1;.:';.:~~.~T. c-l~.~~,i(l ~~.'e;,\o~ ~.J~d in tIle c'T(~r..t
oJ. i. ....:
,.., ....I.J
a:t;r" Cb:;toL.ucti:,r: c~.. filJil::~ ~;-i'~rli!'i S.~.p~:! :::'l!J3. j t; p:-::-~~~i. "t,-~-.'2~ or pOl'"\fcrr.-:t;C!s
the absolute o'hllE:!!"ship of all of such area sr all revert to the First Parties,
their successors or assigr~; provided, howevEr, that should any porti~D
oi' said area be required for purposes of a bl idge or causeway, the con-
sent of the First Parties, their successors c r a.ssigns, Dust first be
obtained in writing, and at their option, thE First Parties, their suc-
cossors or assigns, shall be entitlod to s ucr. compensation in condennation
prcceedi.:'lgs, or otherr:ise, as to which they Kould be anti tIed if thoy con-
tim:~d to O'k"n such aroa; nnd further, provided th~t the rie;."'1t is expressly
and specif'ica1J.y roserved to the Firct Parties, their successors and
assisn.:, or =ubt:~~uEiu~ ':".;'.l~ ~ ;;,: ~:..:;l:;.;.=..:.: ::'~=.:~od. on ""he oasterly side
of thl~ m:>ct ea:rk::.'ly i::1,"11(1 i."'l th.J p"',jcct knorm as "Islti"~d L:;tatciz", m:.d
on tiw 5..,.~t.hc:r'L. ~id~!; of th8 thr(;(:; r.:::.;t ee.~t('l:,'l:t island.:; of t~'3' proj!;=t,
l~"~i~:n n:> lIIr.l.;:,i:i ::::;t3.t(>;3t1 ~.dj;~cc;~t. to .:.;::-,.1d dclic1.t.od o:::-e?., to constr'lct
..
-~~-
i..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
.1
13.1: n , ~
--n.R'. '.h_ .,,-7/ f.'..:--
...:\.. : -- - P"LJf....... ....(.~
21"' 9. l' AD
OR ',\!.' p".t.., ".
.. V 1.'Ul.~,":-.
and maintain reasonable docks or other reasonable structures for 'Water
purposes, including protection structures, into ~d upon said dedicated
areas iMediately contiguous to said lands. Nothing horein contained
shall prevent duJ.,y constituted public authority, or its Authorized agents,
frOll maintaining the dedicated area and preserving the open waters.
(3) During the course ;: the construction vf t.he entire develop..
JISIlt kno1-1:1 as IIIsland Estates" J the First Parties, their successors or
assi~s, or the dcv61upors thereof, shull b~ parrrittod, without inter-
..Lcrence frol:; t'loso c,,':rt.ain p,"~'ZO!!s na:.:::d <J.s plail1tiff~: in that ccrtsin
ca~se hnretofcre p~r.di.'"1~ :5..:n t~o Circuit. COI.ll"t of tte Sixt.h Judieic.l Ci:cuit
of th~ state of Fj~_'=-id::LJ in a~id Lo!' Pi.rd:.;as COt1:1.t:", fl.:>rida, in Ch~cer:r
bein:,: 1Jo. ',l, OC}f) O!-,., .....".;..-, ....,....~, ar-'....t--r:'"T.'.,-'ti-.o t"..,. _ ""~~-o-f.o L> .\..,.
~. ~,,-,...... 0'0-__'-' w....., .lJ......, '~-,_',:"~ ,u.n __'" 1.C3...L..-...u..r C.l. v;l..
ol-mcr~hip of the j;'irst Pr.:totie:;;, thf,ir r,:Ic~c~.sors, ~J=i~~ or ooant9C:3,
c.xclusive of the ~e:l h<:rci.:l (~-:-lLc::a.te:.d. ~;.s L?Y bo z~:~ct:j_:;;.;:ed and pc:-~..it""cd
by t:~c pr:'p~.,~ :r.~bli~ [~:::..:';0::~:ti-:0"
(1;)
S:.id. })l~~~rrLifi~ r~~~ ,j~)c'..e
t.s ::~.r.l.~ ~ 1 in
p-,-- .._- .-.1, (")
_ '"'"""' C"",:.:... "'-__.. \,~
...; ~, .J.
1.......... 1':0"
cont3st t~a ti'l.1c, ir/.;crt:3t c.... c'tlncrship 0':- Sl.n of th& First P~ties'
property conve~d to them or the~ predecessor 3 in title by original or
corrective deeds trom the Trustees of the Inte :onal Improvement Fund ot
Florida, within or ldthout the general perimetar of their ownership So
long as the use of those la.uds lying outside or said general perimatGr is
limited to. the reJ!!Oval of fill materials or the deepening of water areas.
(S) T~is conveyance is further specifi~ally conditionad upon the
final and irrevokabla temination of the above ..described action lately
pending in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of the State of
Florida.. in and tor Pin~p_~~ rA)l,n+.y;' al1n H:'~'" +.h'" !"efrai....;n~ by said
p<\rtio::;-?l~ntiff 't;;O,'Chl !'rO;;1 ,.':'lJ. litig~~tiv~ ch~llcnltn~ ex- btori'ering
"::-1 th th~ }'ir~!.. P::.rt~c;;;, t.hcd.t' ~uccc::;scrs, :i::;Gig-:s or ;-;:~~tccs, of ~ of
tho lane.:.; d~;~c!"ib;;;-: in ~2.icl L.ti:!~~tion, 01'" t~(: rl:ht::; ci: s<lid Fir:::t Pm-t.i.~s,
-
..3..
