The Issue Whether or not the sign, which is the subject of the Administrative Complaint herein, bears a state sign permit as required pursuant to Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. John Hudson is the owner of Everglades Tours. By copy of a Notice of Violation dated June 7, 1983, Respondent was notified that a sign advertising his business was not properly permitted in violation of Section 479.07(1), Florida Statutes. The sign in question was erected and is being maintained by the Respondent. It is located on the east side of S.W. 192 Avenue, 2 miles south of Palm Drive. The legend on the sign bears the copy "Airboat Ride - A Must to See the Glades." A review of the Petitioner's records reveals that there has been no sign permit issued for the subject sign and it is presently being maintained on a state road (State Road 27, also known as State Road 9336). (Testimony of William C. Kenney, III, Outdoor Advertising Manager for District IV) Respondent does not dispute the factual allegations set forth in the Notice of Violations issued herein. Respondent's position is, simply put, that he rented the subject space to erect his sign from private landowners; that the sign in question is not located in a state-owned right-of-way; that the signs are mobile (portable) and that while he applied for a permit with the Dade County Building and Zoning Department, he was there advised that he would need to seek a variance in order for the sign in question to be permitted. Respondent admits that the Petitioner has not issued a permit for the sign involved herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is herein recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, issue a Final Order requiring the removal of the sign in question by the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Peter P. Sedler, at all times material to the complaint, has been licensed as a real estate broker, holding license 0079017. He was last licensed as a broker c/o Marshall & Sedler, Inc., 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Marshall & Sedler, Inc., at all times relevant to the complaint, had been registered as a Florida real estate broker, holding license 0250511, its last licensed address was 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Peter P. Sedler was the qualifying broker and officer for Marshall & Sedler, Inc. On about July 3, 1987, Tom Teixeira was employed as a salesman by Cartier Realty, of 11852 42nd Road North, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Cartier Realty had solicited, through a direct mailing, listings for property in the Royal Palm Beach area. Ms. Mary Myers, an older woman of about 70 years of age, responded to the advertisement, and gave Mr. Teixeira an open listing for real property which she owned. While Mr. Teixeira placed a Cartier Realty "For Sale" sign on the property, the sign was somehow removed shortly thereafter, and no party dealing with Ms. Myers during the months of July, August and September of 1987 would have been placed on notice that Cartier Realty had any listing on the property. Mr. Sedler had nothing to do with the disappearance of the sign. Ms. Myers had originally acquired the property from her daughter. Long before Ms. Myers gave a listing to Cartier Realty, William Kemp and his wife Gina DiPace Kemp had told Ms. Myers that they were interested in purchasing the property, which is adjacent to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Kemp. When Mr. and Mrs. Kemp first contacted Ms. Myers, she had wanted to keep the property, in the belief that she might eventually convey it back to her daughter. Mr. Teixeira brought to Ms. Myers an offer from David R. and Maureen C. Rose to purchase the land for $11,900. Ms. Myers did not accept that offer, but the Roses accepted Ms. Myers' counteroffer on July 24, 1987, to sell it for $12,300. The sale was contingent upon the buyers obtaining financing; they applied for a loan, and ordered both an appraisal and a survey. The closing was to be held by September 1, 1987. (Contract, paragraph VI.) The closing date passed, without the buyers obtaining the necessary financing, so the contract was no longer effective. On about September 8, 1987, Mr. Teixeira attempted to contact Ms. Myers. He had obtained no written extension of the contract but hoped the sale might yet close. Ms. Myers told Teixeira that she was still willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose. In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Kemp became aware that Ms. Myers wanted to sell the property, because they noticed Mr. and Mrs. Rose coming to look at the land, and had engaged them in conversation. Ms. Kemp then contacted Ms. Myers to remind her that they were still willing to purchase the property, and also to say that they would offer more than the current offer on the property. On about September 11, 1987, Ms. Kemp contacted Cartier Realty to say that she also wished to make an offer on the Myers' lot. For a reason which was never adequately explained at the hearing, Teixeira, who should have been working on behalf of the seller, refused to take the offer, even though it was for a higher price. After this rebuff by Teixeira, Ms. Kemp contacted Marshall & Sedler, Inc., in order to try to find a broker who would convey their offer to Ms. Myers and spoke with Patricia Marshall, Ms. Marshall referred her to her partner, Peter Sedler. The Kemps told Sedler that Ms. Myers had told them that she had received a $9,000 offer on the lot. Why Ms. Myers told the Kemps that the Rose offer was $9,000 is not clear, for the actual offer had been $12,300, but Sedler did not know this. There was no listing of the lot in the local