The Issue Whether Respondents Lee Ann Kennedy ("Kennedy") and Kenco Industries, L.L.C. ("Kenco"), engaged in various activities constituting pest control under chapter 482 without having obtained the required licenses from Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in violation of sections 482.161(1)(j), 482.165(1), and 465.191(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with administering the Structural Pest Control Act, chapter 482. Respondent Kennedy is a resident of Wellington, Florida. Respondent Kenco Industries, L.L.C., is a registered Florida Limited Liability Company. Kennedy is the manager and sole member of, and the registered agent for, Kenco. Pest Control Regulation under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes Chapter 482 authorizes Petitioner to regulate activities constituting "pest control" and to impose sanctions for violations of that chapter. "Pest control" is broadly defined in section 483.021(22) as: The use of any method or device or the application of any substance to prevent, destroy, repel, mitigate, curb, control, or eradicate any pest in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; The identification of or inspection for infestations or infections in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; The use of any pesticide, economic poison, or mechanical device for preventing, controlling, eradicating, identifying, inspecting for, mitigating, diminishing, or curtailing insects, vermin, rodents, pest birds, bats, or other pests in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; All phases of fumigation, including: The treatment of products by vault fumigation; and The fumigation of boxcars, trucks, ships, airplanes, docks, warehouses, and common carriers; and The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another. Petitioner is authorized to issue licenses to qualified businesses to engage in the business of pest control in this state. § 482.165(1), Fla. Stat. It is unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity to engage in the unlicensed practice of pest control as that term is defined in section 482.021(22). Id. Section 482.191(1) makes unlawful the advertisement of pest control services except as authorized under chapter 482. Absent limited circumstances not applicable here, persons or entities engaging in such advertisement must be licensed by Petitioner to practice pest control. Petitioner also is authorized to fine persons who impersonate an employee of Petitioner. § 482.161(1)(j), Fla. Stat. Respondents' Acts Alleged to Violate Chapter 482 Respondent Kennedy did not hold a pest control business license or other license to practice pest control at any time relevant to this proceeding.2/ Respondent Kenco also did not hold a pest control business license or other license to practice pest control at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about April 1, 2011, Kennedy entered Saigon Oriental Market in Lake Park, Florida. According to its owner, Hung The Thach, Kennedy walked around the store inspecting it, then told him that she was employed by Petitioner, that some of his produce was infested by insects, and that he would have to have pest control services performed or she would return in a week to conduct another compliance inspection. Kennedy gave Mr. Thach the telephone number for Outside In, a pest control company, and the business card of its owner, Dennis O'Rourke. Concerned that Kennedy would shut down his store or fine him, Mr. Thach called Outside In; the following day, an employee of that company performed pest control services at the store. Outside In performed additional pest control services at the store on or around May 26, 2011. Mr. Thach paid Outside In for these services. In mid-May 2011, Kennedy inspected Fajita's Super Market in Lake Worth, Florida, and told its owner, Ali Jaber, that she was employed by Petitioner as an inspector, and that he had a fly problem in his store. She recommended that he contact Outside In to correct the problem. Mr. Jaber told her he used another pest control company, but thereafter, a representative from Outside In visited the store, left a business card with Mr. Jaber, and offered to provide pest control services for the store for $150.00 per month with no contract. Kennedy returned to the store approximately a week later and wanted to know why nothing had been done to correct the fly problem; she also asked an employee of Fajita's who was going to pay for her time to inspect the store; when she was referred to Mr. Jaber, she left the store and did not return. On or around May 24, 2011, Kennedy entered the Fortune Cookie oriental supermarket in West Palm Beach, Florida, and told its president, David Chang, that she was with an inspector with Petitioner. She inspected the store, told him that there was a fly problem, and stated she would return in two weeks. Mr. Chang testified that Kennedy did not provide him the name of any pest control businesses, but that approximately a week before Kennedy inspected the store, a representative of Outside In had come to the store and tried to sell him pest control services, but that he had declined to purchase the services at that time. Dennis O'Rourke, President of Outside In, testified that Kennedy was not on his company's payroll, but that she had solicited pest control business for his company for approximately four months prior to September 2011. She successfully solicited four accounts and he paid her 30% of the profits made on those accounts. At the time she solicited the accounts, she did not possess a valid identification card to perform pest control services on behalf of Outside In.3/ Mr. O'Rourke subsequently obtained a valid identification card for Kennedy so that she could perform pest control, including business solicitation, for his company. Petitioner initiated an investigation of Kennedy in June 2011, after being notified by several small food markets in Palm Beach County that she was holding herself out as a food inspector with Petitioner, inspecting the stores, notifying the store operators that there was a pest problem, and recommending that Outside In be contacted to correct the problem. In the course of the investigation, on September 7, 2011, John Berquist, an inspector with Petitioner's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, took photographs of Kennedy's motor vehicle4/ bearing magnetic signs on the front passenger and driver side doors labeled "Kenco Industries," which depicted a photograph of Kennedy and advertised the provision of pest control services. Berquist checked Petitioner's pest control licensing records and determined that Petitioner had not issued a pest control business license or other pest control license to Kennedy or to Kenco. At the hearing, Kennedy acknowledged that she conducted food store inspections, pointed out pest problems to store operators, and recommended that they contact Outside In for pest control service. However, she denied holding herself out as an employee of Petitioner. She testified that she is certified in food safety by the Department of Health and that if she observed a pest problem while shopping, she would show her food safety certification card to the store operator and point out the problem. She claimed she did this because she is Vietnamese, so often shops at Asian food markets and wants the stores where she purchases her family's food to be pest-free. She also claimed that she only wanted the stores "to get what they needed" in the way of pest control service and that it did not matter whether she was compensated for soliciting business for Outside In. However, she acknowledged that she had been compensated by Outside In for the pest control business she had successfully solicited on their behalf. Kennedy testified that she did not intend to do anything that was against the law, and was not aware that she was engaging in conduct that violated the law. The evidence established that neither Kennedy nor Kenco previously violated chapter 482 or Petitioner's rules. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Alleged Violations Based on the foregoing, Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy impersonated an employee of Petitioner, as alleged in Count 1 of the Amended Administrative Complaint, in violation of section 482.161(1)(j). Kennedy's testimony that she did not hold herself out as an employee of Petitioner was contradicted by all other witnesses and was not credible. Petitioner also established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy and Kenco advertised pest control services without obtaining a pest control business license in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). There was no dispute that Kennedy advertised the provision of pest control services by herself and by Kenco by placing signs on her vehicle depicting her image and Kenco's business name. Further, Kennedy is Kenco's manager, sole member, and agent, so her actions in advertising the provision of pest control services by Kenco are imputed to Kenco.5/ Petitioner also proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy solicited pest control business for Outside In for compensation, in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). Kennedy's testimony that she was motivated by altruism and personal interest in food safety at markets where she shopped, rather than by being compensated for soliciting business for Outside In, was not credible. The undisputed evidence establishes that she was compensated by Outside In for soliciting pest control business on its behalf. However, Petitioner did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kenco solicited business on behalf of Outside In. The evidence does not show that Kennedy represented to the food store operators that she was acting on behalf of Kenco when she solicited business for Outside In. To the contrary, the evidence established that Kennedy represented that she was an inspector employed by Petitioner. Accordingly, it is determined that Kenco did not solicit pest control business for Outside In, in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). As further addressed below, Petitioner's Enforcement and Penalties rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.149, makes the deliberate commission of an act that constitutes a violation of chapter 482 an aggravating factor in determining the applicable fine. Here, the evidence shows that Kennedy intentionally misrepresented that she was employed by Petitioner specifically to solicit and induce food store operators to purchase pest control services for which she would be compensated. Accordingly, it is determined that Kennedy acted deliberately in impersonating an employee of Petitioner and in soliciting business on behalf of Outside In for compensation. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Kennedy——and by operation of the law of agency, Kenco——deliberately engaged in advertising the provision of pest control services without having obtained the required license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services impose a fine of $2,600.00 on Respondent Lee Ann Kennedy, and impose a fine of $1,000.00 on Respondent Kenco Industries, L.L.C. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 27th day of June, 2012.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Larry Kravitsky, as alleged in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, on February 13, 2007, provided pest control services in violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes (2006), whether he applied a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(1), and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as the “Bureau”), is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the “Structural Pest Control Act.” At the times relevant to this matter, Respondent Larry Kravitsky was not licensed to perform pest control services. While he had applied for an identification card with the Bureau, that application had been denied. At the times relevant to this matter, Cara Beth Walker resided at 6485-4 Bay Club Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”). At the times relevant, Sears Pest Control Incorporated, d/b/a Ship Shape Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as “Ship Shape”), was a licensed pest control business in the State of Florida. Ship Shape, owned by Mr. Kravitsky’s brother, Alan J. Kravitsky, was qualified to conduct pest control at the times relevant through Lori Kelley. The evidence failed to prove that anyone at Ship Shape had authorized Mr. Kravitsky to perform pest control services in June 2006. On June 5, 2006, John McDonough, then in the employ of Ship Shape, arrived at the Property, where he had previously provided treatment for ants. Mr. McDonough, who applied for a Pest Control Employee-Identification Card on June 9, 2006, which was approved as of June 10, 2006, was not a certified operator in charge or even familiar with rodent control, came to the Property because of a problem Ms. Walker was having with what she believed were rodents. When Mr. McDonough arrived, he told Ms. Walker that he had to wait for Mr. Kravitsky and the equipment necessary to perform any treatment to arrive. Ms. Walker was unable to remain at the Property because of her employment, so she left before the treatment was completed. While Ms. Walker testified as to Mr. Kravitsky’s arrival and initial involvement in the treatment, that testimony has been rejected as unconvincing. There were simply too many inconsistencies in Ms. Walker’s testimony concerning what took place on June 5, 2006, and with the more convincing testimony of Carlos Rojas to be given any credence by this finder of fact. What the evidence did prove, however, is that at some time after Mr. McDonough arrived at the Property, Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Rojas arrived in separate vehicles. Mr. Rojas was also employed by Ship Shape but did not have a Pest Control Employee- Identification Card or pest control license. Mr. Rojas had been directed by Mr. Kravitsky to go to the Property that morning. Mr. Kravitsky brought electrical cords, a drill, and an electric duster to the Property. The electric duster was filled with Ditrac, a powder used to eliminate rodents. Mr. Rojas was not aware of what the powder was and had no experience using an electric duster. Mr. Kravitsky did not try to explain what the electric duster was for or how to use it. Instead, Mr. Kravitsky instructed Mr. Rojas to follow Mr. McDonough’s instructions. Mr. Kravitsky then left the Property, leaving Mr. McDonough in charge. Mr. Rojas was told by Mr. McDonough to drill holes in the walls. Next, Mr. Rojas was told to plug the electric duster into an electric outlet and then place a nozzle from the electric duster in the holes that had been drilled. Mr. Rojas was told to turn the duster on and to leave it on from one to three minutes in each hole. Mr. Rojas followed these instructions. The operation took approximately an hour to complete, at which time Mr. Kravitsky returned. All three men then left the Property. The evidence failed to prove that anyone other than Mr. Kravitsky was involved in authorizing the treatment of the Property on June 5, 2006. Lori Kelly, the certified operator in charge of Ship Shape knew nothing about the job until after it was completed. At no time did Ms. Kelly direct or authorize the use of Ditrac at the Property. Ms. Kelly became aware of the treatment of the Property when Mr. Kravitsky told her that she would be contacted about the job. While she could not recall at hearing whether she had been asked by Kravitsky to say that she had been present during the treatment, she signed a statement on July 7, 2006, indicating that she had been. While she acknowledged that the statement was given when her memory was probably better, she did not testify that the statement refreshed her memory. Mr. Kravitsky’s and Mr. McDonough’s account at hearing of what transpired on June 5, 2006, at the Property is rejected as not credible. The Bureau in proposed findings of fact 11, 12, 14 and 15 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order explain in detail some of the reasons why Mr. Kravitsky’s testimony has been rejected. Information obtained from David Beswick by the Bureau, however, has not been relied upon in making this or any other finding in this Recommended Order because that information is hearsay. Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Ms. Walker on or about June 16, 2006, that the powder used on June 5, 2006, was Ditrac. He also admitted to her that three pounds of Ditrac had been used. Several weeks after the treatment at the Property, Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Mr. Rojas that the treatment had been a disaster and warned Mr. Rojas that someone from Petitioner would be contacting him about the job. Mr. Kravitsky told Mr. Rojas to decline to talk about the treatment because he would be represented by legal counsel provided by Mr. Kravitsky. The Bureau, following established procedures, took samples from different areas of the Property on June 16, 2006. Additional samples were taken on June 26, 2006, by Mary Cohen, who was accompanied by Richard Lucas. Again, established procedures, described in detail by Ms. Cohen, were followed. The samples taken at the Property were tested by Patty Lucas, Director of the Bureau’s Pesticide laboratory. Ms. Lucas utilized procedures accepted in the scientific community to determine where Diphacinone, the active ingredient in Ditrac was present. Two of the samples taken on June 16, 2006, and two of the samples taken on June 26, 2006, tested positive for Diphacinone. These tests results are consistent with Mr. Kravitsky’s admission to Ms. Walker that Ditrac had been used in the treatment of the Property. The Ditrac label, Petitioner’s exhibit 3, contains the following “PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS WARNING” concerning use of the chemical” May be fatal if swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Wear protective clothing and rubber gloves. Wash arms and face with soap and water after mixing or handling and before eating, drinking, or using tobacco. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse. The label also warns that Ditrac is a “RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE Due to Acute Oral Toxicity” and that it is “[f]or retail sale to, and use only by, Certified Applicators, or persons under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified applicator’s Certification.” Finally, of importance in this case, the Ditrac label includes the following instruction concerning “APPLICATION DIRECTIONS: . . . Do not use power dusting devices ” Mr. Kravitsky, contrary to the warnings and directions for use of Ditrac, without authorization by anyone at Ship Shape, and without any license or other authorization from the Bureau, directed Mr. Rojas to use an electric duster filled with Ditrac in the Property. His actions constituted the practice of pest control and the use of a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with the pesticide’s label.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services finding that Larry Kravitsky violated Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine in the amout of $4,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Larry Kravitsky 3300 South Ocean Boulevard, Apartment 917 Highland Beach, Florida 33487 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether respondent's pest control operator's certificate should be revoked on charges that she violated Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, by acting as a certified operator when her primary occupation and full-time employment were not in the pest control business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's certificate as a pest control operator be revoked; but such revocation should be stayed for 30 days and vacated if, during such period, she terminates her part-time employment as a certified pest control operator in charge of Burkes' pest control activities. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 12th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was, and is, a Florida certified pest control operator. Petitioner owns and operates Campbell's Pest Control, a firm licensed by the State of Florida for pest control purposes and doing business in Alachua, Florida. In his capacity as owner and operator of that firm, Petitioner supervises two cardholder employees. In the latter part of 1982, Petitioner received two letters from Respondent, one dated August 13, 1982, and the other September 7, 1982. Both of these letters contained notification to Petitioner of Respondent's contention that he had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: A certified operator in charge of pest control operations of a licensee shall be a Florida resident whose primary occupation is in the structural pest control business, who is employed on a full-time basis by the licensee, and whose principal duty is the personal supervision of and participation in the pest control operations of the licensee as the same relate to the following: The selection of proper and correct chemicals for the particular pest control work to be performed. The safe and proper use of these pesticides. The correct concentration and formulation of pesticides used in all pest control work performed. The training of personnel in the proper and acceptable methods of pest control. The control measures and procedures used. The notification of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services within 24 hours of any knowledge of accidental human poisoning or death connected with pest control work performed on jobs he is supervising. Two memoranda were enclosed with the letter from Respondent dated September 7, 1982. The first of these was a legal memorandum from Respondent's counsel concerning an interpretation of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, quoted above. This memorandum provided in pertinent part that: It is clear from a careful reading of Chapter 482 that the requirement concerning a fully qualified certified operator exists as a condition precedent to licensure because of the many dangers inherent in pest control activities. The interpretation placed on the language above quoted from Section 482.152, F.S. is that the certified operator's primary job should be that of a certified operator. Because of the many functions which are required to be performed by the certified operator, he should be on the job on a full-time basis or a nearly full-time basis for the licensee. It is obvious that the legislature, by using the language above described, intended to preclude 'certificate selling'. . . The other memorandum was dated February 23, 1978, and furnished to all commercial pest control licensees and certified operators, and concerned the subject of "renting" of pest control certificates. This memorandum provided in part that: It has come to the attention of this office that some licensees and certified operators are not in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 482.121 and 482.152, Florida Statutes, concerning the status and activities of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee. * * * The intent and purpose of the provisions of the Pest Control Act . . . are to prevent such practices as certificate 'renting' or 'selling' under the pretense that the certified operator is in the [sic] charge of pest control activities of the licensee, when in fact he or she is not. The Office of Entomology will enforce the referenced provisions of chapter 482 F.S. as interpreted by legal counsel [in the January 25, 1977 memorandum] with regard to certificate 'renting'. Licensees and certified operators should examine their present arrangements with regard to this matter to determine if they are in compliance with the law. Violations could be grounds for suspension or revocation of licenses or certificates. Any licensee adversely affected would be entitled to apply for an emergency certificate upon loss of certified operator. By Administrative Complaint dated October 13, 1982, Petitioner was charged with a violation of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes: . . . in that you are presently employed on a full-time basis by the City of Gainesville as a firefighter and at the same time registered with the Department as an employee--identification cardholder and as a certified operator in charge of the pest control operations of Campbell's Pest Control . . . This constitutes a violation of Section 482.152, F.S., which requires, in part, that the primary occupation of a certified operator in charge of the pest control operations of a licensee shall be in the pest control business and that such certified operator be employed on a full-time basis by the licensee with the principal duty of personal supervision of and participation in the licensee's pest control operations as these operations relate to selection and safe, and correct use of pesticides, control measures and procedures used, and training of personnel; and a violation of section 482.121(1), F.S., which provides that no certified pest control operator shall allow his certificate to be used by any licensee to secure or keep a license unless such certified operator is in charge of the 'pest control activities of the licensee in the category or categories covered by his certificate and is a full-time employee of the licensee.