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
.1
. "'lCJ - .., '"' (.('\
'o,n:", 01 U,~ft::..i'...t:-
O.R. 258 P!:G[ J20
their ~ccessors~ assigns~ or grantaas, to fill and inprove said land in
accordance with the plan of devolopment heretofore approved by the Pinellas
Colmty Ivator and Navigntion Control Authority~ being Permit No.
and the Um ted States Corps of Engineers, altered only to the extent as
affected by this dedication.
(6) In the event that any litigation l,J any private pEJI'..on, firm
or body public~ other than the parties-plaintiff above described, SUCC(lSS-
fully chc-11e7"~g;L"'1G or i!lteri'('.ri113 ui.t.}: th() First Parties, their successo!"s;
aszigns 01' g!"?..:'ltees, <.TIel. their o,;nf;!'ship (;1 ::.JJ. or part of the l2.11t1..:-)
dCS(::!'n,~d ion tilE; or:i.lt~l::.1 and ,":;-.!oDrl::d cor.::.;l,.i:iite st:;lud i.TJ. sr.id de~cribed.
action, slirll t~ main:t2.b.sc-, thi~ cOn\'cya:~:,:. ~!'Jd dedication shall be null
and void.
FY~OVlr.'::D, ttat if ar'oJ" or.? or all cf tl":c cor:.di.t.io~s and. restriction::;
are violated 0:':' cefar-l':,:d.\ 'Lion 2.2:l0 in th~t Ci"8~t, this cor:.vt;J-ance C'.nd
dc~cation ~::2.:'-1 b~ Jr;.~lJ. a:Jd vo:~;., :~-~Cl th,;: c'.'-:~c~c~n of t~e ~bo\re-d:.::~c:rii~,~d
If".:~d =:.'~],l l-:..;,.:~t t.:) i.;:~) r,~t5..E'_~. 0::'" tr;.0 ;;ir:-~~ ~.12r'~, thci~ [UC~css.:Jr:: cr
:l<::"'.L' con"'. ,"" .......,~ eT,.r:~.L +.,~... -'-h-~ -:'~>...-... J..).-.......~ '0<", t'--.;... ..,.~.. ,....-....~. or "'.,.-,,-""
__w 1:;.1-"'; .L,;.<- '-'__tW . ......&.v ",~..~.., .....t;; .!.~.. ..,l' -.. \/~\,;iw, ..1J......... 1J.......""c.;_'-J'..I. w Q...,........c.-~
.' shall deem that there has been a default or violation of the terms of
this dedication~ and in that event, said First Parties, their successors
or assigns shall serve written notice upon the City of Clearwater in the
same mazmeras is lawful for; the service of process upon municipalities in
which not.iqa said First Parties~ their successors or assigns shall specify
default or breach allogc3d to have been com:nttt'd or about to be comitted/
and the said Second Party shall theroupon have a reasonable tiJue for the
-
service of such notice to cot'rect the d.efault, if any exists, as a condi-
tion precedent to the operation of the reversion provided in this dedication.
..
r. !~....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I.
I
I.> ':
1
1
I
- O.R." l'~ ~l)." h, ,,- ')fc~ lJ
U ("'J!~. -.\L;.'~
... .-.
2J:: I) r
O.R. ;](j PI.Cf 121
m WITNESS WHEREOF, the First Parties have caused these presonts
to be executed by their respective proper executive officers and the seal
of the respective corporations hereto affixed at Clearwater, F.lorida,
this
~t h day of _ . J u l-y Jr 1957..
,
'. . ~
.0........ ."
.~
.~,'rT1T3'? ~
r!~l\_p~.r,.,tr"1;"~
~. .-l.:':";- _.... .6.~ -.:. ~
IZT.~tJ'.jD
E1IT~:::~ ca:!p.ANY,
.-
"
.",/ .
.... c.-<"
~ CC~:""po~.~ t:!.~'::, t'
B-..
.. ,~ .
"'-.)':\ '\:.~~~~,,~.C)
i?(;;:-~~ ::~~ . -# ......~, .
\. "
, '\
~
---\~ -
,,,
.1"'.... ",,...,,.,,,.~ '.~
"
-,--..- -.- ....._-~_.--
~~..-.~..:...(: :,;j".:~:'
:.-. '.'_'
~'~,_..,~--
,,'..:'::::3T:
L3LA::n 13T'';.J.T:,S,
co::'por::.-:,i0~,}.
TI:CO?':-~2~~'..J::D, 3
,...... ('\
\ ,.... \ \ '--",',
''v ';> \......,... '. \, \.. . \-.. -:-
..._--,_.,-,~...~ " \ ....~,~ ...:.;.;;\'v
:.. ". "_' !....: :' ;^; .,~r
\
"" '-
"'-:..
D:;:
f]' ~:~_~~ !!,[~_~_:~(' ~<.
l"'T i.; :'-l. c: _ _ -. .., ~
- ",". -" ""
..:.; .-~i.#J
Cl;" ?o! ~~".-":-::'.'..