board of realtors multiple listing service book, and Mr. Sedler found the address of Ms. Myers through the public records. Mr. Sedler knew from his conversations with Ms. Kemp that Cartier Realty had some involvement with an offer on the property. He called Cartier Realty and tried to speak with the broker handling the matter. He spoke with a man named Tom, who he thought was a brother of the owner of Cartier Realty, Pete Cartier. Mr. Sedler actually talked with Tom Teixeira. Sedler believed he was dealt with rudely by Teixeira, who had hung up on him. Sedler then called Pete Cartier directly to find out whether there was an outstanding contract on the property, and Cartier told Sedler that he would call Sedler back. When Cartier called Sedler, Cartier warned Sedler that he should stay out of the deal. Mr. Sedler became suspicious about Cartier Realty's failure to bring a higher offer to the attention of the seller, and on September 16, 1987, filed a complaint against Tom Cartier with the Lake Worth Board of Realtors. Mr. Sedler then traveled to Pompano Beach to meet with Ms. Myers at her home, and brought with him a contract for sale and purchase of the property, already signed by the Kemps and dated September 14, 1987. While at the door, Ms. Myers asked Peter Sedler if he was "Tom." Ms. Myers knew that she had been dealing with a "Tom" at Cartier Realty, but all her dealings were on the phone, and she did not know what Tom Teixeira looked like. Sedler replied "Yes, but you can call me Pete." Sedler merely intended the comment as humor. At that time Sedler gave Ms. Myers his pink business card and specifically identified himself as Pete Sedler of Marshall & Sedler, Inc. Mr. Sedler asked Ms. Myers if she had any paperwork, such as the prior contract for the sale of the lot which had expired on September 1, 1987, but she did not. While Sedler was with Ms. Myers, she agreed to sell the property to the Kemps for $12,500 and signed the Kemp contract. The Kemps had put the purchase price of $12,500 into the Marshall & Sedler escrow account. Three days later, on September 18, 1987, Mr. Sedler, in the company of his wife Bonnie, presented a post-dated check to Ms. Myers in the amount of $11,020, the net amount due to Ms. Myers for the lot, based on the purchase price of $12,500. When they met this second time he introduced himself again as Pete Sedler and offered Ms. Myers his card for a second time. The post-dated check was conditioned by an endorsement making it good upon a determination that the title to the lot was good. A quit claim deed to Mr. and Mrs. Kemp was executed by Ms. Myers and witnessed by Bonnie Sedler. The post-dated check was given to Ms. Myers because she was about to leave on vacation. The check was given as a sort of security for good title, in return for the quit claim deed which closed the transaction. Mr. Sedler had structured the transaction in this way because he was concerned that someone at Cartier Realty might also attempt to purchase the property from Ms. Myers on behalf of one of their clients. At that time, Mr. Sedler held the reasonable belief that no other party had a subsisting contract to purchase the property from Ms. Myers. Sedler had no reason to believe the Roses would or could pay more for the property than the Kemps offered. Ms. Myers knew that Tom Teixeira from the Cartier realty firm represented a distinct business entity from Marshall & Sedler or Pete Sedler. After a title search showed that Ms. Myers had clear title to the property, the check which Mr. Sedler had given to Ms. Myers on September 18, 1987, with the restrictive endorsement was replaced. Later Mr. and Mrs. Rose tried to close their purchase, but found they could not. Ms. Myers had failed to inform them of the sale she made to the Kemps through Mr. Sedler. Mr. Teixeira, in retribution, filed an ethics complaint about Mr. Sedler with the West Palm Beach Board of Realtors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Peter P. Sedler and Marshall & Sedler, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6183 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding 1. 4 - 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Implicit in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 6. This does not mean that the contract subsisted, however. Rejected. Ms. Myers was willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose after the contract expired, but she was not under any obligation to do so. Adopted in Finding 7. Rejected, because there was no pending contract. Teixeira never obtained a written extension of the closing date and Ms. Myers was free to sell elsewhere. Rejected. No one could have truthfully told Sedler there was a pending contract. None existed. Rejected, because Mr. Sedler had no reason to believe that there was a subsisting contract for the sale of the property; there was none. Admission number 20 is not to the contrary. Adopted in Findings 10 and 11. Rejected. See, Findings 9 and 10. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected as cumulative to Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frank W. Weathers, Esquire Frank W. Weathers, P.A. Post Office Box 3967 Lantana, Florida 33465-3967 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Granada Lakes Development Corporation should be fined for alleged violations of the Florida Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact General Findings Pertaining to the Condominium Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium is located in Fort Myers, Florida. It consists of 151 units; about 70 have been sold. It was to be developed in three phases. Each Unit is a parcel upon which the purchaser may place a dwelling unit. Granada Lakes Development Corporation is the developer of the condominium. The declaration of condominium for Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium was recorded in the public records of Lee County on March 11, 1982. The Respondents did not include in the original declaration of condominium which submitted Phase I to condominium ownership the time period within which Phases II and III would be completed. The developer owned all condominium units during 1982. Sale contracts for the first units were executed in 1982. The first sales did not close until early 1983. No units have been offered for sale at the Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium for approximately eighteen months preceding the day of the hearing. Respondents ceased to be the developer of Granada Lakes RV Resort Condominium at the end of July 1985. Granada Lakes Development Corporation was involuntarily dissolved by the Department of State on about November 1, 1985. Distribution of Statements of Receipts and Expenses for 1983 and 1984 Morgan Lloyd closed the purchase of his unit in February 1983. He served as treasurer for the condominium association from February 1983 until approximately February 1984. Mr. Lloyd prepared a financial statement showing receipts and expenditures for the calendar year 1983. Although this statement is for calendar year 1983, the association's fiscal year for 1983 ended October 31, 1983. The statement of income and expenses for the year 1983 was prepared more than 60 days after the close of the fiscal year. The account balance was determined as of December 31, 1983, so the statement had to have been prepared after that date. It was distributed to unit owners at the first annual meeting of the unit owners, which occurred on February 23, 1984. (This disregards, for the moment, the unit owners meeting held by the developer when it was the sole owner of the units, see Finding of Fact 15, post.) The annual financial report of the association for, fiscal year 1984 was not distributed earlier than March 1985. Proposed Budgets for 1982 through 1984 Proposed annual budgets for the years 1982 and 1983 had been prepared by the developer and were distributed with the prospects for the condominium units. The proposed budget for 1982 (which was included in the prospectus) contained as line item 13 for operating expenses a reserve account for roof replacement, equipment replacement, building painting and pavement resurfacing. It called for an annual reserve funded by all 151 units of $3,415. Copies of the 1985 proposed annual budget of common expenses were mailed to unit owners 13 days prior to the meeting at which the 1985 budget was to be considered. Reserves After the developer began conveying out units in 1983, there was never a meeting of the condominium association at which the membership voted to waive or reduce the funding of reserves shown in the estimated budget in the prospectus of $1.88 per condominium unit per month. These reserve monies were placed in the reserve account quarterly as they were paid by unit owners. The developer did not pay any reserves in 1983 or 1984 for units owned by the developer because, in the developers view, those payments were not due under the resolution passed during the January 5, 1983 membership meeting of Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium Association, Inc. That meeting had been held at a time when the developer owned all of the units that made up the association. The meeting occurred after distribution of the prospectus, which disclosed the reserve account and showed all units contributing to the payment of common operating expenses, including reserves. That resolution states: the President of the Association then brought up for consideration the proposal by the developer, Granada Lakes Development Corporation, that it guarantee the maintenance fee during the two-year period commencing January 5, 1983. Upon a motion duly made and adopted, the Association agreed that in lieu of the developer paying its maintenance assessments on unsold units that the developer could and did agree to guarantee that for the two-year period stated above the maintenance fee charge to unit owners other than the developer would not exceed the [sic] $31.61 per month and that any shortage that might be incurred in the maintenance of the Association during such period shall be covered by the developer. Such agreement was accepted by all concerned, including the Development Corporation, which is as of the time of this meeting the sole unit owner in the Condominium. The matter of the reserves was also discussed and the Development Corporation, as sole unit owner, agreed with the association to the waiver of the funding of reserves for the same two year period. Based on the payment of $1.88 per unit per month the amount of money which should be in the reserve account from the date of recording of the declaration of condominium until the date the respondent was no longer the developer is $11,554. As of July 1985 the reserve account contained $3,227.35, having a deficit of $8,326.65. Since units began to be sold, there have been no withdrawals made from the reserve account. Mr. Sharp, the president of the developer, testified that he spent approximately the $2,400 for reserve-type expenses but had sought no reimbursement from the reserve account because he wanted the reserve account going. No receipts verifying such expenditures were introduced into evidence. This attempt to offset developer expenses against amounts the developer should have paid into the reserve account of the Association is rejected as unpersuasive. Association Records While he served as Association treasurer, Morgan Lloyd asked on several occasions to see the bills for Association expenses. Mr. Sharp would only tell him the amount of the association's bills, and refused to let Mr. Lloyd see the original bills.
