The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent offered condominium units for sale to the public and offered contracts for sale of those units in violation of Section 718.502(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is charged with having offered units for sale and offered contracts prior to the time of filing the required condominium documents with the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums as required by Section 718.502 and the rules promulgated thereunder. At the formal hearing, Petitioner called as its witness Luis Stabinski, an officer and 50 percent owner of the Respondent corporation. The Petitioner also presented testimony by the deposition of Luis Stabinski, which was entered into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, and the deposition of Paul Scherman, which was admitted into evidence as petitioner's Exhibit 2. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was a deposition of William Hirsch, an investigator for the Department of Business Regulation. There was an objection made to the admissibility of the deposition of Mr. Hirsch by the Respondent on the grounds that Mr. Hirsch had previously investigated a prior development in which the owners and officers of Finst Development, Inc. were involved. The undersigned Hearing Officer took that objection under advisement and after having reviewed the deposition, overrules the objection and admits Petitioner's Exhibit 3, the deposition of William Hirsch. Petitioner also offered and had admitted Petitioner's Exhibits 4 - 9. Mr. Luis Stabinski was also called as a witness by the Respondent in the Respondent's case-in-chief. Respondent did not offer any exhibits into evidence. Counsel for the Petitioner and for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted herein, they were considered by the undersigned Hearing Officer and determined to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Based upon a stipulation between Petitioner and Respondent, the following facts (a) through (b) are found: The condominium development which is the subject of this action is named Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North. Twenty-eight (28) contracts, other than Petitioner's Exhibit 8, for the purchase of units in the Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North bear dates or are dated by their terms prior to September 25, 1981. The Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North contains 52 units and was developed by the Respondent, Finst Development, Inc. Finst Development, Inc., is a Florida corporation for profit and is owned in equal shares by Mr. Luis Stabinski and Mr. Richard Finvarb. Mr. Finvarb was president of the corporation and Mr. Stabinski served as vice- president and secretary. On September 25, 1981, the Respondent, Finst Development, Inc., filed the following items with the Department of Business Regulation, the Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums: Condominium documents for Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North. Condominium filing statement. Condominium filing checklist. Check in the sum of $520.00, representing filing fee for the above-referenced condominium project. The Declaration of Condominium was executed by Richard Finvarb and Luis Stabinski on September 30, 1980. The Articles of Incorporation of Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium Association North, Inc., were executed by Richard Finvarb, Bell Stabinski, and Luis Stabinski on August 12, 1981. The bylaws for Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North were executed on August 12, 1981. Each of these three documents is part of the required filing which was filed on September 25, 1981. On December 9, 1981, the Respondent was notified by Petitioner that the review of the documents filed by the Respondent in connection with Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North was complete. That notice also informed Respondent that the documents were considered proper for filing purposes and the developer "may close on contracts for sale or lease for a lease period of more than five years." (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6.) Upon the insistence of Mr. Stabinski, his law firm, Stabinski, Funt, Levine, and Vega, P.A., did all the legal work in connection with the condominium. Specifically, Mr. Paul Scherman, an associate and employee of the firm, did the legal work for the condominium. Mr. Scherman worked under the direct supervision of Mr. Stabinski. Prior to the filing of the condominium documents on September 25, 1981, the fifty-two (52) units of the condominium were offered for ale to the public. Contracts for the purchase and sale of units in the condominium were also offered to the public. Prior to filing the condominium documents on September 25, 1981, the Respondent entered into 29 contracts for the purchase and sale of units in Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North. There were no closings held on any units prior to approval of the condominium documents by the Department. During the construction and sale of units in Indian Creek Club and Marina Condominium North, Richard Finvarb was in charge of construction, sales, and supervision of the Finst Development, Inc. office and personnel. Luis Stabinski's involvement was as an investor. The documents filed by Respondent with the Department were prepared by Paul Scherman, an associate in Mr. Stabinski's law firm. Mr. Scherman also attended all closings on units and received copies of contracts entered into by Respondent for the sale of units in the condominium. Mr. Scherman was aware that contracts were being entered into prior to the filing of the condominium documents described in Paragraph 2 above. Luis Stabinski has been a practicing attorney for 13 years. He represents individual condominium purchasers and has been involved as an investor in three other condominium projects prior to the Indian Creek Club and Marina North Condominium. Following the initial filing of the condominium documents, the Respondent promptly responded to and made the changes and corrections required by the Department in two Notices of Deficiencies. After being provided with the required documents, all but five or six of the purchasers who had entered into contracts prior to the filing of the documents closed on their units. The five or six that did not close are presently in litigation with the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order imposing a civil penalty of $7,500 and ordering the Respondent to cease and desist from any further violations of Chapter 718 or the rules promulgated thereunder. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 9th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Norman Funt, Esquire Stabinski & Funt, P.A. 757 N.W. 27th Avenue Third Floor Miami, Florida 33125 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. E. James Kearney Director Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Did Respondent, Robert Skidmore, III, violate section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ by using his position as county commissioner to ask a county staff member to approve a zoning application for Beach Road Boutique? Did Mr. Skidmore violate section 112.313(6) by asking a county employee to look for and selectively enforce code violations against J.J.'s Restaurant?
