Planning board upholds staff decision to lift stop-work order for 3411 W. 15th dock; neighbors plan DEP appeal

After more than an hour of testimony from boat captains, residents, an environmental consultant and the dock owner, the City of Panama City Planning Board voted 5-0 on July 14 to affirm the city’s decision to rescind a stop-work order for a dock at 3411 West Fifteenth Street (case CPCPLN20250786).

The appeal challenged the planning division’s May 23 decision to lift a May 15 stop-work order. Planning Division staff said the stop-work order had been issued because of concerns the dock “may impede navigation” and “may not be constructed in conformance with the approved plans.” In the notice staff also cited the Unified Land Development Code requirement that “the dock structure shall not impede the flow of water nor navigation,” language City staff and petitioners discussed during the hearing.

Petitioners — including longtime Lake Huntington boaters and three licensed captains — told the board the dock blocks or narrows the lake’s working channel in certain weather or low-tide conditions and that parts of the boathouse and mooring area are constructed over submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrass). “We maintain that the dock has been constructed in the entrance and exit channel for Lake Huntington,” petitioner Joe Pospisal told the board while showing permit drawings and aerial images he said were inconsistent with the as-built dock. Petitioners also said PVC channel markers had been moved during construction in a way that made the structure appear outside the channel.

Environmental consultant Bethany Womack, who performed seagrass studies in the area for other projects, told the board the DEP permit issued to the docktee was a state general permit and that “the general permit specifically prohibits the issuance of a general permit for any mooring areas over grass beds.” Womack said that if DEP had been provided accurate drawings showing mooring areas over seagrass, the agency would have required a more extensive, individual permit and likely Army Corps review; she said DEP would not allow a roof to be constructed over seagrass under the general-permit process.

Dock owner David Bowers told the board his company followed the permitting process, submitted seagrass and boundary surveys and invited DEP to inspect; he said DEP staff came to the site and told project representatives they were in compliance. Bowers said his contractors reduced the project length after permitting and that the structure as built extends about 246 feet, not the 260 feet shown on earlier drawings. He also displayed videos and images intended to show boats transiting the area without grounding or scarring on typical summer tides.

Planning Division chief Michael Fuller told the board he rescinded the stop-work order after reviewing updated plans and additional submitted material that, in his view, showed the dock did not impede navigation and otherwise complied with section 110-4(g) of the Unified Land Development Code. Fuller said the updated drawings showed a 246-foot dock footprint rather than the previously shown 260 feet, and he noted there appeared to be “sufficient space — over 50 feet” — for navigation past the structure toward the dredged channel.

Petitioners said the record leaves open substantial factual questions and pointed to an administrative hearing they have scheduled with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in September to contest the DEP permit, which they said was issued based on inaccurate application drawings. Petitioners argued that if DEP concludes the general permit was improperly issued, the dock could be found to be out of compliance with permitting requirements that the city code incorporates.

After hearing testimony and evidence from both sides, four petitioners and the applicant, the planning board said it could not substitute its own technical review for the state agency’s pending process and that the evidence presented at the hearing did not include a documented winter low-tide navigation incident demonstrating the claimed obstruction. The board therefore affirmed Fuller’s rescission of the stop-work order. The board chair said he would prepare a written order reflecting the board’s decision; the order will be signed and will trigger the 30-day window for any appeal to circuit court.

Petitioners indicated they will pursue their scheduled DEP administrative hearing in September; DEP’s outcome could affect the city’s enforcement options if the state action finds permit irregularities. The board’s decision affirms staff’s administrative finding but does not preclude separate enforcement actions if another agency later determines the permits were issued in error.