)
)
COmITY OF FDn<:T -I. .s
On this. ?:Sth day of
appeared \1. Ilepl"'v .~l"'~~~('l11
. to me known to b( the person. described in and l-lho executed the foregoing
. ~: . instrlment, and ccknow1edged that ...b.c. executed the same as his free
. . . . '~act and deed.
Julv
, 1957. before me personally
, '.
My'Com..ui.ssion Expires:
tdd;;l~~
IJotary Pub~ic
~~'ji.;(v ~'L' j:;C, 5:u~.e c-f Fh~ 'ido ct I~ '."~o
! I,)' .cr:.;:d~,i~:,ir::) . (o.:::rcs C,ot; ~, '~~f'
rt":":'i'''J b~' 1\;':~HC,,1-i S'F(~\-' '_::'. of~; /.
S7,\TB 0:<' FLORln'\
)
)
.,
COUliTY OF PDill.LAS
On this
~~ t. h '-. ~~'1'" .,f
, J.95'/ I bofo:-o ~e personally
i ,~.:t.:(,Q."T':::"1t.: .:";~j ac::n:>;':1.:< ":~
"~'; i; ~.;"r:-:.l dc~d~
~h~ t.
--- ~
in :!.;d ~::.~ f.:xc~'",,:'cd "he fC:";;:eoi:;c
--- C:-:~~UTt;~ i.l!.c [":'~:'::J ~s ;1 i::; f1"(-,:
1:',7" Cc;;:;.::i~i)iQn ~)~iros:
. , -
(; -/. ~- /i ./~._ ....~
") :'. r "'~'._ _, '" ,~:.- ':'L.-~/L-?-{.
----.-. .-- -_ L-.. ____.
:>-<...~.~, .t'~-:~.li::
I. ,.' ,
...,. . .,.,
',' '" . I,." ~; i '; ~\
.",r',:":'.i~'_.: 0 ,~.. . -. __' .'..:0. =-'; ~.~. ~'"
~::::' . .,~.I ..
"
-:;:...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 5
Recreation! Open Space & Preservation land use definitions and Zoning Code
EXCERPTS ONLY
City ofClearwater Zoning Co~
DMSION 30. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION DISTRICT (OS/R)
Sec. 40.561. General description.
The open space/recreation district is created to reserve land areas for parks, open space, active
and passive recreation purposes, and other public uses as provided in this division.
Sec. 40.563. Permitted uses.
Within open space/recreation districts, only theJollowing uses and structures designed for such
uses shall be permitted:
(1) Public or noncommercial private recreation grounds or parks~
(2) Public lands of scenic or natural beauty~
(3) Public or private beaches;
(4) Public or private golf courses~
(5) Special events approved by the city commissio~
(6) Restaurants, indoor retail sales and concessions~ in conjunction with golf courses and
recreation complexes~
(7) Accessory uses, including uses of public lancland facilities approved by the city commission in
accordance with section 2.01(d)(v).
Sec. 40.564. Conditional uses.
Within open space/recreation districts, the following uses. may be allowed as conditional uses:
,2) Public works projects, including utility facilities.
Sec. 40.565. Use limitations.
(3) Public works projects and utility substations. and facilities shall be screened with a continuous
landscape screen or wall approved by the environmental manager.
31 Downloaded from City Web Site, 3-11-99S
63
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
DIVISION 31. PRESERVATION (P)*
*Cross reference(s)--Vegetativebuffer adjacent to aquatic lands/coastal district, ~ 42.28.
Sec. 40.581. General description.
This district is created to protect the water8,..- waterways and coastal wetlands of the Gulf of
Mexico and Tampa Bay and non coastal wetlands, environmentally sensitive palustrine, lacustrine
and riverine areas, natural and artificially made interior bodies of water and other submerged lands
through the control of development of these areas so that their-ecological and aesthetic values
may be preserved for the health and enjoyment of present and future generations.
Sec. 40.582. Application.
It is intended that the Preservation District be. applied to all naturally and artificially made coastal
and non coastal bodies of water and wetlands of including spoil islands, spoil banks, basins, bays,
bayous, canals, streams, creeks, ponds, ~wamps, marshes, bogs, lakes and rivers, whether publicly
or privately owned. The Preservation District shall apply to all surface waters and submerged
lands thereunder (for coastal waters, submerged lan~ be considered those lands seaward
from the established line of mean high tide). Furthermore, the Preservation District shall be
applied to all upland areas 30 feet landward of mean high tide where mangroves exist.
(Mangroves are.recognized of special ecological value to the city and are defined in section 98.01
of the Clearwater Code of Ordinances.)
Sec. 40.583. Permitted uses.
Within Preservation Districts, only the- fallQwing...use.s... (and structures designed for such uses) shall
be permitted:
(1) Recreation activities which are not environmentally di~ptive.
(2) Public projects directed by the city COmmiSSiOl1;
(3) Docks.
Sec. 40.584. Conditional uses.
Within preservation districts, the following uses may be. permitted as conditional uses:
(1) Marinas;
(2) Recreation activities other than those ~ted as permitted uses;
(4) Utility facilities.
Sec. 40.585. Use limitations.