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Skidmore was a Charlotte County commissioner. Beach Road Boutique Zoning Scott and Jill Hemmes, constituents of Mr. Skidmore, owned a business known as Beach Road Boutique in Charlotte County. They sought to obtain a state alcoholic beverage sales license. In order to obtain a license, the applicant must demonstrate local zoning approval. Charlotte County Commission employees enforce and apply zoning regulations in the county. Erin Mullen-Travis is the licensing manager for Charlotte County Planning and Development. During 2011, she was the code compliance and licensing manager. Ms. Mullen-Travis has worked for Charlotte County over 26 years. One of Ms. Mullen-Travis's duties as code compliance and licensing manager was the review and approval of the zoning requirements on applications of establishments wanting alcoholic beverage licenses. Ms. Mullen-Travis first denied the zoning application of Beach Road Boutique on February 17, 2011. Mr. and Ms. Hemmes sought Mr. Skidmore's assistance getting approval for their zoning application. Mr. Skidmore called Ms. Mullen-Travis about the application. Mr. Skidmore told Ms. Mullen-Travis that he had some nice people in his office and that he needed help getting zoning approval for them. In her 26 years of employment with Charlotte County, Mr. Skidmore was the only county commissioner who had ever directly sought her assistance with constituent matters. Other commissioners had always gone through the chain-of-command. He identified the applicant, and Ms. Mullen-Travis explained why the zoning had not been approved. Ms. Mullen-Travis felt intimidated by Mr. Skidmore. Mr. Skidmore, however, did not threaten Ms. Mullen-Travis or explicitly offer any reward available to him because of his position as county commissioner. He did, however, implicitly offer a reward, if she helped the Hemmes. It is common knowledge in Charlotte County that Ms. Mullen-Travis is a NASCAR fan. Among other things, she drives a car with Dale Earnhardt and NASCAR badges and decals. During the call, Mr. Skidmore asked Ms. Mullen-Travis about her affinity for NASCAR. He also offered to get her an autographed photo of Rusty Wallace (a NASCAR driver) and tickets to a race. He told her that he had gone to school with Rusty Wallace's son. This is true. And Ms. Mullen-Travis could not have known it without Mr. Skidmore telling her. Given the context, Ms. Mullen-Travis accurately considered that the tickets and photo were offered in exchange for her approval of the application to the benefit of the Hemmes. Also, the call was made in Mr. Skidmore's official capacity. Charlotte County has a Home Rule Charter (Charter). Section 2.3(A)(1) of the Charter makes the county administrator responsible for all administrative matters and operations. Section 2.3(C)(1) states: "Except for purposes of inquiry and information, the members of the board of county commissioners shall not interfere with the performance of the duties of any employee of the county who is under the direct or indirect supervision of the county administration." Also, the long-established practice was for commissioners to only contact agency directors. Mr. Skidmore's call to Ms. Mullen-Travis was contrary to the Charlotte County Charter and the practice under it. Therefore, it was not an authorized act pursuant to his duties or authorities as a county commissioner. Mr. Skidmore and Ms. Mullen-Travis were the only participants in the call. He denies the conversation. Ms. Mullen-Travis's account is more credible. This is based upon her contemporaneous communications about the call, the common recollection of all witnesses of a NASCAR component to the conversation, the fact that she could not otherwise have known Mr. Skidmore went to school with Rusty Wallace's son, the relative personal interests of the witnesses in the outcome of the proceeding, and the demeanor of the witnesses, particularly of Mr. Skidmore's. Shonna Jenkins worked as a contractor licensing investigator for Charlotte County for a little over seven years. She held that position in 2011 and reported to Ms. Mullen-Travis. Mr. Skidmore had obtained Ms. Jenkins cell phone number. He had a practice of calling her directly to check on contractor licensing matters. He also contacted Ms. Jenkins to ask her to approve the Beach Road Boutique zoning application. J.J.'s Restaurant After a meeting held on March 3, 2011, Mr. Skidmore flagged Ms. Jenkins down in the parking lot. He asked her to "do him a favor," and "go shut them [J.J.'s Restaurant] down. I want them out of this f**ing town." Mr. Skidmore wanted Ms. Jenkins to find code violations for J.J.'s Restaurant. Mr. Skidmore said that he would make sure that Ms. Jenkins got a pay raise or a pay grade increase for this. Either the ex-boyfriend or ex-husband of Mr. Skidmore's wife and father of her child had an interest in J.J.'s Restaurant. There was conflict between the two families. Mr. Skidmore had also requested the Charlotte County director of Growth Management, Jeff Ruggieri, to take code enforcement actions against J.J.'s Restaurant. Ms. Jenkins was intimidated and feared her job with the county was in jeopardy if she did not do as Mr. Skidmore asked. Ms. Jenkins reported the conversation to Ms. Mullen-Travis and Joanna Colburn, a licensing investigator, immediately afterwards. Ms. Jenkins was visibly upset and shocked. She also contemporaneously documented the incident. Ms. Jenkins is and has been frank about her dislike for Mr. Skidmore. This hostility, as well as the mental and emotional difficulties Ms. Jenkins suffered as a result of her employment and dealings with Mr. Skidmore, does not undermine her testimony. In light of the witnesses' demeanor and corroborating evidence, her testimony is credible. In addition, although evidence established Ms. Jenkins was taking several medications, the record does not indicate that the medications in any way affect a person's memory or veracity. Mr. Skidmore's requests to Ms. Jenkins and Mr. Ruggieri to act against J.J.'s Restaurant were in violation of the Charlotte County Charter and, therefore, not authorized acts pursuant to his duties or responsibilities as a county commissioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order and public report be entered finding that Respondent, Robert Skidmore, III, twice violated section 112.313(6) and that he be fined $5,000 for each violation for a total of $10,000, together with public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 February, 2015.