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Elite Inspectors, LLC, d/b/a EliteInspectors.com, engaged in the unlicensed practice of pest control, in violation of sections 482.071, 482.161, and 482.165, Florida Statutes (2015)1/; whether Respondents, Tamer Kekec and Stephen Franco, engaged in pest control services in violation of sections 482.071, 482.165, and 482.191; and, if so, what penalties should be imposed against Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner or Department), is the state agency charged with administering the Structural Pest Control Act, chapter 482, Florida Statutes (the Act). Respondent, Elite Inspectors, LLC, d/b/a EliteInspectors.com (Elite), is a Florida Limited Liability Company, whose principal place of business is 9951 Atlantic Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida. Elite is a residential structural inspection company offering home inspections in northeast Florida and southeast Georgia. Elite has never been licensed by the Department to engage in the business of pest control, pursuant to section 482.071. Respondents, Tamar Kekec and Stephen Franco (the Individual Respondents), are the managers, and only members, of Elite, which was formed in 2004. Pest Control Activities Petitioner is authorized to issue licenses to qualified businesses to engage in the business of pest control in this state. See § 482.071(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is likewise authorized to issue employee identification cards to persons employed by licensees to perform pest control services. See § 482.091, Fla. Stat. It is unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity to engage in the unlicensed practice of pest control as that term is defined in section 482.021(22). See § 482.165(1), Fla. Stat. "Pest control" is broadly defined in section 482.021(22) to include: (b) The identification of or inspection for infestations or infections in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; * * * (e) The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another. Thus, both the conduct of wood-destroying organism (WDO) inspections, and advertising for the conduct of WDO inspections, are “pest control” activities regulated by the Act. Section 482.191(1) makes unlawful the advertisement of pest control services except as authorized under chapter 482. Absent limited circumstances not applicable here, persons or entities engaging in such advertisement must be licensed by Petitioner to practice pest control. Petitioner is further authorized to take disciplinary action against licensees and identification cardholders, pursuant to section 482.161, and to issue fines against persons who engage in the unlicensed practice of pest control, pursuant to section 482.165. WDO Inspections by Elite Prior to April 10, 2014 Between January 3 and April 10, 2014, Elite, through its member Mr. Franco, performed 99 WDO inspections, in addition to residential structural inspections, for its customers. During that timeframe, Elite billed its customers $6,850.00 for WDO inspections performed by Mr. Franco. During that same timeframe, Mr. Kekec performed 49 WDO inspections, in addition to residential structural inspections for Elite customers, billing them a total of $6,290.00. All customer payments for WDO inspections conducted by the Individual Respondents were deposited into Elite’s business banking account with BBVA Compass Bank. DL and the Individual Respondents Florida Quality Services, Inc., d/b/a DL (DL), is a Florida corporation licensed to engage in the business of pest control, and whose business address is 7008 Bayard Road, Ft. Pierce, Florida. William R. Miles is DL’s president and holds a pest control operator’s certificate, pursuant to section 482.111. In the language of the licensing statute, Mr. Miles is the Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) at DL. Every employee who performs pest control for a licensee must have an identification card. See § 482.091(1)(a), Fla. Stat. On April 5, 2014, Mr. Miles applied to Respondent for pest control employee identification cards for Respondents Kekec and Franco. In the application, Mr. Miles stated that the Individual Respondents would begin conducting WDO inspections for DL on April 22, 2014. The Individual Respondents signed a portion of the application certifying that they were not “currently employed by any other pest control licensee.” They also certified that they were previously employed by another unnamed licensee with a termination date of April 21, 2014. Mr. Kekec was “employed” by a number of pest control companies concurrent with his operation and management of Elite, including FK Pest Control from January to March 2014, DL Pest Control from June 2011 to December 2013, CS Pest Control from April 2009 to May 2011, TI Pest Control for an unspecified period, and A1 Pest Control from May 2005 to October 2006. Curiously, all these companies had the same business address as DL--7008 Bayard Road, Ft. Pierce, Florida.2/ The Individual Respondents were issued pest control employee-identification cards by the Department on April 10, 2014, identifying them as employees of DL. In August 2014, DL applied to renew its license for the 2014-2015 license year, listing the Individual Respondents as employees to be issued identification cards as WDO inspectors for DL. DL and Respondent Elite Following issuance of employee-identification cards to the Individual Respondents, Elite continued to conduct WDO inspections, as well as residential inspections, for its clients, and bill those clients for WDO inspections. All payments received by Elite from its customers for whom it conducted WDO inspections were deposited into Elite’s business bank account. Between January 3 and December 31, 2014, Elite conducted over 300 WDO inspections for its customers, billing them in excess of $48,000 for said inspections. Elite continued to conduct WDO inspections for its customers, bill its customers for those WDO inspections, and accept payment for those WDO inspections, in 2015 as it had in 2014. Elite obtained customers through its website, and through referrals from both previous customers and real estate agents. Elite’s customers scheduled their home and WDO inspections directly with Elite through Mr. Kekec or Mr. Franco. Elite set the price per inspection based upon the size, age, and the type of construction of the customer’s property. Elite provided the ladders, flashlights, screwdrivers, extension probes, and, with the exception of a short period in 2015, the vehicle, used by the Individual Respondents to conduct WDO inspections. When Elite did not provide the vehicle for a brief period in 2015, Elite used a vehicle personally owned by Mr. Kekec. Elite also paid the fuel cost to travel to and from inspections of customer properties, which is Elite’s only operating expense. After issuance of employee-identification cards to the Individual Respondents, Elite entered into an arrangement with DL by which Elite would pay DL $38 for each WDO inspection conducted by the Individual Respondents. In turn, DL paid the Individual Respondents $10 for each WDO inspection they conducted. For the 2014 tax year, DL paid Mr. Kekec $1,160 and issued him a W-2 wage and tax statement. That same year, DL paid Mr. Franco $1,130 and issued him a W-2 wage and tax statement. For each WDO inspection conducted, the Individual Respondents prepared and signed a WDO inspection report on a form required by the state. Each inspection report listed DL as the inspection company. Each report was reviewed by Mr. Miles after-the-fact in his office in Ft. Pierce. Mr. Miles testified that he provided constructive criticism via email once a month to his WDO inspectors regarding completion of the reports. However, if an inspector had completed inspection reports for three consecutive months, Mr. Miles suspended monthly review of their reports and only conducted “spot checks.” Respondents introduced no document to evince review and criticism of any report completed by either Mr. Kekec or Mr. Franco. Whether DL provided ongoing training in WDO inspections to the Individual Respondents was a contested issue at hearing. Respondents attempted to introduce a composite exhibit consisting of two manuals, two posters of termites, and a “flip-book” produced by University of Florida. When asked whether DL provided the manuals to Mr. Kekec, he testified, “[W]ell, the last version of the manuals, I believe it was provided in 2013, but I think there was four or five different versions of it. It’s been updated over the years.” The evidence was not clear whether DL provided the manuals to the Individual Respondents or they were obtained by other means. Even if the manuals were provided