STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MATTIE CRAWFORD, d/b/a FRIENDSHIP HAVEN,

Petitioner,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

) Case No. 01-4259

)

)

)

)

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing was held in this case on January 11, 2002, in Gainesville, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its Administrative Law Judge, Suzanne F. Hood.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Samuel Mutch, Esquire

Mutch & Brigham, P.A.

2114 Northwest 40th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32605

For Respondent: Lucy Goddard, Esquire

Department of Children and Family Services

Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner a standard developmental disability group home license because her facility

is a "mobile home" as defined in Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated September 18, 2001, Respondent Department of Children and Family Services (Respondent) advised Petitioner Mattie Crawford d/b/a Friendship Haven (Petitioner) that her application for a standard developmental disability group home license was denied. Petitioner requested a formal hearing on October 18, 2001.

On October 31, 2001, Respondent referred the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Notice of Hearing dated November 19, 2001, scheduled the case for formal hearing on January 11, 2002.

The parties filed a Pre-Hearing Stipulation on January 8, 2002.

Petitioner testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of three witnesses. She offered three exhibits, which were accepted into evidence.

Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses.

Respondent offered three exhibits, which were accepted into evidence.

The parties did not file a copy of the hearing transcript. Respondent filed its Proposed Recommended Order on January 30,

2002. Petitioner filed her Proposed Recommended Order on January 31, 2002.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner decided that she wanted to operate a group home for developmentally disabled clients. She wanted to locate the home on property that she owns at 630 South East 10th Street, Williston, Florida.

2. Petitioner conferred with Respondent's staff before deciding whether to construct a site-built home or an off-site built home on the property. Respondent's licensing specialist referred Petitioner to Respondent's fire inspector.

3. Respondent's fire inspector recommended that Petitioner consider using a Palm Harbor Home with certain improvements to the windows, floors, and roof. Specifically, the improvement included special strengthened roofing, special strengthened flooring, wallboard rather than plastic walls, fire alarms and detectors in every room, as well as wider windows.

4. Petitioner decided to buy a four-bedroom/two-bath unit with over 2,000 square feet from Palm Harbor Homes. The home was manufactured by Palm Harbor Homes at its Plant City, Florida, factory in 2001. Each section of the home had a seal certifying that it was built in compliance with the Federated Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard Act. With the upgrades that Petitioner requested, the home cost Petitioner

   approximately $80,000. The home complies with or exceeds the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development standards.

5. Petitioner took the house plans and pictures of the home to Respondent's licensing specialist who approved the home. The supervisor of the licensing specialist concurred because he was under the impression that the home was a "Jim Walter-type" modular home that met the criteria for group homes.

6. Petitioner's fire inspector also approved the home.

   
   

   The fire inspector concluded that the home meets the high standards of the 2001 Fire Protection Code.

7. In the meantime, Petitioner followed through with completing the paperwork for her application. Petitioner, with the help of Respondent's staff, proceeded to develop the required budget and paperwork for a Medicaid waiver.

8. Petitioner's licensing specialist and fire inspector approved Petitioner's home, finding that it was suitable as a group home. Respondent granted Petitioner a conditional license on June 1, 2001. This license allowed Petitioner to operate for six months. In July 2001, Petitioner's first client moved in the home. Petitioner received several more client referrals.

9. In September 2001, a second licensing specialist inspected Petitioner's group home. The second licensing specialist, who was not involved in issuing Petitioner's

   conditional license, conducted the routine inspection in anticipation of Petitioner receiving a standard developmentally disabled group home license. The licensing specialist concluded that the home was in fact a "mobile home," which cannot qualify as an approved structure for a group home.

10. The licensing specialist took pictures of the home and of the State of Florida Installation Certification Label attached to the home. This label certifies as follows:

    [T]hat the installation of this mobile home to be in accordance with Florida Statutes 320.8249, 320.8325 and Rules of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Bureau of Mobile Home and Recreational Vehicle Construction.

    
    

11. Respondent's staff sought clarification from Respondent's headquarters regarding the status of Petitioner's home. By letter dated September 18, 2001, Respondent advised Petitioner that "mobile homes" as defined by Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes, shall not be used for group home facilities.

12. Respondent did not issue a standard license to the Petitioner. Petitioner's home, although a very high quality "manufactured home," still is a type of mobile home under Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's home meets all other licensing standards for developmental disability group homes except for the standard at issue in this case.

13. On or about December 20, 2001, Respondent's district office staff requested a one-year waiver for Petitioner's group

    home. The written request indicates that Respondent's staff intended to seek a waiver for this home annually until a proposed rule allowing licensing of manufactured homes was promulgated.

14. Respondent granted Petitioner the waiver on or about January 8, 2001. The waiver is valid through the 2002 licensure period. However, there is no guarantee that the Department headquarters will always grant the waiver.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

15. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

16. The Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that her group home facility is not a "mobile home" as defined in Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes, and therefore, is not precluded from licensure by Rule

    65B-6.010(6), Florida Administrative Code. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

17. Rule 65B-6.010(6), Florida Administrative Code, states, in pertinent part as follows:

    (6) Facility and Site Requirements.

    1. The facility shall be located, equipped, and designed to assure safe care and supervision for all clients to enable them to utilize the surrounding community

       resources necessary to meet their needs. Mobile homes, as defined by Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes, shall not be utilized for group home facilities.

       
       

18. Sections 320.01(2)(a) and 320.01(b), Florida Statutes, state as follows:

    (2)(a) "Mobile home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is 8 body feet or more in width and which is built on an integral chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling when connected to the required utilities and includes the plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein. For tax purposes, the length of a mobile home is the distance from the exterior of the wall nearest to the drawbar and coupling mechanism to the exterior of the wall at the opposite end of the home where such walls enclose living or other interior space.

    Such distance includes expandable rooms, but excludes bay windows, porches, drawbars, couplings, hitches, wall and roof extensions, or other attachments that do not enclose interior space. In the event that the mobile home owner has no proof of the length of the drawbar, coupling, or hitch, then the tax collector may in his or her discretion either inspect the home to determine the actual length or may assume

    4 feet to be the length of the drawbar, coupling, or hitch.

    
    

    1. "Manufactured home" means a mobile home fabricated on or after June 15, 1976, in an offsite manufacturing facility for installation or assembly at the building site, with each section bearing a seal certifying that it is built in compliance with the federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standard Act.

19. Petitioner's group home is a "manufactured home" as defined by Section 320.01(2)(b), Florida Statutes, because it meets or exceeds the standards set forth in the definition.

20. Although the Petitioner's "manufactured home" meets higher standards, it is still a "mobile home" as defined in Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes.

21. The Department properly applied Rule 65B-6.010(6), Florida Administrative Code, when it ruled that Petitioner could not be issued a standard developmental disability group home license for her "manufactured home" because it is a type of "mobile home" as defined in Section 320.01(2), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner a standard developmental disability group home license.

DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

SUZANNE F. HOOD

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2002.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Samuel Mutch, Esquire Mutch & Brigham, P.A.

2114 Northwest 40th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32605

Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and

Family Services

Post Office Box 390, Mail Stop 3 Gainesville, Florida 32602

Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and

Family Services

1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and

Family Services

1317 Winewood Boulevard

Building 2, Room 204

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 01-004259

Orders for Case No: 01-004259