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, license number CG C033931, based on the violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: Reeves is a Florida State certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C033931 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). Licensure status is "Active Issued." Reeves is registered or certified with the CILB as an individual. The Scope of the Project Sometime prior to October 1998, Beach retired, came to Florida, and needed a place to live, so she decided to ultimately reside in a trailer. Beach has health problems, which require special living accommodations and changes to the trailer she purchased, including ramps and a bathroom to facilitate the needs of a handicapped person. Beach was unfamiliar with trailer life and wanted to ensure that her trailer was "fastened securely to the ground." Based on suggestions made by three (3) different contractors, Beach decided to design a "roof over coming out eight feet on either side of the existing trailer and tying it to the ground securely so that the trailer was then encased in the roofing over." Beach developed the plans for the project, which were approved by the local planning and zoning department. After discussing the matter with Reeves, Beach also decided to have porches on both sides of the trailer, "taking advantage of the overhang that the roofing-over afforded." Beach and Reeves discussed other details, such as the need for a walk- in closet off of the bedroom, a whirlpool tub, replacement of the upper kitchen cupboards, improvement of the duct work in the kitchen and living areas, screening of the front porch and windows on the back porch (a sun room), enlargement of the bathroom and made "handicap-accessible," and replacement of the doors and ramps. The Written Proposal and "Extras" On or about November 2, 1998, Reeves entered into a written contractual agreement, i.e., the "Proposal" dated October 26, 1998, with Beach, to construct addition(s) and other items to her trailer-home located at 2170 Maryland Street, Lanark Village, Florida. The written Proposal states in material part: We will supply all labor and materials to complete the following at your residence: Build a new freestanding roof over existing trailer and extend roofline to cover front and back porches. Build a new front porch with approximately an 8' x 24' screen section and ramp on opposite end. Rebuild back porch to 8' x 24' and install windows. Enlarge bathroom and make a walk-in closet. Inspect and improve existing duct work for better air flow. Enclose gable ends of new roof and tie in to existing trailer. Install new upper cabinets in kitchen (allowance $500.00). WE WILL PERFORM THIS WORK FOR THE SUM OF $20,900.00) (TWENTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS). Beach agreed to make payments "as work progresses." The original contract price for the additions to the trailer was $20,900.00. The Proposal contained no language of access to the Construction Industry Licensing Fund. At the time of executing the Proposal, Reeves told Beach that a subcontractor was not necessary for the electrical and plumbing work. Reeves and Beach also discussed several "extras" which were added to the Proposal. Beach and Reeves made a verbal agreement for additions or extras to the original Proposal that included siding ($2,700.00), a fireplace, and an extension of one of the ramps, in exchange for not replacing the cabinets. These changes increased the total contract price to $24,200.00, which was paid by Beach. See Finding of Fact 33. Also in November 1998, and before she signed the Proposal, Beach prepared a list, in her handwriting, of plumbing and kitchen items she saw at Home Depot, which she needed for the job and she gave the list to Reeves. According to Beach, Reeves "followed through and got everything [on the list] except for the shower door." Reeves applied with the Franklin County Building and Zoning Department for permits to perform the work on the Beach trailer and the permits were issued. The Franklin County Building Code requires inspections, but does not state when they are to be performed. It is not unusual to perform more than one inspection at a time, especially where, like Franklin County, there is only one inspector for the entire County. Reeves did not ask for an inspection of the work done on the trailer. Work begins on the trailer and problems arise After the Proposal was signed and the verbal additional items agreed to, on November 4, 1998, Reeves commenced work on the project. At this time, Beach was living in a motor home. The roof line built by Reeves covered the back and front porches. Reeves built a new front porch with an approximately an eight foot by twenty-four foot screen porch and a ramp on the opposite end as required by the Proposal. He also added three other ramps, which are not mentioned in the Proposal. By letter dated April 15, 1999, Beach responded to an invoice submitted to her by Reeves. The record does not contain a copy of the invoice, which seems to have been dated March 31, 1999. However, Beach's letter indicates that Reeves submitted a bill for an additional $4,240.00 (which did not include $2,700.00 for siding), above the original Proposal price of $20,900.00. Beach says that only $975.00 are valid charges for "verbally agreed upon additions to the contract." (Beach says that she paid Reeves $600.00 for the extras which was included in her check of December 16, 1998, for $5,000.00.) Reeves' invoice was the first bill for any extras discussed by Beach and Reeves. According to Beach, they discussed the necessity of having additional ramps, and Reeves did not say there would be an additional charge, and it was discussed "as if it was part of the ongoing project." According to Beach, work progressed through November and slowed during Thanksgiving week. Into December, Beach says that Reeves came to the work site "less and less" and the workmen did not have either the necessary materials or equipment and also came "less and less." She tried to contact Reeves. According to Pendleton, who worked for Reeves on the Beach project, for the first three weeks to a month after commencing the project, Reeves was on-site every day. According to Pendleton, the job took longer than expected because of the many changes requested by Beach. For example, after the trailer was "roofed," Beach "wanted her outside ceiling closed into her trailer." They added "a furnace on the back porch," "put marble sills in her window of her trailer," and "furred out her whole wall to put paneling on the trailer." The original plans called for one ramp, but three were added. As work progressed, Beach expressed objections to Reeves regarding the workmanship on the screened-in porch and floorboards and the need to eliminate bugs from entry. They also discussed the build-up of heat in the roof because the roof was "trapping hot air in." Reeves treated the roof area, an extra, which Beach acknowledges. Beach