by DL to the Individual Respondents, there is insufficient evidence to find that DL provided any ongoing relevant training to the Individual Respondents. The parties stipulated that the Individual Respondents met the training requirements to qualify to be identification cardholders. The only equipment issued to the Individual Respondents by DL for their use in conducting WDO inspections was a magnifying glass. Elite Website During all times relevant hereto, Elite maintained a website whose address was www.eliteinspectors.com. Elite noted “WDO Inspections” as one of its services and areas of expertise. Under “About Us” on its website, Elite stated, “In addition to home inspections, we do . . . wood destroying organism (termite) inspections (performed by DL employees).” With regard to WDO inspections, the website included the following: Our inspectors are State Certified WDO inspectors with several years of experience and meet all of the Florida continuing education requirements. We perform the WDO inspection while performing the home inspection so one additional step can be eliminated, which saves time and money. WDO inspections are performed by DL employees. In the “Inspector Biographies” section, the website reported that Mr. Franco was a “Certified Pest Operator- Termite” and that Mr. Kekec was “a licensed WDO inspector under DL pest services.” At final hearing, Mr. Kekec was unable to identify any reason why Elite would want to identify Mr. Franco to its customers as a licensed pest control operator. The website did not identify what DL was or its relationship with either Elite or its managers, Mr. Franco and Mr. Kekec.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding: Respondents, Elite Inspectors, LLC, d/b/a EliteInspectors.com, Tamer Kekec, and Stephen Franco, violated sections 482.071(1) and 482.165(1), by engaging in the business of pest control in 2014 and 2015 without a license from the Department, and impose an administrative fine of $4,500 against the Respondents, jointly; Respondent, Elite Inspectors, LLC, d/b/a EliteInspectors.com violated section 482.161(1)(h), by engaging in misleading advertising relating to pest control, and issue a warning letter thereto; and, Respondents, Tamer Kekec and Stephen Franco, violated section 482.091(2)(a), by conducting WDO inspections in 2014 and 2015 as independent contractors to DL, and revoking the Individual Respondents’ identification cards, pursuant to section 482.161. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 22nd day of March, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Billy F. Killingsworth is a licensed pest control operator in the State of Florida. He has been so licensed since 1967. He holds a degree in entomology and agriculture with minors in toxicology and soils. He is a highly qualified expert in the field of pest control. Mr. Killingsworth is the owner and operator of Killingsworth Pest Control Company, Inc., located in Pensacola, Florida. Killingsworth Pest Control engages in the business of the control and eradication of insects and rodents. Mr. Killingsworth and Killingsworth Pest Control employ Respondent, Richard L. Grimmel. Mr. Grimmel is a Pest Control Special Identification cardholder. The cardholder status enables Mr. Grimmel to administer chemicals and other pest control agents and otherwise conduct inspections of property to determine whether a structure is infested with pests. Mr. Grimmel performs his duties under the supervision of Mr. Killingsworth and Killingsworth Pest Control Co., Inc. About two years ago, Mr. Killingsworth purchased an Insecta-scope II Detector (Insecta-scope). An Insecta-scope is a device which enables an operator to listen to various types of insects while the insects are inside the wood of a structure. The main use of an Insecta-scope is to detect wood boring pests while they are still in a structure's wood, but before any evidence of the infestation appears on the outside of the wood. Different types of wood boring insects make different noises and, therefore, an Insecta-scope operator can determine what type of insect may be present in the wood. The Insecta-scope is on the forefront of technology in the detection of wood-destroying pests. If the operator is properly trained, the machine does what it is advertised to do, i.e., serve as a listening device for the detection of wood boring insects. Other than the Insecta-scope, current methods of detection involve a hammer, a flashlight, and a metal probe. Current methods of detection are limited to determining the presence of wood-boring pests after the insects begin to emerge from the wood. With certain types of insects, considerable damage can occur to the wood of a structure before any damage is noticeable on the exterior of the wood. Powder post beetles/old house wood borers have a life cycle of 10 to 15 years. In general, these insects lay their eggs in the pores of wood. The insects eventually hatch and begin eating the wood in which they live from the inside out. The insects do not reach adulthood for about 10 to 15 years. Once they reach adulthood, they chew their way to the outside of the wood, forming an exit hole. The hole generally has a sawdust-like material associated with it known as frass. Old exit holes are dark, and fresh exit holes are of a lighter color. Once the adult insects have exited the wood, it is highly probable that they will lay their eggs in the pores of the wood they have exited and reinfest the same wood. If left untreated, the insects would continuously be exiting the wood. If treated, the exiting would stop, however, the eggs inside the wood would not be affected. The infestation would appear when new exit holes begin to form 10 to 15 years later. In the meantime, the immature insects would be dieting on the wood in which they live. On February 13, 1989, Mr. Grimmel was called by Scott Mudge to inspect a house located at 3812 West Cervantes Street, Pensacola, Florida. The inspection was required in order to sell the house. The house to be inspected was at least 20 to 25 years old and was located close to the water. The house appeared to have a moisture problem. The conditions in the house were very good for powder post beetles/old house wood borers to infest the house, eating the wooden parts from the inside out. In the attic area of the house there was evidence of an old infestation of powder post beetles/old house wood borers. Reinfestation from the old infestation was highly probable. Mr. Grimmel arrived at the house and conducted an inspection of the premises. In the attic, he saw a few fresh exit holes with frass coming out of the holes. When he placed the Insecta-scope on the area of the frass and fresh exit holes, he knocked what little frass there was off of the beam or impacted the frass into the exit holes. Through the Insecta- scope, Mr. Grimmel could hear powder post beetles/old house wood borers inside the beam. Other than the few fresh exit holes and frass Mr. Grimmel saw, there was very little exterior evidence that the infestation was currently exiting the wood. The infestation was reported to Mr. Mudge and an inspection report was given to Mr. Mudge. Mr. Grimmel also posted a notice of inspection adjacent to the crawl space of the house. Mr. Mudge requested that Mr. Grimmel give him an estimate for treatment of the infestation. The estimate was around $975. Due to the treatment's cost, Mr. Mudge desired to get a second estimate for treatment of the infestation found by Mr. Grimmel. He obtained a second inspection of his house from Fireman's Termite & Pest Control (Fireman's). Fireman's inspector inspected the property either the same day as Mr. Grimmel or the next day. The inspector used the current method of inspecting by looking at the wood with a flashlight and tapping on the wood. Insufficient time had elapsed for new exit holes or frass to have formed; therefore, Fireman's found no evidence of an active infestation of wood borers or power post beetles in the structure. Mr. Mudge then filed a complaint with HRS against Respondents. Upon Mr. Mudge's complaint, HRS initiated an investigation and requested Mr. Killingsworth to file HRS Form 1145, Wood Destroying Organisms inspection report. The report includes information on evidence of whether an infestation was discovered and whether notice of the inspection was posted. Mr. Killingsworth reported that evidence of a live infestation had been observed, but inadvertently failed to properly fill in the information regarding the posting of the notice. 