Planning board upholds staff decision to rescind stop-work order for dock at 3411 West 15th Street; petitioners plan DEP appeal

The Panama City Planning Board on July 14 voted 5–0 to affirm city staff’s May 23 decision to rescind a stop-work order on construction of a dock at 3411 West 15th Street, allowing the owner to continue work pending the outcome of an administrative appeal to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

City staffer Michael Fuller opened the record and summarized the administrative review that led to his decision to rescind the stop-work order. He cited the Unified Land Development Code provision requiring that a dock “shall not impede the flow of water, nor navigation,” and told the board the applicant had provided updated plans showing the constructed dock extends 246 feet rather than the 260 feet shown on earlier drawings. “Based on this, we had no other reason or justification to leave the stop‑work order in place,” Fuller said, and he offered to answer board questions about ULDC §110-4(g) and other permitting checks.

Four petitioners opposed the rescission and presented evidence: Joe Popsall (petition filing/affected party), Captain Joe Popsall (same speaker), Captain James Pick, Sterling Anderson, Nick Trudell and others who described repeated use of the Lake Huntington channel and testified that the newly constructed dock impedes navigation under certain wind and tide conditions. Petitioners said the permit application drawings submitted to DEP and to the city were inaccurate, that construction had been staged with moved channel markers, and that parts of the boathouse were constructed inside submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrass). “We maintain that the dock has been constructed in the entrance and exit channel for Lake Huntington,” Joe Popsall told the board, and petitioners said they have an administrative hearing on the DEP permit pending in September.

Petitioners produced sworn testimony from three U.S. Coast Guard‑licensed captains who said they regularly transit the channel and that, under some conditions, the dock would impede navigation. Captain James Pick described long experience in the channel and said that winter low tides combined with wind can force vessels into the deepest portion of the channel; he said the dock’s placement could require vessels to plane to avoid grounding during some tides.

The dock owner, David Bowers of Nest Egg Strategies, and his contractor presented surveys, DEP and city permits, and aerial imagery. Bowers said the project had DEP and city permits, that his consultants performed seagrass and boundary surveys and that the structure was built consistent with the permits. “We have a permit that's active with the FDEP,” Bowers told the board, and he said he and his team had worked with DEP and city staff during construction. He also played video footage and photos showing boats transiting past the boathouse and said there remained clearance for navigation.

Environmental consultant Bethany Womack of Cypress Environmental testified that the DEP general permit used for the project prohibits mooring structures over seagrass and that, if DEP’s administrative hearing finds the general permit was issued based on incorrect information about seagrass location, DEP could rescind the permit and require a different, more scrutinized permitting route that would have required U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review. Womack said that under the DEP general-permit rules a roofed boathouse is not permitted over seagrass.

Board members questioned staff and the parties about survey methods, whether the city had performed a depth survey during winter low tides, and whether an as‑built survey had been filed with the city; Fuller said the city had not received an as‑built survey, and code compliance had used a police boat depth sounder for a site check in May. Counsel explained the limited scope of the board’s review: the board’s job was to decide whether staff’s rescission of the stop‑work order was correct on the land‑development criteria before the board, not to make final determinations under DEP jurisdiction.

After rebuttal from the petitioners and the owner, board members discussed the record and whether DEP’s pending appeal meant the board should defer. Ultimately the board voted to affirm Fuller's rescission of the stop‑work order, with members saying the DEP appeal and an as‑built determination could be dispositive in the coming months but were not determinations the board could resolve at the hearing. The chairman noted that a written order affirming the board’s action would be prepared and that parties would have 30 days to appeal the board’s decision to circuit court.

Petitioners said they will pursue the scheduled DEP administrative hearing in September and indicated they may seek legal remedies if DEP rescinds the general permit; staff and the owner said they will comply with any requirements from DEP or the city and noted that continued work is at the owner’s risk if later found out of compliance.

Recorded roll-call votes on the motion to affirm Fuller's action were: Board Member Carroll — yes; Board Member Stamps — yes; Board Member Barker — yes; Board Member Rich — yes; Chairman DuBauer — yes. The motion carried 5–0.