Recommendation A civil penalty for each violation the condominium act, not to exceed $5,000.00 per offense may be imposed under section 718.501(1)(d)4., Florida Statutes (1983). The Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes may also take affirmative action to carry out the purposes of Chapter 718. Section 718.501(1)(3)2., Florida Statutes (1983). Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: For its multiple violations of the condominium act, Granada Lakes Development Corporation shall pay to the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes within thirty (30) days of the entry of a final order civil penalty in the total amount of $5,000.00 by certified check payable to the director of the Division. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a final order the developer shall pay to the Granada Lakes Adult RV Resort Condominium Association the sum of $8,276.65 representing its liability for reserves from the recording of the date of a. declaration of condominium through July 1985. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Robin H. Conner, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Norman A. Hartman, Esquire GOETZ & HARTMAN Post office Box 6844 Fort Myers, Florida 33911-6844 Granada Lakes Development Corporation C/O All America RV Sales U.S. 41 South Box 806S, Route 13 Fort Myers, Florida 33908 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-100 Thomas A. Bell, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner l(a). Covered in Finding of Fact 2. l(b). Covered in Finding of Fact 13. l(c). Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 2(a). Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 3(a). Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3(b). Sentence 1, covered in Finding of Fact 3. Sentence 2, covered in Finding of Fact 7. 3(c). Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 3(d). Rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. 3(e). Covered in Finding of Fact 9. 3(f). Covered in Finding of Fact 9. 3(g). Covered in Finding of Fact 10. 3(h). To the extent relevant, covered in Finding of Fact 5. The date on which witnesses moved into the condominium prior to the date they closed the purchases of their unit is irrelevant. 3(i). Rejected as recitations of testimony, not proposed findings of fact, also irrelevant. 3(j). Rejected as inconsistent with the evidence I find more credible, i.e., that an owners meeting was held by the developer on January 5, 1983. 3(k). Sentence 1, covered in Finding of Fact 11. Sentences 2 and 3, rejected as irrelevant. 3(1). Covered in Finding of Fact 18. 3(m). Generally rejected as a recitation of testimony, not a finding of fact. Covered, however, in Finding of Fact 14. 3(n). Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 3(o). Covered in Finding of Fact 15. 3(p). Covered in Finding of Fact 16. 3(q). Covered in Finding of Fact 17. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. No ruling necessary. 2(A). Evidence that meetings of unit owners were held in 1982 and 1983 have been accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 15. 2(B). Rejected because there is no evidence that for fiscal or calendar year 1982 the reserve requirement had been waived. The only evidence of any meeting of the condominium association in 1982, joint exhibit 5(a) does not show any waiver of reserve requirements for that year. It is inconceivable that the developer, at a meeting where it is the sole owner of all units, may waive reserve requirements when the budget distributed with the prospectus to potential purchasers shows reserves in the estimated operating budget it distributed. See joint exhibit 1. The resolution recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Condominium Association of January 5, 1983, which purports to waive funding of reserves for two years is ineffective for the reasons discussed in Conclusions of Law 7. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS AND MOBILE HOMES, Petitioner, DBR DOCKET NO. 85224MVC DOAH CASE NO. 85-4267 GRANADA LAKES DEVELOPMENT CORP., d/b/a GRANADA LAKES ADULT RV RESORT CONDOMINIUM, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At about 4:00 o'clock on the afternoon of May 8, 1979, petitioner's officers David William Shomers and Muriel Snipes Waldmann, entered respondent's place of business. At that time, Sherry Ann Armetto was behind the bar. When Officers Shomers and Waldmann asked Ms. Armetto for a meal she told them that the cook had not yet arrived. Officer Shomers and Officer Waldmann then each ordered a Scotch and soda, and both were served. At about 5:00 o'clock, the cook was still nowhere to he found. Officer Shomers counted the places available for people to sit down and eat, including seats in the bar, and determined that there were only 161 such places. Even though Ms. Armetto had worked for respondent as a bar tender for five or six months before the inspection on May 8, 1979, she had never been advised to refrain from selling alcoholic beverages when the kitchen was closed. She was so advised, however, after the events of May 8, 1979. Ricardo John Gutierrez had worked for the business four or four and one half years as of May of 1979. He was never told not to sell alcoholic beverages while meals were not sold. Petitioner initiated the present proceedings on or about July 3, 1979. In May of 1979, respondent Pete Rose Corporation held license number 16-790 SRX, an "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1970, THRU SEPTEMBER 30, 1979." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Respondent has not renewed the license since. As a condition of this beverage license, respondent was required to maintain at least 4,000 square feet, sufficient tables, chairs, china, other equipment and personnel to serve food to 200 persons, Officer Shomers testified.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause, thereby terminating these proceedings and allowing respondent's license to expire; and then cancel respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pete Rose Corporation d/b/a Fat Cats 2590 S. State Road 7 Miramar, Florida