1/ The form submitted by Mr. Killingsworth indicated that a notice of inspection had been posted "in person", but failed to indicate where the notice had been posted. None of the information on either HRS Form 1145 or the inspection report to Mr. Mudge was false or incorrect. The failure of Mr. Killingsworth to fill in the information about the notice of inspection was at best a miniscule violation of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, since the notice was actually posted and the notice information was not relevant to the complaint of Mr. Mudge. Respondents cooperated in every respect with the Department's investigator. The Department's investigator, using the same techniques as Fireman's, did not find any evidence of an active live infestation i.e. he did not see any fresh exit holes or frass. However, as with Fireman's inspection, the Department's inspection occurred too close to the inspection by Mr. Grimmel for new exit holes or frass to form. 1/ Later, on June 13, 1990, Mr. Killingsworth along with Mr. Grimmel, re- inspected the property. Mr. Killingsworth viewed the area of the attic where Mr. Grimmel had reported the infestation. He saw a few fresh exit holes and some frass. Mr. Killingsworth had Mr. Grimmel place the Insecta-scope on the wood. They heard and simultaneously recorded wood borers/powder post beetles chewing inside the wood. The tape recording was presented at the hearing. It is very unlikely that the infestation or the evidence of the infestation had substantially changed in the time period from the initial February inspection to the present inspection. Based on the above facts, neither Respondent made a false report to Mr. Mudge or the Department. While Respondents' methodology may be in dispute, there was clear evidence on which a reasonable person could rely that Mr. Mudge's house was infested with wood borers/powder post beetles. Neither Respondents relied solely on the sounds from the Insecta-scope to make their determination. The evidence demonstrated that the Respondents' methodology comported with the standard practice in the Pensacola area. Therefore, neither Respondents is guilty of filing a false report.
Recommendation That the Department enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent, Grimmel, and finding Respondent, Killingsworth, guilty of violating Section 482.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and issuing a letter of guidance to Respondent Killingsworth. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of January, 1991.
The Issue As stipulated by the parties (prehearing stipulation filed 9/8/93), this proceeding involves a challenge by Petitioners, James Paul and Frank Hulse, IV, to the Respondent agency's proposed denial of applications to dredge and fill jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the Banana River in Brevard County in order to construct two house pads with driveways. The issues are whether the applications should be granted and if so, under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact The agency affected by this cause is the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, (DEP, or department) 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400. The department's file numbers for this matter are 05-187334-4 and 05-187329-4. (Stipulation) Petitioners are James Paul and Frank Hulse, IV. Their addresses are 139 Clearlake Road, Cocoa, Florida 32922 and River Capital, Two Midtown Plaza, 1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 1430, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, respectively. Petitioners own adjoining five acre parcels on Merritt Island, between State Road 3 (Courtenay Parkway) and the Banana River in Brevard County. (Stipulation) Description of Project Site The project site is located at the south end of the southern cell of Mosquito Control Impoundment No. 5 that was constructed in 1958 by the Brevard County Mosquito Control District (BMCD). This cell consists of approximately 60 acres. The impoundment is surrounded by a berm. A ditch (ditch #1) runs in a north-south direction along the west boundary of the impoundment and drains into a canal which runs in an east-west direction along the south boundary of the impoundment. This ditch was excavated to obtain fill to build the berm which is the western dike of the impoundment. The ditch serves as a drainage conveyance for water draining off of the State Road 3. This ditch does not connect into the impoundment. A second ditch runs in a north-south direction inside the impoundment (ditch #2). This ditch dead- ends at the berm that forms the southern boundary of the impoundment and does not flow from the impoundment. Spoil piles line the sides of both of these ditches. A twenty-five-to thirty-foot-wide berm forms the eastern, southern, and northern boundaries of the impoundment and a rim ditch lies inside the impoundment just to the west of the eastern berm. The project site has been severely impacted by the encroachment of upland, exotic and nuisance vegetation. The area between State Road 3 and ditch #1 is vegetated with slash pines, cabbage palms and wax myrtles. The area between ditch #1 and ditch #2, as well as the area immediately east of ditch #2, is dominated by a canopy of wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. Between the wax myrtle/Brazilian pepper canopy and the rim ditch is an area vegetated by herbaceous wetland vegetation. The berm along the Banana River is heavily vegetated with noxious Brazilian pepper trees. The project site has also been invaded by cattails, primrose willow and Australian pines - all of which are nuisance species. Over the western portion of the project site, the top stratum of vegetation is a canopy of wax myrtle trees and Brazilian peppers. Brazilian peppers also line the spoil piles along the sides of ditch #1 and ditch #2. The Project On October 3, 1990, Petitioners submitted their applications for wetland resource permits to excavate and fill certain areas on their properties for the purpose of constructing a residence on each parcel. The original applications, both under the name of Jimmy Paul, proposed similar activities on Tract 1, which is the Hulse property, and Tract 2, which is the Paul property. After initial preapplication consultation with Don Medellin of the department, Petitioners' agent prepared the first of several permit application proposals. The initial proposed project was to excavate an access channel approximately 1200 feet long by 50 feet wide by 3 feet deep to connect the two properties to the Banana River and to an existing canal. The project included the excavation of a "mitigation" pond overlapping the two properties. The proposed access channel and pond would have involved the excavation of 3.88 acres of wetlands. In addition, it was proposed that 2.23 acres of wetlands would be filled for two house pads and two driveways. Additional proposed mitigation included the removal of the berm which separated the properties from the Banana River. In response to comments from department staff that this original proposal would likely be denied, a revised project proposal was submitted by Petitioners' agent on December 14, 1990. The revised project eliminated the access channel and the pond but retained the two house pads and driveways. The revised project also eliminated the removal of the berm but provided for the planting of 0.12 acres of mangrove trees along the waterward edge of the berm. The revised project reduced the direct wetland impacts to 1.16 acres of filling. After further review and comment by department staff suggesting that the house pads be moved further to the west to be located along the eastern side of ditch #2, Petitioners again revised the project on May 17, 1991 to relocate the two house pads. The more westerly location allowed for a shorter driveway. However, the two house pads were slightly enlarged so that the total area of filling remained at 1.16 acres. At this time Application No. 05-187329-4 was transferred to Frank Hulse as the owner of Tract 1. Upon submittal of this revision, Petitioners' agent was advised by department staff that further reduction and minimization of impacts would be required. Staff suggested that the house pads be relocated between the first and second ditches near State Road 3. This suggestion was unacceptable to Petitioners due to the increased distance from the water and the proximity to State Road 3, with the higher noise levels at that location. On October 22, 1991 another revision to the applications was made to construct the houses on pilings