The following use limitations shall apply to.. aquatic lands/coastal districts:
(1) No dredging or filling nor the removal of established native vegetation shall be permitted
84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
except as may be specifically authorized by the city commission, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the state.
(2) Docks shall be governed by all terms contained in section 41.151.
(3) No commercial activity, including the sale or renting of any slips, launching facilities, or living
aboard any boat, whether permanently or temporarily, shall be permitted unless the facility abuts
upland property assigned a commercial zoning district, public/semipublic district or urban center
district and, furthermore, the activity or use is specifically authorized by the planning and zoning
board.
Sec. 40.587. Applicable county and state requirements.
(1) Nothing in this division shall be construed to abrogate or otherwise deprive the county water
and navigation control authority of its jurisdiction, powers and duties as conferred by law.
(2) The application of all provisions of this division shall be cumulative and complementary to
state law.
PREVIOUSLY REFERENCED SECTION 42-28
Sec. 42.28. Vegetative buffer adjacent to preservation district or jurisdictional wetlands.
(1) A vegetative buffer, being necessary to protect the ecological and aesthetic integrity of interior
or coastal wetlands, shall encompass all lands within 25 feet of the boundary of any property
designated on the zoning atlas as Preservation (P), or any property determined to be wetlands
under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida ("jurisdictional wetlands ")~ and all lands within 15
feet of the top of the bank of any creeks, channels, or related waterways which contain
jurisdictional wetlands. For the purposes of this section,"top of the bank" is defined as that point
on the slope at which the side slope becomes flatter than one foot vertical to four feet horizontal.
However, this requirement shall not apply to p.yi!::ting ~a11s or other structures creating an
abrupt transition between any such property and the adjoining upland property.
(2) When a proposed development is adjacent to property designated as preservation or
determined to be jurisdictional wetlands, the vegetative buffer shall be provided by the owner in
accordance with the requirements of this section. The vegetative buffer may be IJrovided within or
over other required setbacks. The buffer shall be designated on the site plan, plat or replat of the
property as a "Preservation Lands Protection Buffer."
(3) Upon approval by the division of environmental management, the required buffer width may
be reduced by not more than one-third in ~porti<ID-ofthe.buffer, by providing additional width in
another portion of the buffer which will result in an equivalent or greater square footage of
cumulative buffer area.
(4) No structure or other surface impervious to water shall be permitted within the vegetative
buffer, with the exception of structures which would be allowed as a part of a permitted or
conditional use within the preserva.tion.-district.
65
I'
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
(5) A structure or impervious surface existing within a vegetative buffer as of October 4, 1990,
and not in compliance with the provisions of this section, shall be deemed lawful but
nonconforming if the structure or impervious surface was lawful when constructed. No expansion
of the structure or impervious surface into the buffer shall be permitted. If the structure or
impervious surface should be substantially damaged, by disaster or otherwise, the reconstruction
of the structure or impervious surface within the vegetative buffer shall not be permitted. Nothing
in this section shall be construed so as to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repairs of lawful but
nonconforming structures or impervious surfaces, regardless of the dollar value of such repairs.
(6) Within the vegetative buffer, any native vegetation shall be protected so that the buffer will
retain the character of the immediately adjaceru vegetation within the preservation district. Native
vegetation within the buffer shall not be removed or altered without the approval of the division
of environmental management in accordance with the provisions of this section. If removal or
alteration is proposed, the owner shall present a plan for approval by the division of environmental
management showing that the proposed removal or alteration of the vegetation will not adversely
affect the hydrological or ecological integrity of the adjacent wetland. If approved, the plan shall
be incorporated in the approval and the terms thereof shall be binding upon the owner. All
prohibited trees as listed in section 52.06(3) existing within the buffer shall be removed by the
landowner and shall be prevented from re-emergence. This subsection shall not be construed to
prohibit routine maintenance trimming of nonwetland vegetation in accordance with procedures
developed by the division of environmental management and approved by the city manager.
(7) Any removal or alteration of native vegetation within a vegetative buffer without the approval
of the division of environmental management shall be deemed a violation of this section. Each day
following the removal or alteration of native vegetation shall be deemed a separate violation until
the native vegetation is restored. The code enforcement board shall require the owner to restore
the vegetative buffer to its natural state at the owner's expense, and the owner shall be subject to
the imposition of a fine in an amount not to exceed $100.00 per day for each day that the owner is
found to be in violation of this section.
Cross reference(s)-Aquatic lands/coastal district, ~ 40.581 et seq.~ aquatic landsfmterior district,
~ 40.601 et seq.
66
CLEARWATER
." ,
HARBOR
\ ,
' r' ': .
\\
" \
".' \
. i
\ \ \,
\ ; \ '
\ "
. '. \
_.~ -~;~-<-:-:;:~,
. .
, -~-:-;':>':>:.:-
l~--
-:~"'- >.,
0
U
""-I
><
~
~
r:z..
0
~
~ ".
:::> ",
~
.,
'\ .:. /'
\ 1":,-;
. :.'"-:;/
CLEARWATER
HARBOR
.~
( ,
'.J
'-..
-~........
,
J.-\
",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I;
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
f
APPENDIX 6
Selected Excerpts from the City of Clearwater and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Comprehensive Plans
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Emphasis added.