The Issue Whether the sign which was located at the northwest corner of US #41 and State Road 862, 50 feet west from US #41 on Vanderbilt Road, with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" and "La Playa Motor Inn", found there on October 8, 1975, continuing through February 19, 1976 was in violation of the following: Chapter 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, which requires a permit for the erection of a sign. Chapter 478.07(7), Florida Statutes, which requires the name of owner or advertiser be affixed to the face of the sign structure. Chapter 479.02(2), Florida Statutes, which sets forth certain requirements of spacing.
Findings Of Fact At a time prior to October 8, 1975, Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, which trades as La Playa Motor Inn and is owned by P. M. Francoeur, sole owner and president, leased a sign from Richard O. Radenbaugh. This sign was located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of US #41 and State Road 862, 50 feet west from US #41 on Vanderbilt Road. Subsequent to the time that the sign was leased to the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, Richard O. Radenbaugh entered into a contract to sell the space and the sign to the Department of Transportation. The sale was effected and the sign was removed. P. M. Francoeur, as President and leaseholder on the sign was not told that the subject sign would be sold, prior to the negotiations and sale between Mr. Radenbaugh and the Department of Transportation. Consequently, the original sign with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" was removed without his knowledge; Mr. Francoeur went to a County Commissioners meeting in Collier County, Florida and Mr. Radenbaugh spoke with Mr. Francoeur at that time and promised to give him a vacant sign which had the copy "King Crown Inn". This sign was located immediately west of the "La Playa Motor Inn" former sign. Mr. Francoeur accepted that offer and caused workmen to go to the location and to remove the "King Crown Inn" sign and have it refurbished for purposes of installation at the general location of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. When this refurbishing and site location was accomplished, it left two signs in the area that originally had three signs. There was now, an unrelated sign and the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which had been constructed from the former "King Crown Inn" sign; as opposed to, the unrelated sign, the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which had been sold to the Department of Transportation and removed, and the "King Crown Inn" sign which was in the immediate area west of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. Mr. James A. Hachett, outdoor advertising inspector with the Department of Transportation, was aware that the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign had been sold and removed. When he went by the subject location after the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign had been sold and removed, he discovered that a new sign with the copy "La Playa Motor Inn" had been erected in the general area where the original "La Playa Motor Inn" had been located. He also noted that the "King Crown Inn" sign was no longer located in a position west of the space which had been occupied by the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. In addition, the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign was not in the exact location as the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. On a closer examination, Mr. Hachett discovered that there were three identifying permit tags affixed to the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. One tag was the permit tag from the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, and the other two tags were from the sign west of the location, which sign was the "King Crown Inn" sign. These former permit tags were affixed to each side of the double faced advertising sign. It was after this examination that the "La Playa Motor Inn", in the person of P. M. Francoeur was notified of the prospective violations as ultimately alleged in the October 8, 1975 complaint. Francoeur was notified by an alleged violation statement addressed to the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation, which owns "La Playa Motor Inn". As of February 19, 1976, at the time of the hearing, the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign which is in fact the refurbished structure which was the "King Crown Inn" sign, located west of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, is still standing in the general, but not exact position of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. Application for permit by the Seminole Vanderbilt Corporation t/a "La Playa Motor Inn" for the benefit of the copy, "La Playa Motor Inn" has not been applied for since the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign was sold to the Department of Transportation and removed. Application has been made for a renewal of the permit which is associated with the "King Crown Inn" sign which was refurbished and became the subsequent "La Playa Motor Inn" sign. In describing the location of the new "La Playa Motor Inn" sign, it is somewhere between the location of the original "La Playa Motor Inn" sign and the "King Crown Inn" sign, but not in the exact location of either of those original signs.