and with filling only for the two driveways and parking areas. The total area of fill for both properties was thereby reduced to only two 500 ft. long by 20 ft. wide driveways and two parking fill pads 75 ft. long by 20 ft. wide. The total area of wetlands to be filled was therefore reduced to only approximately 0.28 acres. On November 16, 1991, Petitioners received the department's Notices of Permit Denial, advising them that the applications would be denied. In a further effort to design a project that would be acceptable, on June 26, 1992, Petitioners proposed a final revision. This proposal eliminates one of the driveways by utilizing the existing berm along the south side of Tract 2 and relocates the two house pads so that they would overlap the existing ditch and berm, thereby minimizing the area of wetlands fill. The total area of wetlands to be filled is 0.57 acres. The mitigation proposed for these impacts is to remove the remaining berm, back-fill the easternmost ditch, and then plant this area of 0.8 acres with appropriate herbaceous wetland vegetation. Petitioners also propose to remove all nuisance and exotic vegetation from the project site. This proposal was modeled after projects recently permitted by the department in an area immediately to the south of the project site. It is this version of the project that is the subject of this proceeding. (Stipulation) Jurisdiction Under department policy, the department has wetlands jurisdiction within an isolated mosquito impoundment if the wetlands within the impoundment were jurisdictional prior to the construction of the berm. There is competent substantial evidence that the area within the impoundment was, in fact, a jurisdictional wetland prior to the construction of the berm. The project site was enclosed within BMCD's impoundment in 1958. Based on the character of the site and historic aerial photographs and records of the BMCD, credible competent witnesses, Barbara Bess and Scott Taylor, opined that the pre-1958 area was a viable grassy saltmarsh wetland. Although the ten acre combined parcels include substantial upland, transitional and nuisance species, the site, particularly the easterly portion, still functions as a wetland. Water Quality The waters in the project vicinity are Class III waters. While the waters of the Banana River at the project area are part of the Banana River Aquatic Preserve and, therefore, an Outstanding Florida Water, no work is proposed in the Banana River. (Stipulation) The project will not cause any violations of state water quality standards. (Stipulation) Public Interest Public Health, Safety, and Welfare and Property of Others There is no issue or contention that the project will adversely affect the property of others. Mosquitos, particularly fresh water species of mosquitos, are a threat to human health. The mosquito impoundments were created in the 1950's and 1960's to aid in control of mosquito populations. The berms were built, and free-flowing wells were dug to insure that standing water would flood the eggs and create a habitat for mosquito larvae-eating fishes. Although no witness actually found a well on the Petitioners' parcel, historic records indicate the presence of at least one free flowing well at the northern end, and an odor associated with such artesian wells has been detected in the area. The St. Johns River Water Management District has a goal of plugging the wells to protect against loss of the ground water resource and to prevent saltwater intrusion and interaquifer contamination. If the well on this parcel is found and plugged, it could contribute to the destruction of the marsh that now exists, as that source of inundation would be eliminated and the impoundment would have only rainfall to rely upon. However, although the impoundment is not actively managed now by the BMCD, it plans to restore the area to a salt marsh through a system of pumps and culverts connecting to the Banana River, a source of salt water. At least one property owner to the north of Petitioners' property has entered into an agreement to retain the impounded state and to allow seasonal flooding for mosquito control purposes in return for a preferential tax assessment. Another mosquito control technique is aerial spraying to kill the larva and the adult flying mosquitos. Effective larvicidal spraying is frustrated by the existence of residences as the low-flying planes present a hazard and irritating noise levels. The Petitioners had proposed the scraping of a portion of the berm and establishing marsh grass to provide a nursery habitat in mitigation for the impact of filling the easternmost ditch. The BMCD objects to any removal of the berm, as it would threaten the integrity of the entire impoundment and destroy its function. Petitioners are willing to leave the berm intact, and their consultant has suggested the alternative of providing a system of culverting and pumping that would enable the impoundment to receive more salt water, thereby enhancing the establishment of a salt marsh and improving fish and wildlife functioning for the natural control of mosquitos. (transcript, p. 70) With the proposed modification to the mitigation plan, the project will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare with regard to the ability of the BMCD to control mosquito populations in the area. No other public health, safety or welfare issues have been raised. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The project site provides limited habitat for small minnow-like fish and serves as a foraging area for a variety of wading birds. Although only .57 out of 10 acres will be filled, the activity associated with the proposed use of the property will affect more than the limited footprint of the house pads and driveways. However, the surrounding area will still be used for foraging for the bird species, the small mammals, reptiles, fish and invertebrates; and the mitigation discussed below will offset the anticipated negative impacts. Brazilian pepper pervades the site now and will continue to destroy other vegetation if allowed to remain. Brazilian pepper trees are allotrophic, meaning that they release toxins that prevent the growth of other vegetation beneath their canopy. The increasing proliferation of wax myrtles and Australian pines, if not arrested, will reduce or eliminate the wildlife functions currently being performed in the wetlands. Navigation, Flow, Erosion and Shoaling As stipulated, the project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosions or shoaling. The flow of water will not be adversely affected, but rather will be enhanced by the proposed mitigation, as modified here. Fishing, Recreation and Marine Productivity Marine productivity will likewise be enhanced by the introduction of water from the Banana River, as proposed. The project is not now being used for fishing or recreational purposes. The nature of the project and its effect on Historical and Archeological Resources The parties have stipulated that the project is of a permanent nature and will not affect any significant historical or archeological resources. Condition and Value of Functions of the Wetlands Wetlands in general perform a series of functions, including groundwater discharge, groundwater recharge, flood storage, sediment stabilization, toxicant retention, nutrient assimilation, export of organic matter, and providing wildlife habitat and recreation. The wetlands at the project site in their current impounded state perform very little of these functions. They provide no function as to groundwater discharge or recharge. Because of their isolated nature, they provide no function for flood control, sediment stabilization, toxicant retention, nutrient assimilation or organic export. As noted above, the area does provide limited function as wildlife habitat and it serves as a mosquito impoundment. Besides rainwater falling directly on the impoundment, the only source of water to the wetlands within the impoundment is the free-flowing artesian well. If this well is located and plugged, the wetlands will likely dry out and the wetland vegetation will be replaced with upland species resulting in the further loss of the limited habitat provided by this area. The mitigation proposed and as modified here will aid flushing, and will restore some functions performed prior to impoundment without threatening the mosquito control function of the impoundment. Cumulative Impacts There are no projects existing or for which department permits or jurisdictional determinations are