Page 113 "Conservation Needs Summary"
. The protection, maintenance, and conrinllP.d mana.gement of Clearwater's surface water
resources, including both interior and coastal wasters, are inherently important for their
natural functions and to the desired image. and quality of life in Clearwater.
. The protection, maintenance, and continued management of the City's six hundred and
twenty-three acres of natural wetlands including tid.llWamps and marshes, both interior
and coastal, are critical to the continued existence of both plant and animal wildlife
and wildlife habitat. These areas contribute..ID-Clearwater's high quality of life.
Wetlands shall not be destroyed, disturbed, or altered to prevent them from
performing their natural functions, except througlunitigation standards as developed by
the City.
. Public awareness and education progJ'.8m~ which enlighten citizens to the importance of
protecting Florida's sensitive environment is a critical issue which will help reduce the
number of environmental accidents,..mistakes. and the. general mismanagement of
natural resources which may occur in the future.
. Black, red, and white mangrove trees. are important.to the continuance of many species
of marine life. Protection of these resources is crucial to the food chain necessary to
sustain. marine. life. and. shoreline.lWlhili7.atioA.,.
. Protection of the edges or "ecotones" associated with the different systems are important
to natural function and Clearwater's qualitf of life.
22.3.1 Prohibit destruction and disturbance of all conservation land uses to protect wildlife
and plants especially those that..are..threatened or.endangered species. This policy shall
not preclude known, professional wildlife management and habitat restoration techniques.
22.3.2 Limit alteration ofall urban forests utili7.ing the.C1earwater Tree Protection Ordinance;
protect natural and mitigated wetlands, marine life, shore vegetation, and wildlife
habitat in the City from disturbance and.destruction.
22.4.7 To protect the urban forest from destruction or disturbance due to inappropriate
proximity to incompatible land usa through. the site plan review process.
22.5.1 Wetlands shall not be dredged and filled or disturbed in any manner other than by
natural phenomenon and their natural fundion~ Ih.1I be protected, except through
mitigation standards as developed by the City.
22.5.3 Protect and prevent disturbance of any natural. wetland areas whether publicly or
privately owned, by utilizing assessments and authority provided by the Department of
Environmental regulation, the Southwe.st.Elorida Water Management District, and the City
Environmental Management Group of the Public Works Department.
69
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I;
"
I
I
iJ
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
22.5.4 To protect all mangrove species from disturbance and/or destruction and to provide
public awareness of mangrove resources and their importance and value to the food
chain of marine life through the strict enforcement of the City tree protection ordinance.
22. 7.1 ~ecognize the importance and functions of Clearwater's's natural ecosystems and
. ecotones as an integral component of Oearwater's urban environment.
The Conservation Lands Map as included in the Conservation Element of the Plan clearly shows
the mangrove fringe of the Causeway to be included as a Conservation Area.
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
- The Tampa Bay Regional Policy Plan (TBRPP) identifies the waters adjacent to the Causeway
as a Regionally Significant Resource.
- The map is unclear and mayor may notj~ theR specific mangroves as a Regionally
Significant Resource. The map may be irrelevant because the text lists ''Mangrove Forests" as a
Regionally Significant Resource.
The following are excerpts of the TBRPP. Emphasis has been added.
4.5.1 Protect, preserve, and restore all regionallJ-~igJIifi{"~nt natural resources shown on the
Map of Regionally-Significant Natural Resources.
4.5.2 Impacts to regionally-significant.natural re~llrces shall be allowed only in cases of
overriding public interest and when it is demonstrated and/or documented that the
mitigation will successfully recreate the.specific resource. Mitigation should meet the
following minimum ratios:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Intertidal habitats
Coastal Strand and Barrier Islands
Open water marine and estuarine hahitats
Beaches
Riverine hahitats
Lake habitats
Special habitats
3: 1
3: 1
4:1
2:1
3: 1
3:1
2:1
4.5.10 Maintain a minimum horizontal buffer necessary to preserve the natural value and
function of the regionally significant nahlral resource.
4.6.1 Implement strategies to protect existing mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass beds, and
improve water quality and other natural mArine, estuarine and intertidal habitats.
4.6.2 Protect and, where appropriate manage, estuarine, marine and intertidal resources
to prevent immediate and future degradAtion ~ to development practices, pollution,
and recreation.
4.6.3 Restore sustainable productivity of marine and estuarine fisheries habitat and other
aquatic resources through protection and management.
4.6.4 Manage the region's natural coastal marine.andestuarine habitats to provide for
preservation and/or restoration where appropriate.
4.9.2 Implement strategies to protect bear.hes) dune systems, and other natural coastal habitats
70
"'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
from the adverse effects of development and recreational use.
4.9.4 Implement coastal management strategies to ensure that maximum long term
sustainable ecological benefits are attained.
4.10.7 Buffer zones or other appropriate protection shall be established between Aquatic
Preserves and adjacent uses to prevent degradation of water quality, shoreline, marine
and estuarine habitats.
4.11.1 Promote the principles of ecosystem m.lln.RI~ment for the protection of regionally
significant natural resources.
4.11.10 Plan park and recreational facilitie~ and the acquisition of open space and facilities
for future recreational uSe:; ~u include protection of environmental and natural
resources, energy efficiency, water conservation, and the orderly extension and
expansion of compatible public facilities and services.