reported other problems to Reeves, including but not limited to, a leak in the shower and an unsealed drain in the shower, which caused a flood in the bathroom, and "a two-foot hole cut in the floor around the plumbing that was left open to the outside." This was on the punch list she gave to Reeves. She pled with Reeves to finish the job, but he said that "[t]his w[ould] be the last day [he would] be coming" and that "he had other things he had to do." According to Beach, "things deteriorated," and she saw very little of Reeves into January and did not see much of him at all by the end of January. Beach was frightened and did not know what to do but "struggled along with [Reeves'] workmen," i.e., Richard Norman (Norman) and Pendleton, the main workmen, who did the plumbing for the shower. When Reeves was no longer on-site daily or all day, Norman and Pendleton were on-site. Another worker, Bob Lanceford quit because of the changes requested by Beach and her "flip- flopping." At some point in time after the trailer roof-over was completed and other work performed, including work on the back porch, Reeves and Beach discussed the punch lists written by both and that he had given the list to his workmen. Beach recalls the conversation and that Reeves said it was going to be his last day there. Beach recalls Norman staying to finish the skirting and Jody Fechera putting the siding on the inside of the sun porch, but that "the guys really didn't work on [the punch list] that much." Beach felt that she had to supervise Pendleton regarding hooking up the shower during this two-week period. Pendleton says that he and the others were working off of the list Reeves gave him during the last couple of weeks he was on the Beach job. Pendleton could not get the work done on the list because Beach "stood over [them] telling [them] to do other things and [they] never could get to that list." The list included adding hurricane clips and exterior work. None of these tasks were completed. Pendleton recalls Reeves telling him that he and "Rich" would have to leave the Beach site in a couple of days and to make Beach happy because they could not return until Edwards returned. Pendleton understood that they were to return to the Beach site and finish the job after Edwards finished the plumbing and electrical work. There is a dispute whether, during a two-week period after the punch lists were written, Beach was supervising Reeves' workmen including Pendleton. In or around the end of February 1999, Reeves advised Beach of problems he was having with the bathtub and needed Edwards "to do it." Reeves also needed Edwards, licensed to do plumbing and electrical work, to move the electrical panel box, which was accomplished. According to Beach, this was the first time Reeves advised Beach that he could not do plumbing or electrical work. Beach says that Reeves told her on the day they signed the Proposal that he would not have to subcontract for any of the plumbing and electrical work. Reeves admitted to doing plumbing and electrical work on this and other projects, although both of these types of work require specific licenses. Reeves recommended to Beach that Edwards perform these tasks. According to Pendleton, Edwards was "to come over and do all of the plumbing and wiring." It took Edwards quite a while to get to the Beach project. Edwards "pulled the permit for the electrical unit." He "made the old panel hot." He installed the breaker box and connected it to Beach's trailer. Edwards fixed the shower head and the drain plug, which was a major leak. He also fixed the plumbing. Edwards fixed some other problems he noticed, but he did not know whether these problems pre-dated Reeves' tenure on the project. In October 1998 and prior to Reeves' commencing work on the Proposal, Beach had a man drilling a well on her property. In February or March of 1999, Beach "got the idea of moving the tank back . . .." Edwards came to the Beach trailer on March 10, 1999, and installed the electrical panel and moved the tank at the same time. It took Edwards a few weeks to accomplish these tasks from the time Reeves and Beach discussed these items. Beach paid Edwards to move the electrical panel to the end of the house and move the water tank and installing it under the carport and some electrical and plumbing repairs. Beach paid Edwards $1,580.00, of which $700.00 of the bill, according to Beach, was for correcting plumbing and electrical errors made by Reeves or his workmen. In early March 1999, Ron Jackson (Jackson) advised Beach that Reeves had "run up a $9,435[.00] bill" at Ace Hardware in her name which remained unpaid and that a lien would be filed on her house. At this time, Beach filed a complaint with the local building department and hired an attorney to assist her with the lien. Apparently the lien was not timely filed and not successfully pursued. Beach also filed a complaint with the Department. Beach was unaware of any amount still owed on her job to others, which Reeves performed and did not pay. By letter dated March 30, 1999, Reeves apologized to Beach for not paying Jackson timely and told Beach he intended to pay Jackson, whether Beach paid him or not. On March 17, and April 21, 1999, a hearing was held before the Franklin County Construction Industry Licensing Board. This Board issued a verbal warning to Reeves "for operating outside his scope of work in the field of electrical and plumbing." Reeves advised the Board that he would not "do any electrical or plumbing until he is licensed to do the work or he will hire license[d] people." On April 7, 1999, Beach, having been living in a motor home during this time, decided to live in the trailer and discovered the flooding problems in the bathroom; everything in the kitchen leaked; and the commode was unsteady and leaked. Reeves returned to "stabilize it," but apparently Beach had to pay Edwards to repair the leaks in the bathroom. At some time after March, Reeves ceased performing on the project altogether. The project was not complete. Beach pays Reeves By check, Beach paid Reeves $4,000.00 on November 11, 1998, to get started; $10,000.00 on November 12, 1998; $2,500.00 on November 20, 1998; $5,000.00 (which included an estimated cost of $600.00 for extras according to Beach) on December 16, 1998; and $2,700.00 (for siding which was an agreed-upon extra) on January 28, 1999, for a total of $24,200.00. Beach had to estimate how much the extra work performed would cost based on the verbal price given by Reeves. The January check was the price for constructing a new one-sided exterior portion, along with the insulation, of the trailer. Beach paid out-of-pocket expenses on repairs and estimates for work which arguably should have been done pursuant to the Proposal and agreed-upon extras. These total approximately $2,560.29. See (Pet. Exh. 5- $990.29; Pet. Exh. 7- $120.00; Pet. Exh. 8- $750.00; and, Pet. Exh. 13- $700.00). Beach also paid for other estimates and