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner afford the Respondent 30 days within which to remove the sign or take satisfactory steps to obtain a permit for the sign, after which time the Petitioner, in accordance with Chapter 335.13(2), Florida Statutes, shall cause such sign to be removed. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Mr. P. M. Francoeur, President Department of Transportation c/o La Playa Motor Inn 605 Suwannee Street 9091 Gulf Shore Drive Haydon Burns Building Naples, Florida 33940 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in connection with Petitioner’s employment by Respondent on the basis of his national origin.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Leneve Plaisime (“Plaisime”), whose country of origin is Haiti, was employed as a busboy and room service attendant at the Marriott Key Largo Bay Resort (“Marriott”)1 from 1995 to 1997. On September 13, 1997, upon returning to work after a vacation of several weeks, Plaisime was fired by a manager named Eric Sykas who said to him: “There is no job for you because the owner says he’s not interested in Haitians.”2 This statement was overheard by a co-worker of Plaisime’s named Fito Jean, who testified at the final hearing, corroborating Plaisime’s account.3 In around the middle of October 1997 (approximately one month after his discharge), Plaisime found a new job at Tak Security Corporation (“Tak”). Evidence introduced by Plaisime shows that he earned $7,862.52 at Marriott in 1997, which reflects an average monthly wage of about $925. Had he worked the entire year at Marriott, Plaisime would have earned a total of approximately $11,100. In contrast, working for Tak in 1998 Plaisime earned $11,396 (or approximately $950 per month)——a 2.7% increase in his annual income. There is no evidence showing what Plaisime’s likely income would have been in 1998 had he remained in the employ of Marriott. Ultimate Factual Determinations Marriott discharged Plaisime because of his national origin. Thus, Marriott committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The actual economic loss that Plaisime suffered as a result of Marriott’s unlawful discrimination against him was one month’s pay, or $925.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order declaring that Marriott discharged Plaisime on the basis of his national origin, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes; prohibiting Marriott from committing further such violations; and awarding Plaisime $925 to relieve the effects of the unlawful discrimination that Marriott perpetrated against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 14th day of February, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Biscayne Boulevard through the municipality of Miami, Florida, is a state highway, State Road 5 (U.S. 1,) which is operated and maintained by the State of Florida through its Department of Transportation. The state owns the right of way areas adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard. The Petitioner, Marina Park Associates ("Marina Park") is the owner of the Marina Park Hotel (the "Hotel") located at 340 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida. The Hotel is situated adjacent to the Department's right of way. Petitioner has applied to the Department of Transportation for approval to construct a canopy extending from the entrance of the Hotel over the state's right of way adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard. There is an existing canopy in front of the Hotel which was installed approximately 11 years ago. At the time the existing canopy was installed, the Hotel obtained a permit from the city. However, it does not appear that the State Department of Transportation was ever notified or considered the application for the existing canopy. Petitioner is seeking to replace the existing canopy with a new improved canopy at approximately the same location. The Hotel recently underwent renovations and the Petitioner is seeking to make the property more attractive by installing a new canopy. The plans for the proposed canopy were submitted by Petitioner to Respondent. Those plans indicate that the proposed canopy would violate at least three aspects of the Respondent's rules regarding canopies over state right of way areas. These rules were adopted to establish uniform safety standards, to limit or prevent obstruction of the sidewalks and to further emergency vehicle access. There is no provision in the rules for variances or exceptions to these requirements. While the evidence established that there are several obstructions along the right of way which contravene these rules, there is no evidence that the Department has ever approved such obstacles. The plans for the proposed canopy do not provide for a set back of at least two feet from the outside edge of the canopy to the face of the curb as required by the existing rules. This defect can be cured quite easily by adjusting the length of the canopy. However, the other problems with the canopy cannot be cured so easily. The Hotel has a recessed entrance. The proposed canopy would extend into the recessed area. As a result, there will not be a nine foot clearance between the bottom of the canopy and the sidewalk as required in the existing rules. Even more importantly, the