71
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I,
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
_I'
APPENDIX 7
Noise Report
Noise Report
1-14-99 data
On January 14, 1999, noise reaclings were taken at various locations along the Memorial
CAuseway. Readings were taken over: ~",ur hour period in order tv capture most traffic
conditions and to develop reasonable averages, peaks,. and low readings. Standard decibel
recording methods were used.
Readings were taken at several locations in order to establish ambient levels, traffic source
levels, distance attenuation, and vegetative attenuation. Readings taken along the edge of the
pavement were highest and most variable. Noise levels rose and fell quickly as different types of
motor vehicles passed the monitoring point. Levels only fell below 70 when there was no traffic
on the road within approximately SO yards.
Noise attenuation is effected by two co-factors: Distance from the source and physical
structures which disrupt noise transmission through. the atmosphere. In the first instance, losses
are due primarily to the energetics associated with compression waves. In the second instance,
the compression waves are partially disrupted by passing through foliage. Both of these factors
will affect sound differently dependant upon the initial amplitude and frequency of the sound.
Typically lower frequency sound will travel further than higher frequency sound. The amplitude
of the compression wave is also a factor and high compression ratio sound waves (high amplitude:
e.g. backfire) will often travel farther than low compression ratio waves.
Examination of the data leads to the conclusion that the affect of distance was significant
after only 12 yards. The data indicate that the most dramatic effect was not the overall
attenuation but the lowering of the bottom end of the range of readings. This may be interpreted
as being quieter when there is little traffic but not much quieter when there is a lot of traffic. The
impact to the habitat resident is that it is generally quieter for a longer period of time, but when it
is loud it is nearly as loud as it is at the roadside.
Vegetation attenuates noise pursuant to the thickness of the vegetation and the physical
structurt: of the plants. The oleander attenuated a significant level of noise even when close to the
"""'dside because the plant has thickly nllll"..ed leaves. Mangrove~ "'1 the other hand, have fewer
leaves per unit volume of space occupied by the plant and attenuates less sound. The combination
of vegetation and distance was most effective at reducing noise levels. Readings were also taken
on the water side of the mangroves to determine ambient over water noise from waves on the
shore.
What is noteworthy is that even a modest amount of vegetation in combination with only
20 yards (mol) of distance attenuation, is sufficient to reduce peak levels to near ambient
conditions. It is also important to note that.the attenuation does not make the noise less
detectable by man or fauna, but makes it less of a shock. The attenuation therefore does not
eliminate the sound of the road itself but can eliminate th~ disruption associated with the intensity
72
File: Delta Seven Ine memcwy28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
il
of the sound.
The attenuation of the peak sound levels is relevant to disruption as it reduces the overall
noise. The attenuation oflow end sound, however, may be even more significant. This latter
attenuation means that the frequency of disturbance is lowered. A seagull may emit a cry as loud
as 75 db. One gull crying periodically is typically not considered disturbing whereas a flock
emitting a more or less constant frequency of cries is irritating even though the actual noise levels
may retain the same peak values.
Cumulative Average of Low I Average of High "Z:1d Range
Average of all Readings Readings Points
readings
Road side 79.15 70 SJ- <70- 20
>90
12 yds clear 67 64 72 60-75 15
18 yds clear 61 <60-76 16
45 yds clear 62 59 69 57-73 16
18 yds + 20 ft of 61 57 66 55-68 13
mangrove
18 yds + 10 ftof 59 57 66 One 9
mangrove Set
10yds+ 62 6-2 6-3 ORe 1
Oleander set
45yds + 2frftof 55 53 59 One 6
mangrove Set
78yds + I 55-60. 5
mangrove
Open Water 60 57 64 54-65 11
End Points 55-79.25 53 83 53->90 >37
CONCLUSION: Thick vegetation in combination with distance has the greatest effect on noise
level reUuction.
APPLICATION: The mangrove habitat aPd it's associated wildlife usage may be improved by the
thick placement of upland plants between the mangroves and the road. Such planting should be
given mitigative credit as an enhancement to an impaired site.
73
File: DeJ1a Sevm Ine mancwy28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I:
, ,
PINELLAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
512 S. FT. HARRISON AVENUE
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756
COMMISSIONERS
PHONE: (813) 464-4761
FAX: (813) 464.4103
BARBARA SHEEN TODD - CHAIRMAN
STEVE SEIBERT - VICE CHAIRMAN
CALVIN D. HARRIS .
SALLIE PARKS
ROBERT B. STEWART
September 18, 1998
Delta Seven
Mr. Thomas R. Cuba. Ph. D.
P.O. Box 3241
St. Petersburg, FL 33731
RE: Mangrove Trimming Rules and Guidance
Dear Tom:
This letter is in response to the questions you have regarding the Mangrove Trimming and
Preservation Act (the Act.) I apologize for the delay in responding, but we had not dealt with
any of these issues you are inquiring about since the Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) received delegation from the Department of Environmental Protection in 1996. Your
questions and the answers to them are as follows:
1. "What recourse (a,ppeal) is available to a mangrove trimming permit applicant should a
request to trim and/or alter mangroves be denied?" Any appeal of a permit denied by Pinellas
County DEM will be addressed in Section 403.9327 (5), Florida Statutes (1997), which specifies
that review of permit denials are subject to Chapter 120.
2. "What variance opportunities exist and how is an application for a variance initiated?"
