Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1978, an investigator for Petitioner visited the address of the Respondent's real estate broker's office registered with the FREC at Loop Road, Star Route 67, Ochopee, Collier County, Florida, to conduct an office inspection. Upon his arrival, two buildings were observed, one a restaurant which was closed and the other a two-story apartment building containing what appeared to be three apartments. No signs were in evidence indicating a real estate office was located at this location and a man at the site who identified himself as a tenant identified the two buildings as a closed restaurant and apartment. Although the restaurant was locked, the investigator looked in the windows and saw no evidence that the building contained a real estate office. The apartment building was not entered nor did the investigator peer into the windows of these apartments. He did walk around the building and saw no evidence to indicate a real estate office was located in the apartment building or anywhere at the address registered.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Respondent's registration as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of two years or until Respondent provides an office meeting the requirements of Rule 21V-10.07, Florida Administrative Code, and registers same with the FREC, whichever first occurs. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of September, 1978. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence J. Spiegel, Esquire 380 First National Bank Building 900 West 49 Street Hialeah, Florida 33012
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own the Sea Cloud Motel with 11 rooms located at 540 South Gulf View Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida, in an area zoned CTF-28. CTF-28 is high density commercial-tourist and is dominated by motels, restaurants, and other businesses catering primarily to tourists. The Sea Cloud Motel has only ten parking spaces at present, with two of these spaces so located that with the space behind them occupied a car cannot get into or out of those spaces. Petitioners have leased five additional spaces from the Clearwater Point Deli on property adjacent to the Sea Cloud Motel (Exhibit 2). Adjacent to the Sea Cloud Motel is the Hibiscus Gift Shop owned and operated as part of the Red Carpet Resort Motel. Across the street from Petitioners' property is a convenience store with gas pumps and a car rental agency. Several realty offices are located in the general area of the Sea Cloud Motel in addition to restaurants and convenience stores. The principal objection to the special exception here requested came from adjacent property owners who fear the real estate office will aggravate the inadequate parking facilities presently existing on Clearwater Beach. The addition of the real estate office in a space less than 150 square feet will not require the addition of another parking space. The leasing of five additional parking spaces will more than adequately compensate for the additional traffic anticipated to be generated by a one-desk real estate office, particularly where the office is intended to concentrate on foreign visitors interested in real estate investments at Clearwater and will be operated by the co-owner of the motel, Kathleen M. Fuller, a registered real estate salesperson.
Findings Of Fact This case is presented for consideration on the basis of a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, against Michael Cohen, trading as Capricorn Apartments, Respondent. In fact, the 13251 Corporation, Inc., trades as Capricorn Apartments and is licensed by the Petitioner for the apartment business located at 13251 Northeast Memorial Highway, North Miami, Florida. That corporation was also the owner of the apartment building in September and October, 1979, and it is the licensee listed with the Petitioner. The license control number is 23-08555H. Michael Cohen, the named Respondent, is the President of the 13251 Corporation, Inc. On September 24, 1979, Inspector John D. McKinnon, an employee for the Petitioner, went to the Respondent's apartment building at 13251 Northeast Memorial Highway, North Miami, Florida, for purposes of conducting a premises inspection. In apartment 3, one of the units in the apartment complex, he found that the tenant had removed a panel on the wall and placed a bucket there for purposes of catching water that was periodically leaking into the apartment. There was no evidence at this point of any active leak, nevertheless the stains on the wall showed that the leak problem did exist. The source of the water leak was never determined, leaving open the possibility that it could have been caused by some problem created by the tenants living on the second floor above apartment 3 or by a roof leak, or other source for which the owner is responsible. There was an additional problem in apartment 3 where plumbing under one of the sinks was leaking and a catch bucket had been placed to collect the water. There was a problem in apartment 9, which is also located on the first floor. In that apartment newspaper had been placed on the floor to catch water which was coming in from the ceiling. Again, the origins of that water were never discovered, whether it was the fault of some second floor tenant above apartment 9 or a roof leak, or other source for which the owner is responsible. An examination of the grounds adjacent to the apartment building revealed tall bushes and weeds and a number of bottles, cans and pieces of paper. This inspection by McKinnon was a "call back" inspection which followed an earlier inspection of September 11, 1979, that earlier inspection revealing the same deficiencies.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, 13251 Corporation, Inc., holder of license No. 23-5555t to trade as Capricorn Apartments at 13251 Northeast Memorial Highway, North Miami, Florida, he fined in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the violation established through Count III and in a similar amount for the violation established in Count V. (In keeping with the opportunity to submit Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and a Recommendation, the Respondent has submitted its proposal. Its proposal has been reviewed in preparing the Recommended Order and to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the Recommended Order, it has been utilized. To the extent that it is inconsistent, it is hereby rejected.) DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F.X. Purnell, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Malcolm B. Wiseheart, Jr., Esquire Suite 402, Security Trust Building 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2008),1 by revoking an accommodation which allowed Petitioner to have a support dog in his condominium on the alleged ground that the support dog presents a health hazard for Petitioner’s neighboring condominium resident.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a resident owner of a condominium in Embassy House Condominiums (Embassy House). Embassy House is a covered, multifamily dwelling unit within the meaning of Subsection 760.22(2). Petitioner’s condominium is a dwelling defined in Subsection 760.22(4). Respondent is the entity responsible for implementing the rules and regulations of the condominium association. Relevant rules and regulations prohibit residents from keeping dogs in their condominiums. Sometime after July 17, 2008, Respondent granted Petitioner’s written request to keep a support dog in his condominium as an accommodation based on Petitioner’s handicap. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner is a handicapped person within the meaning of Subsection 760.22(7). Petitioner’s handicap includes cancer and depression. After Respondent granted permission for Petitioner to keep a support dog in his condominium, Petitioner purchased a small dog that weighs less than 15 pounds. Respondent now proposes to revoke permission for Petitioner to keep the support dog. The sole grounds for the proposed revocation is that the female resident of the condominium adjacent to Petitioner’s, identified in the record as Ms. Madeline O’Connell, allegedly is allergic to pet dander. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the support dog presents a health hazard to Ms. O’Connell. Neither Ms. O’Connell nor her physician, who is not identified in the record, testified. The admitted “sole basis” of Respondent’s position is a note from an unidentified, alleged physician that Respondent did not submit for admission into evidence. Respondent identified the note through the testimony of a lay witness, but never submitted the note for admission into evidence. The lay witness for Respondent identified the note as the note provided to him by Ms. O’Connell. The remainder of the testimony of the lay witness consists of statements by Ms. O’Connell to the lay witness concerning the alleged allergy of Ms. O’Connell. If the evidence were to show that Ms. O’Connell is allergic to pet dander, the support dog is a breed that does not have dander. The support dog is hypoallergenic. If the evidence were to show that the support dog were not hypoallergenic, adequate measures have been implemented to protect Ms. O’Connell from any threat to her health. The air conditioning vents that feed cool air from Petitioner’s condominium into the common lobby for the two condominium units have been sealed. The interior of the condominium units are cooled by separate air conditioning units. The trier of fact finds the paucity of testimony concerning the alleged health hazard to Ms. O’Connell to be less than credible and persuasive. Ms. O’Connell makes no effort to protect herself from exposure to the support dog. On at least three occasions, Ms. O’Connell voluntarily exposed herself to the support dog to make confrontational comments to Petitioner about the support dog.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order upholding the Petition for Relief and dismissing the proposed revocation of the accommodation for Petitioner to keep a support dog in his condominium. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2009.