repairs as noted herein which were not proven to be directly connected to work performed or not performed by Reeves. See, e.g., Findings of Fact 37-38. Problems identified with the condition of the trailer During the final hearing, Beach identified several photographs, she took over a period of time-April through June, 1999-of her trailer from the inside and outside and identified various problems with the workmanship performed or not performed by Reeves. According to Beach, the photographs show the trailer "after Mr. Reeves finished the project, or Mr. Reeves worked on the house." These problems included an outside electrical switch installed with wires exposed; exposed receptacle outlet; unfinished bathroom trim, which was minor according to Beach; fan cover left hanging on the kitchen ceiling; exposed hole around light fixture in the closet, which Norman could not repair; a fan hanging down in the bathroom, with hole cut too large; water running out from the shower because of an improper drain installation; unsealed shower drain; shower door leak-not caulked; no cutoff valve on the toilet; unsteady commode; no insulation and unprotected plumbing coming up through a hole where the bath tub is located; marble skirt to whirlpool tub destroyed by Edwards' men who had to cut through the marble in order to access the tub; panel to tub which is open and allows air and bugs to enter; tub motor not plugged into a ground fault receptacle; drywall in the bedroom closet, which was new construction, which had to be torn out to repair; wet carpeting which had to be removed; leak in the shower caused by brass plug in plastic line; support posts under the roof not nailed and without hurricane clips (photographs taken in August 1999 after Summerhill and some of the neighbors told her there were no nails on that side of the house holding the roof down); and exposed rafters which allowed squirrels to run down the chimney. Beach asked Greg Mathis, a licensed (City of Tallahassee) plumber, to determine the extent of repairs which were required on her trailer. On or about November 18, 1999, Mathis examined the plumbing in the Beach trailer and gave Beach an estimate for the repairs and charged $135.00 for the estimate, which included his travel time to the Beach trailer in Carrabelle. Mathis charged Beach $670.00 for the repairs including $445.00 for labor and $225.00 for materials. The repairs included applying putty and installing a Delta repair kit on a new faucet in the kitchen; repair of a "fairly new drain" which was leaking in the lavatory; resetting of the toilet which was wobbling and application of caulk; replacement of the whirlpool stopper; repairing the "whole tub waste"; and connection of a drain to a bar sink, which had hot and cold water to it. Mathis also gave Beach an estimate of $185.29 to repair the shower drain and valve. Mathis was unaware who did the plumbing he saw. Brian Will has a State certified building license. Beach asked him to inspect her trailer and give her an estimate of the costs for repair. Will performed a site visit to Beach's trailer on November 22, 1999, and charged Beach $175.00, after a $175.00 Christmas discount, for the inspection and written report dated December 16, 1999. After inspecting the trailer, Will identified problems with the trailer, including a recommendation that Beach secure an engineering report on the foundation, roof framing and uplift connections; installation of a "properly ducted and vented (range termination kit) range hood" in the kitchen; insulate ceiling; improvement to the fireplace clearance; increase vent attic space; and other items. The fireplace issue and "wind loading connection" could be life safety issues. The estimated cost was $9,375.00, although Will stated he is "seldom the low bid guy." Will did not review the Proposal nor the plans and specifications. Will did not know what Reeves and his workmen did or did not do on the Beach trailer. He made no assumptions as to who did any of the work on the trailer. Beach told him that someone added some additional hurricane clips and installed a gable vent or fan. She did not comment to him whether Reeves finished the job. Will identified portions of the trailer that did not appear to him to be finished and that did not meet the building code. Robert J. Pietras, while not a licensed contractor, is a self-employed laborer and has experience in construction, "everything from footers on up to trim carpentry." In or around September 1999, Beach asked him to inspect the trailer and determine what was necessary to make the trailer stronger for hurricane resistance. He found eleven (11) hurricane clips missing and a support post holding up a carrying beam that was not nailed. Some hurricane clips had been placed and set right on the rafters, but the job was incomplete. There were no uplift straps on any of the exterior beams. However, he felt he needed to remove the paneling on the back porch to add the clips from the inside. Pietras could not say whether there were hurricane clips on the outside soffitt. He made the changes. Pietras was also told, by John Summerhill, there was insufficient ventilation in the attic or roof-over, so he added a commercial louver and also framed up to add a fan to draw excess heat. Pietras agreed that if the new enclosed roof-over, constructed by Reeves, had not been enclosed, there would not have been any ventilation problem. He was paid $30.00 for adding the hurricane clips and the tie-down straps. He was not paid approximately $90.00 for work done. Any additional work he recommended was put on hold. Summerhill has air conditioning and electrical licenses and has been in business in Franklin County since 1991. Beach asked him to inspect her trailer and identify electrical problems in or around September 1999. Summerhill did not see the Beach/Reeves Proposal and was unaware of the scope of Reeves' work, including what Reeves did or did not do regarding any electrical problems perceived by Summerhill. However, Beach told him that Reeves did all of the electrical and plumbing. He noticed the absence of hurricane clips on the outside and that a four-by-four post on the south corner did not have nails in the top. He charged Beach $150.00 to install an exhaust in the attic for ventilation which Beach paid. Summerhill also noticed other problems with, for example, waterproof covers needed for the receptacle and switch on the porch, need for ground fault receptacles, and other items. He quoted $600.00 for labor and materials to make these repairs and replace needed items. Summary of work left undone and repairs needed The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Beach and Reeves agreed to the terms of the Proposal and several extras; that Beach paid Reeves $24,200.00, which exceeded the amount originally quoted in the Proposal, i.e., $20,900.00, and included payment for extras, including $2,700.00 for siding and $600.00/$5,000.00 for other extras; that the