Variances are referred to in Section 403.933, Florida Statutes (1997) and have been incorporated
into the Pinellas County Land Development Code at Section 166-1 04.:Ibat section states that
the delegated local government may grant a variance from the provisions of the Act if
compliance therewith would impose a unique and unnecessary hardship on the owner or any
other person in control of the affected oroperty. Relief may be granted upon demonstration that
such hardship is not self-imposed and that the grant of the variance Will be consistent with the
general intent and purpose of the Act. The delegated local government may grant variances as it
deems appropriate. Thus, Pinellas County, as a delegated local government, has been granted a
great deal of latitude in granting or denying any request for a variance to the terms of the Act.
.Pinellas County is an Equal Opportunity Employer" · Member-Pinellas Partnership for a Drug FreeWorkplace 0 printed on recycled paper
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
Page -2-
Mangrove Trimming Rules and Guidance
Continued
The Department of Environmental Management has not yet seen an application for a variance to
the terms of the Act. However, any application would need to state, along with all necessary
general information, what Section of the Act it is seeking a variance from, what unique or
unnecess?ry hardship would be imposed on tne owner by a strict application of the terms of the
Act, and a demonstration that such hardship is not self-imposed.
3. "Does the habitat mana~ement criteria of Pinellas County Land Development Code Chapter
166. Article 2 ap,ply for criteria for issuance of a man~ove trimmin~ permit?" Although the Act
has been incorporated into the Pinellas County Land Development Code, it is not the intent of
the County to impose stricter criteria than that already set out in the Act itself. This intent is
expressed in Section 166-102, which states that ''the regulation of mangrove protection under this
division is intended to be complete and effective without reference to or compliance with other
statutory or code provisions". Based upon this, the habitat management criteria of Chapter 166,
Article 2 does not apply to the mangrove trimming requirements; therefore, the only criteria the
County will use in acting upon an application to trim mangroves will be those criteria set forth in
the Act. Of course, the County's delegation agreements as well as Section 403.9324 (6), Florida
Statutes (1997), allows for the imposition of more stringent criteria by the County, so that is
always an option in the future.
If you have any questions or need further clarification on these issues, please call me at 464-
4761.
I S~c~r~IY,. C\-
\)J ~(--lvA. . ~
William M. Davis, Director
Department of Environmental Management
Encl: 1
I:\USERS\WPDOCS\ENF\LMC\MANG.CUB
'~l \~V~
I Florida
11011 GRAHAM
COYERNOR
-
JlIL J _ /.j;JJ
1...'1;
Department
of
Transportation'
P'AUL H. P'AP'P'A.
.I:C,.nA,.v
I
I
I
I~
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
Post Office Box 1249
Bartow ,p.Flot'~1Cta-3 3830-1249
(~ July 11, 19.~.J._----<
Mr. Keith Crawford
Traffic Engineer
City of Clearwater
P. OL Box 4748
Clearwater, Florida
335i8
RE:
Section 15220, SR 60
Memorial Causeway
Dear Mr. Crawford:
Per your meeting with members of the traffic operations staff on June 30,
1983, we are in the process of preparing the necessary documentation to
prohibit parking within twenty feet (20 ft.) of the pavement on the above
referenced section of roadway, from M.P. 0.305 (east end of Br. No. 43)
to M.P. 1.959 (AlL 19).
Based on our right~~f-way information and information provided to us by the
City and the County, the causeway is owned by the City of Clearwater. .
Therefore, our jurisdictional responsibility is limited to the area required
for maintenance of the roadway and shoulder.
If the City decides to proceed with formally recording a portion of the
Causeway area as Florida Department of Transportation right-of-way, wer~quest
that the area recorded be specified as a 130 ft. total ~idth along centerline
of existing roadway. This will allow sufficient right-of-way to pro~ide for
the six lane divided section proposed for the year 2000.
If you have any questions or we may be of further assistance, please advise.
;1~PiIt 00 Uc4-
I
I'
I
cc:
Mr. A. L.
Mr. L. M.
Mr. James
I
Shoemaker
Courtney
G. Kennedy
C. W. Monts De Dca, P.E.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
CWM: j h
r
Ir.", ~~l-I~
I"
DATE
I
I FROM
COPI ES TO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
SUBJECT
I
I
I:
March 15, 1988
MEMORANDUM
Slale of Florida Departmenl of Transportalion
Tampa
TO
John Corum, Pinellas Maintenance, Permits
Harvey Hunt, Assistant District Maintenance Engineer~
Island Estates Landscaped Entrance Sign
Section 15220. SR 60. H.P. 0.690
As per our telephone conversations, I am returning the permit
applicatio~ pa:kage for the above named project.
As we discussed, the proposed work appears to be outside our
jurisdictional limits for this roadway. According to our records, the
1,200 feet Memorial Causeway R/W is not owned by the S~ate. I have
attached July II, 1983 letters from Mr. ~onts De Oca and Mr. Lott that
outline our responsibilities on this roadway.
As the proposed signs appear to be outside our maintenance limits (20
f~et from edge of pavement) and would be outside the required clear zone
for this roadway (18 feet from edge of travel lane, 14 feet from edge of
auxiliary lane), we do not feel that the FOOT can legally issue a permit
for the proposed work.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
HAH: jay
Attachments
" respc>nse is required. please use reverse side
~AVt~ "M)N~V
I
I
I
I
I
I.
t
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
APPENDIX 10
Salient excerpts ofCh 403.9322, LoF "Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act."