presently being sought within the impoundment, and there are no projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to section 380.06, F.S. which are within the impoundment. (Stipulation) There are five other property owners who own property within the impoundment. Of those five, one has entered into an agreement with the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners to not build on or alter his property for a period of ten years. If each of the other four owners were to be allowed to construct a project similar to those being proposed by Petitioners, there would be only 1.71 acres of filling (0.285 acres per parcel x 4 parcels + 0.57 acres at the project site) in the entire 60 acre impoundment. This would have an insignificant impact on the fish and wildlife habitat value of the wetlands in the impoundment, and that impact would, by necessity, be mitigated or the project would not be approved. The wetlands in the rest of the impoundment are of a higher quality than those at the project site, just as, according to department staff, the Petitioners' wetlands are a higher quality than those to the south on the parcel where permits were issued to Messrs. Savell, Burgunder, Skowron, Anderson, and Stewart for projects similar to that proposed here. There is only conjecture that the issuance of the subject permits to Petitioners will result in the likelihood of the issuance of future permits to the other property owners in the impoundment, or to property owners in other impoundments. Petitioners' project, when considered with other projects which may be reasonably expected to be located within this impoundment or other impoundments, will not result in adverse cumulative impacts to the wetlands. Mitigation As stipulated by the parties, Petitioners proposed, as mitigation for filling .57 acres, to remove a portion of the berm that is not being used by the driveway and house pads, to backfill the easternmost ditch and plant .8 acres with appropriate herbaceous wetland vegetation, and to remove all nuisance and exotic vegetation from the project site. At hearing, Petitioners' consultant agreed to modify the mitigation plan to address the concerns of the BMCD as to the project's negative impact on mosquito control techniques. Those modifications include leaving the berm intact. The consultant also suggested that culverting and pumping over the berm would introduce salt water into the impoundment and would improve the functioning of the wetlands. This suggestion is an appropriate substitute for removal of the berm and would appropriately mitigate negative impacts to the public health, safety and welfare by providing a means to control mosquito breeding in lieu of the larvacidal aerial sprays. The salt water inundation would reduce fresh water mosquito larvae and would provide a habitat for small larvae-eating fish. The department has suggested that Petitioners should move the houses to the uplands on the western portion of the property or construct the houses between the two ditches to the west (ditch #1 and ditch #2). These suggestions are neither practical nor necessary. Noise from State Road 3 and the desirability of waterfront living motivated Petitioners to plan the houses closer to the Banana River. The wetland enhancement described above amply mitigates the impacts of the filling Petitioners now propose. Past Agency Practice From 1987 to 1991, the department issued five permits for the construction of seven house pads and driveways within a mosquito impoundment immediately south of the project area. After a period of negotiations and several permit denials, the department eventually permitted the placement of house pads along the Banana River in projects similar to that proposed by Petitioners. The project to the immediate south of Petitioners' site was permitted to include excavation and filling of the owner's entire 4.5 acres. This was in 1987. Later permits for the parcels further south required more extensive mitigation. The wetlands south of Petitioners' property were much more stressed than those on Petitioners' property. The area was heavily vegetated with cattails, wax myrtle, Australian pines and other like species. There were breaches already in the mosquito impoundment berm, so that impoundment's integrity had already been compromised. Piles of spoil material placed on the sites in some unknown past had contributed to the general trashy appearance of these parcels. In summary, the department adequately distinguished the permits granted in those five cases from the permits sought here, just as the department will be able to distinguish these permits from the conjectured future applications from property owners in the more valuable (function-wise) wetlands to the north of Petitioners' property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered approving Petitioners' applications as modified above. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 18th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 18th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 92-0525 & 92-0526 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings 1.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1-10, respectively; however the verbiage in paragraphs 9 & 10 regarding the impacts being limited to the actual acreage being excavated or filled is deleted as misleading. 11.-15. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 11-15, respectively. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 18.-20. Adopted in paragraphs 18-20, respectively. Adopted in part in paragraphs 24 and 16; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 26, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, which evidence suggests that leaving the berm will not, alone, resolve the BMCD concerns related to proper mosquito control. 23.-24. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence; although the conclusory facts proposed are true, with the modifications suggested for Petitioners' mitigation plan. (See paragraph 27) 25.-28. Adopted in part in paragraphs 28 & 29; otherwise rejected as misleading or contrary to the weight of evidence. 29. Rejected as unnecessary. 30.-31. Adopted in paragraph 30. 32.-33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. 34.-35. Adopted in substance in paragraph 32. 36.-37. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 33-34, respectively. 38. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 23 and 24. 39.-40. Adopted in paragraph 37. 41.-44. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 37-40, respectively. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and the law (as to the requirement for mitigation). Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in paragraph 44; otherwise rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. 48.-59. Rejected as unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in expanded form in paragraphs 7-15. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 17 and 24. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 25 and 26. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 14. 9.-10. Rejected as unnecessary as stated, but addressed in paragraphs 41- 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence which suggests, instead, that the wetlands in issue are not currently connected to the Banana River. This does not, however, defeat the department's jurisdictional claim. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. 17.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 25 & 26. 19. Rejected as immaterial, in view of the modification to the mitigation plan. 20.-21. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 22.-23. Adopted in summary in paragraph 28. Rejected as generally contrary to the weight of evidence. The wetlands are stressed. Whether they will improve or degrade if left in their present state is a matter of conjecture; but the trend is for the exotics to take over. Adopted in paragraph 28, in summary; but the project, as mitigated, should improve the habitat. 26.-27. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as an incomplete statement. As mitigated, the project will improve marine productivity. Adopted in paragraph 44. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 41. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 46. Adopted in summary in paragraph 45. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Lotspeich, Esquire L. Bartin, Esquire Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John L. Chaves, Esquire Donna LaPlante, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