building design provides insufficient support to cantilever the canopy out from the entraceway without columns. Therefore, the proposed canopy requires supports at the end of the canopy on the sidewalk. The existing rules prohibit any such supports and there is no provision for a variance from this requirement. Canopy supports extending below the nine foot clearance are prohibited because of the resulting obstruction of the sidewalk impairing pedestrian traffic and inhibiting access from passenger vehicles parked on the roadway. The existing canopy is apparently not in compliance with all of the provisions of the Respondent's rules. Respondent never reviewed or permitted the existing canopy nor has it cited the existing canopy for being in violation of the rules. There is no provision in the rules to grandfather in an existing canopy and/or to replace or improve an existing canopy.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding Petitioner's proposed canopy does not meet the requirements of Rule 14-43 and denying Petitioner's request for a variance by means of through application for a special permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of June, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the D Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX The Respondent has filed a Proposed Recommended Order. The following constitutes my rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7, 8 and 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Russell A. Waldon Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. #58 Tallahassee, FL 32399 M. L. Dayton Marina Park Associates 340 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33132 John Reilly Miami Awning Company 282 Northwest 36th Street Miami, FL 33127 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue The ultimate issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for a special (SRX) restaurant alcoholic beverage license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witness at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Stipulated Facts The special restaurant license is sought for the Brass Elephant Restaurant within the corporate limits of the City of Sanibel, Florida. The restaurant is located on a 7.7-acre parcel of property adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. The restaurant is located within a resort complex known as the Sanibel Island Hilton. Seating within the restaurant itself is limited to 100 seats by court order and zoning regulations of the City of Sanibel. No bar is maintained within the restaurant itself. The Brass Elephant Restaurant derives more than 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. The Brass Elephant Restaurant has in excess of 2,500 square feet of service area. The Sanibel Island Hilton is being operated as a first-class destination resort. Hilton Corporation has stringent constraints on the operation of such a resort and has made special exceptions for this resort in light of the special zoning and building restrictions imposed by the City of Sanibel on the resort area; these special exceptions allow, inter alia, separate buildings and outside walkways. The restaurant in question is an accessory use to the Hilton Hotel, and is not an autonomous restaurant. There is no separate sign advertising the restaurant as an individual entity. Access can only be gained from the hotel grounds. By virtue of the development permit issued by the City of Sanibel, the Hilton is precluded from operating a saloon, lounge or restaurant separate and apart from its food service operation. Additional Facts Proved at Hearing The Petitioner also has a banquet facility on the premises known as the "Commodore Suite." It is located approximately 250 feet from the Brass Elephant. Meals for the Commodore Suite are prepared at the kitchen facility in the Brass Elephant. On many occasions patrons of the Commodore Suite have been served at tables simultaneously with those in the Brass Elephant, thereby making the total patrons served at one time at the two locations more than 150. The Petitioner has available on the resort premises all of the necessary equipment to serve more than 150 persons at one time in the Brass Elephant, though the City of Sanibel prohibits it from having more than 100 seats in the restaurant. In addition to the restaurant and the banquet room, there is also a pool bar on the Petitioner's resort premises. The restaurant, pool bar, and banquet room are physically separate from each other. The distance between the restaurant and the banquet room is approximately 250 feet and the distance between the restaurant and pool bar is about the same. There are no separate walkways from the various buildings to the restaurant. To walk from the restaurant to the banquet room, one has to walk across a street, part of a parking lot, and around or under one of the other buildings at the resort. To walk from the pool bar to the restaurant or the banquet room, one has to walk around or through another building. The foregoing paragraphs numbered 1 through 16 comprise all of the findings of fact in this case. Such findings include the substance of all of the findings proposed by the Petitioner and the substance of the vast majority of the facts proposed by the Respondent. To the extent I have not made certain proposed findings of fact, such proposed findings are irrelevant and immaterial to the issues to be decided in this case.
Recommendation For all of the reasons set forth above, I recommend that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the application of Shell Harbor Group, Inc., for a special restaurant liquor license. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1985.