Emphasis added.
403.9322(1) The Legislature finds that there are over 555,000 acres of mangroves now existing
in Florida. Of this total, over 80 percent are under some form of government or
private ownership or control and are expressly set aside for preservation and
conservation purposes.
403.9323(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that no trimming or alteration of mangroves
may be permitted on uninhabited islands which are publicly owned or on lands set
aside for conservation and preservation, or mitigation, except where necessary to
protect the public health safety, and welfare, or to enhance the public use of, or
access to, conservation areas in accordance with approved management plans.
403.9325(6) "Public lands set aside for conservation or preservation" meanS: (I) Public lands
designated as conservation or preservation under a local government
comprehensive plan;
403.9325(7) ''Riparian mangrove fringe"...does not include mangroves on ... public lands that
have been set aside for conservation or preservation....
403.9328(2)(a}
The department, when deciding to issue or deny a permit for mangrove
alteration or trimming under this section, shall use the criteria in section
373.414(1) and (8).
78
File: Della Seven Ine memcwy28
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 11
Tinney Creek permit as a precedent
Tinney Creek Permit
Permit # 3.97.259M received 3-20-97. This permit is for the removal mangroves to create a 50'
wide clear zone in the creek and an additional unspecified width of topping and hedging for
unstated reasons, perhaps for maintenance access. The stated need is to provide for adequate
drainage. The application does not contain figures for the acres proposed for trimming. Fee was
waived.
FS 403.9323(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that no trimming or alteration of
mangroves may be permitted on uninhabited islands which are publicly owned or
on lands set aside for conservation and preservation, or mitigation, except where
necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, or to enhance public
use of, or access to, conservation areas in accordance with approved
management plans.
In the Tinney Creek case a permit was issued on lands set aside as conservation or preservation
but the lands were privately held.
In the quote from the statute above, the critical interpretative point is on the word "or" in line 2.
The qualifier of public lands occurs prior to the "or" and the conservation lands occurs after the
"or." This indicates that both public and private lands in preservation or conservation should be
restricted from trimming activities. If this argument is supportable, the Tinney Creek permit sets
precedent relevant to the Causeway project. If the county argument that the lands must be in
public ownership is supported then the Tinney Creek permit does not set precedent. Regardless
of precedent, the intent clearly opposes the trimmina of the mangroves on the causeway.
The county, however, has stated that they will not accept past permitting as precedent to loosen
the prohibition.
79
File: Delta Seven IDe mancwy28
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
, I
I
APPENDIX 12
Excerpts from Chapter 373.414
Public Interest
373.414 Additional criteria for activities in surface waters and wetlands.--
(1) As part of an applicant's demonstration that an activity regulated under this part will not be
harmful to the water resources or will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the
district, the governing board or the department shall reQ!1ire the apQlicant to provide reasonable
assurance that state water quality standards applicable to waters as defined in s. 403.031 (13) will
not be violated and reasonable assurance that such activity in, on, or over surface waters or
wetlands, as delineated in s. 373.421(1), is not contrary to the public interest. However, if such an
activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding , Florida Water, as provided by
department rule, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will
be clearly in the public interest.
(a) In determining whether an activity, which is in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, as
delineated in s. 373.421(1), and is regulated under this part, is not contrary to the public interest
or is clearly in the public interest, the governing board or the department shall consider and
balance the following criteria:
1. Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of
others;
2. Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation offish and wildlife, including
endangered or threatened species, or their habitats;
3. Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful
erosion or shoaling;
4. Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine
productivity in the vicinity of the activity;
5. Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature;
6. 'Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and
archaeological resources under the provisions ofs. 267.061; and
7. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the
proposed activity.
(b) If the applicant is unable to otherwise meet the criteria set forth in this subsection, the
governing board or the department, in deciding to grant or deny a permit, shall consider measures
proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the
regulated activity. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, onsite mitigation, off site
80
File: Deha Seven Ine memcwy28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
mitigation, off site regional mitigation, and the purchase of mitigation credits from mitigation
banks permitted under s. 373.4136. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to choose the
form of mitigation. The mitigation must offset the adverse effects caused by the regulated activity.
81
File: Deha Seven IDe mc:mcwy28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 13
Excerpts from Chapter 373.414(8)
Cumulative Impact Criteria
(8) The governing board or the departmer+ :n deciding whether to grant or deny a permit fnr ~'1
activity regulated under this part shall consider the cumulative impacts upon surface water and
wetlands, as delineated in s. 373.421(1), within the same drainage basin as defined in s.
373.403(9), of
( a) The activity for which the permit is sought.
(b) Projects which are existing or activities reIDliated under this part which are under construction
or projects for which permits or determinations pursuant to s. 373.421 or Is. 403.914 have been
sought.
(c) Activities which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other
activities regulated under this part which may reasonably be expected to be located within surface
waters or wetlands, as delineated in s. 373.421(1}, in the same drainage basin as defined in
s. 373.403(9), based upon the comprehensive plans, adopted pursuant to chapter 163, of the local
governments having jurisdiction over the activities, or applicable land use restrictions and
regulations.
82
File: Delta Seven Ine mancwy28