workmanship performed by Reeves, and others on his behalf, was incomplete and in some cases poorly done which required repairs by others; that Beach paid for repairs; that Reeves left the project with work outstanding; that Reeves, and or his workmen, performed electrical and plumbing services while not being licensed; and that Reeves did not refer to the Construction Industry Recovery Fund in the written Proposal. The Department also proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Beach trailer is in need of substantial repairs and further inspections. See, e.g., Findings of Fact 37-38. However, and in particular, Will, who performed a major inspection of the trailer, did not review the Proposal or the plans and specifications and did not know what Reeves and his workmen did nor did not do on the Beach trailer. Therefore, the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Reeves was responsible for the repairs suggested by Will. Mitigation Reeves has built several State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) homes for the SHIP program in Franklin County to the satisfaction of the County's SHIP administrator, Ms. Shirley Walker. Ms. Walker was not aware of any complaints with Reeves' work over the past four (4) years. Probable Cause is found by the CILB On September 27, 2000, a two-member panel of the CILB found probable cause against Reeves. There was no finding of "no probable cause" by the CILB regarding the Reeves and Beach matter which is the subject of this proceeding. Reeves' prior disciplinary history Reeves has a prior disciplinary history with the CILB and the Department regarding his license. On October 8, 1992, in Case No. 91-11103, the CILB imposed an administrative fine of $1,700.00. On October 24, 1996, the CILB, in Case No. 95-07490, imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00, restitution of $28,501.39 based on an unsatisfied civil judgment, $119.53 in costs, and two (2) years of probation. Both cases were resolved without a final evidentiary hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be rendered as follows: Suspending Reeves' licenses to practice contracting for six (6) months, requiring Reeves to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00, and requiring Reeves to complete continuing education, with the subjects and hours to be determined by the CILB. Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, in the amount of $1,302.91. Requiring Reeves to pay restitution to Beach in the amount of $2,560.29, representing the amounts paid by Beach for estimates and for work performed or ill-performed by Reeves which, on this record, are attributable to Reeves. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 13th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Danny L. Reeves 267 Carroll Street Eastpoint, Florida 32328 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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 factual findings. Respondent is a certified general contractor and has been issued license number CG CA03134. During November of 1978, Respondent, doing business through the entity of Creative Home Design, Inc., entered into a contract with Dr. Stephen Silverstein to construct a residence in Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $180,000. Respondent received from Dr. Silverstein a total of $140,500 for the construction he performed on the Silverstein residence. (Stipulation by the parties) Additionally, Dr. Silvertstein paid certain liens which were filed with regard to the construction performed by Respondent on his residence, to wit: P.N.A. Drywall: $5,260.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Pentagon Diversified: $3,801.34 (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) American Lumber: $8,217.50 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Lone Star Industries, (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8) Inc. $1,293.50 Mack Industries: $4,604.29 (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 10) Smith and DeShield: $ 600.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Certain contractors furnishing labor and materials for the Silverstein residence based on contracts entered into by wit: Respondent also filed liens, to A. A. Marini Septic Tanks, Inc.: (Petitioner's Exhibit 21) $1,700.00 Delano Pools, Inc.: (Petitioner's Exhibit 20) $4,539.00 William D. Adeimy, Inc.: 3/ (Petitioner's Exhibit 16) $3,183.75 Climate Control Services: (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) $1,882.50 Ballavia Construction (Petitioner's Exhibit Company: 24) $5,446.00 Temperature Control: (Petitioner's Exhibit 18) $ 678.00 J. Griffin Painting: (Petitioner's Exhibit 23) $3,795.00 Central Systems, Inc.: $1,018.80 (Petitioner's Exhibit 19) Dr. Silverstein also entered into another contract for the sale of the residence being built by the Respondent whereby Dr. Silverstein agreed to sell the residence to Respondent's son, Joseph Roberts, for the sum of $210,000. (TR pages 5-6) On February 15, 1980, a notice of code violation was issued by the building official for Palm Beach County, Florida stating that the pool which was installed at the Silverstein residence was not completely enclosed by a fence or dense hedge as required by Section 500.14F of the Palm Beach Zoning Code. Respondent has failed to correct that violation. Respondent completed the Silverstein residence to a degree of completion where it could be occupied and he could move into the residence with his family. Thereafter, Dr. Silverstein eventually filed suit and was awarded a judgment evicting Respondent from the residence. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) Respondent's son, Joseph, failed to consummate the agreement to purchase the residence. Respondent and his family vacated the Silverstein residence and, in the process, removed certain fixtures attached to the residence including carpeting, appliances, door knobs, air conditioning and air handlers, the sprinkler system, light fixtures, vanities, a whirlpool tub, washer, dryer, air conditioning vents, bidet, sprinkling pump timer, and a drop-in range. (TR pages 23-28, 128- 130, and 98-100) Dr. Silverstein filed a claim of loss with his insurance company and was paid a settlement for the loss, which included the certain charges for reinstallation and the reconnection of the various fixtures which had been removed for a total sum of $24,252.02. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, TR 25-28) The Respondent's Position Respondent contended that he was authorized to occupy the Silverstein residence and this contention is not really in dispute herein. However, it later became necessary for Dr. Silverstein to evict the Respondent and his family from the residence when it became apparent that his son, Joseph Roberts, would not consummate the agreement to purchase the residence of Dr. Silverstein. Respondent admits to taking the fixtures and other items referred to hereinabove. Respondent was without authority to do so. Respondent contends that the various liens which were referred to hereinabove were not valid inasmuch as more than one year had elapsed during the time the work was performed and no claim of lien had been filed within that one- year period. Thus, Respondent contends the claims of lien were defective. Respondent offered no proof of payment of the various claims of lien. Additionally, Respondent states that several of the contractors did not perform work and therefore there were no amounts due and owing those companies. Specifically, Respondent contends that Marini Septic Tank did not install the septic tank but a former affiliate did and that there was an attempt to bill him twice. Additionally, Respondent contends that he paid Ballavia Construction Company for the amount claimed in cash, however he had no receipts or other documentary evidence to substantiate that transaction. As relates to the claim of Griffin Painting, Respondent contends that he paid all amounts due and owing them save $660.00. Respondent failed to introduce evidence to corroborate his claim in that regard and it is therefore rejected. Finally, Respondent furnished releases of liens and an invoice of the claim referred to hereinabove from Climate Control Services, Inc. indicating that they were paid in full. Documentary evidence received and testimony introduced herein substantiates Respondent's position and it is found that he, in fact, paid Climate Control Services, Inc. in full for the services they rendered. (Respondent's Exhibits, 4, 6, and 10) As noted hereinabove, it is found that the Respondent paid the amount due and owing William D. Adeimy, Inc., and a release of lien from that entity was received herein. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's certified general contractor's license number CG CA03134 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1985, 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 24th day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Susanne Bennington was licensed as a real estate broker and active firm member of Bennington & Associates, Inc., a corporate real estate broker; and Kathleen P. Archangeli was licensed as a real estate salesman in this firm. Susanne Bennington, while working as a broker/salesman for another real estate broker in 1979, sold Margaret S. Purvance a condominium at La Concha Condominium. She also negotiated the sale of land on which Beach Cottage Condominiums were subsequently built, and thereafter opened her own office of Bennington & Associates, Inc., the corporate respondent herein. Bennington & Associates became the sales agents for Beach Cottage Condominiums. Following the sale of the condominium to Purvance in 1979, Bennington and Purvance saw each other frequently, as Bennington owned the condominium next to the one she had sold to Purvance. When the sale of Reservations to Purchase Beach Cottage Condominiums was commenced, Bennington told Purvance about the project and that she thought it would be one of the better condominium projects on the Gulf Coast. During the summer of 1930 Purvance worked at the Bennington office for one week as a receptionist. She met the developer of Beach Cottage Condominiums and became aware of the enthusiasm displayed in the Bennington real estate office regarding this project. She also became aware that Bennington and Archangeli were sufficiently impressed with the potential of Beach Cottage Codominiums as an investment that both bought reservations and expected to make a profit before the time came to complete the transaction by going through the closing. On November 1, 1980, Purvance executed a Reservation Deposit (Exhibit 1) to reserve Unit 1109 A for purchase upon completion at a purchase price of $191,900 and gave Respondent Archangeli $5,000 to deposit in escrow. This contract provided that the $5,000 deposit would be applied to the purchase price at closing, that upon receipt of condominium documents, purchase agreements, and other papers, the buyer had fifteen (15) days to review the condominium documents and accept or the option to cancel the Reservation Agreement and get the full deposit returned. Construction on Beach Cottage Condominiums was commenced after the developer arranged his financing. Thereafter, Purvance, on August 31, 1981, executed a contract dated August 8, 1981, to purchase Condominium 1109 A in the Beach Cottage Condominiums for the total purchase price of $191,900 (Exhibit 4) and made an additional deposit of $14,190 which was to be held in escrow until closing at which time the balance of $172,7l0 was due from buyer. This contract provided the contract was voidable by buyer giving seller written notice to cancel within 15 days of signing the contract or receipt of all condominium documents. Upon cancellation all deposits were refundable to buyer. Purvance is a widow whose husband died in 1968 leaving her a home in Countryside free and clear, bank accounts, and a widow's portion of his pension from U.S. Steel Corporation. Although not wealthy by many standards, Purvance has sufficient income (approximately $1 ,800 per month) to live comfortably. The condominium she purchased at La Concha at a price of $135,000 with $80,000 down had obviously turned out to be a good investment and a tax shelter prior to the signing of the contract to purchase Condominium 1109 A, Beach Cottage Condominiums. Purvance read all of the documents she signed, employed an accountant to prepare her taxes, had purchased the La Concha condominium from information received from her attorney, saw this attorney socially and took him to an open house at Beach Cottage Condominiums, executed the contract to purchase in her broker's office where the contract was witnessed and the $14,190 check was written, was told by her broker that the condominium was not a wise investment; but now contends that she relied on the representations of the Respondents that the Beach Cottage Condominiums was a good investment, that she could double her money, that she would not have to close, but could sell her contract before closing, and that she believed the statements rather than the written contract provisions. Ms. Purvance actually believed the Beach Cottage Condominiums development was a good investment and that she was privileged to be in on this condominium project. She was fully aware of her option to cancel the contract to purchase within 15 days after she executed the contract. Before executing the contract, she discussed the purchase with her accountant and showed him the financing figures she had received. Her accountant inquired of her about taxes and advertising costs to operate the condominium as rental property. Purvance was aware in April, 1982, before the final contract was executed, that she could lease the condominium to the developer as a model for $1,500 pear month. She was also aware, before she executed the contract on August 31, 1933, that she could not qualify for conventional financing. This contract had been forwarded to Purvance in mid-July, 1982, with instructions that she had only 15 days in which to execute or reject the contract. She did not execute the contract at the end of that 15-day period but waited until August 31, 1982. To keep within this 15-day period she dated the contract August 8, 1982. In her testimony Purvance acknowledged that her purchase was motivated by the fact that she expected to make a lot of money out of her Beach Cottage condominium. When she ended up losing money, she complained to the Real Estate Commission and brought civil suit against the developer and the Respondents herein. She characterized her complaint as she lost a lost of money relying on Respondents' false representations that Beach Cottage Condominiums could be sold before closing, that she did not feel Respondents should make false promises, and that Respondents had a duty to keep a buyer away from a improvident investment. Respondents never saw a financial statement on Purvance. They only knew that she owned a home in a well-to-do neighborhood, that she had purchased a condominium at La Concha, that she had been audited by the IRS, that she was interested in acquiring another condominium, and that she appeared financially capable of purchasing the Beach Cottage condominium. Both of these Respondents purchased a Reservation to Buy a condominium at Beach Cottage Condominium, neither could qualify for financing, one executed a contract and lost her additional deposit of $15,000, one never got to the contract stage and had to wait until the unit sold before her initial deposit was refunded. Both categorically denied they ever told Purvance that she could make $20,000 in one year on the project, that either told her that she would never have to close, or that under no circumstances would she ever lose her deposit. Neither Respondent had any reason to believe that Purvance did not know what she was doing when she signed the reservation form and when she signed the contract to purchase.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant the application of the City of Destin (City) and Walton County (County) for a Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization (Application) to restore a 6.9 stretch of beach in the City and County.
Findings Of Fact The Gulf of Mexico beaches of the County and City were critically eroded by Hurricane Opal in 1995. The erosion problem was identified by DEP, which placed the beaches on its list of critically-eroded beaches, and by the County and City, which initiated a lengthy process of beach restoration through renourishment (also called maintenance nourishment.)1 The process, which included an extensive studies2 and construction design, as well as pre-application conferences with DEP staff, culminated in the filing of the Application on July 30, 2003. The Application proposed to dredge sand from an ebb shoal (i.e., a near-shore) borrow area south of (i.e., offshore from) East Pass in eastern Okaloosa County, using either a cutter head dredge (which disturbs the sand on the bottom of the borrow area and vacuums it into a pipeline which delivers it to the project area) or a hopper dredge (which fills itself and is moved to the project site). On the project site, heavy equipment moves the dredged sand as specified in the design plans. The project is executed in this manner and progresses along the beach, usually at a pace of about 300-500 feet a day. Each day work is in progress, public access to the beach is restricted for a length of about 500-1000 feet in the immediate vicinity of the area of beach being worked. Water Quality Increased turbidity is the primary water quality concern in a project of this nature. Increased turbidity can adversely impact submerged seagrasses and hard-bottom habitat, along with the benthic communities depending on them. When sand in the borrow area is disturbed by dredging, sand and silt become suspended and increase turbidity to some extent and for some duration, depending primarily on the nature of the bottom material and the dredging method. (The cutter head dredge vacuums most if not all of the disturbed sand and silt into the pipeline while, by comparison, the hopper dredge would result in higher turbidity in the water in the borrow area.) Sand delivered to the project site via pipeline must remain suspended in water for transport. When the sand is deposited on the beach, the excess water, with suspended particulate matter, will drain off and return to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if hopper dredges are used, and if material is deposited on the project site other than via pipeline, some of the material will be deposited in the littoral zone, and some material deposited landward of the waterline will be inundated by the tides and wave action and potentially re-suspended in water in the littoral zone. If the water is turbid upon discharge in the littoral zone, the near-shore can become more turbid. Sand Quality The primary determinant of the amount and duration of turbidity generated in the borrow area and in the littoral zone of the project site is the quality of the bottom material in the chosen borrow area. The coarser the material, the less turbidity. The best quality bottom material usually is found in the kind of borrow area proposed for use in the Application. Sand in the borrow area came from some of Florida's finest beaches. It has been cleaned of fine material (silt) not only by wave action but also as the sand moved along shore in the littoral zone and by the currents in the East Pass inlet. Numerous tests of the bottom material in the proposed ebb shoal borrow for the project indicate that it generally has less than one percent silt. Expert witnesses for the City, County, and DEP testified that, with such low silt content, turbidity increases of no more than 5-10 Nephalometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background levels are expected at the edge of the mixing zone--150 meters down- current from the borrow area, and down-current and offshore from the discharge points on the beach. Moreover, they testified that turbidity levels are expected to return to background levels quickly (i.e., within an hour or so.) SOB and STBR questioned whether the experts could be certain of their testimony based on the test results. But SOB and STBR called no expert to contradict the testimony, and it is found that the expert testimony was persuasive. Standard Mixing Zone Initially, the City and County applied for a variance from the turbidity standards to allow them to exceed 29 NTUs more than 150 but less than 1660 meters down-current from the borrow area, and down-current and offshore from the discharge points, based on Attachment H, the Water Quality Impact analysis in the Application. The analysis was based on an assumption of five percent silt content in the bottom material in the borrow area. SOB and STBR attempted to use the five percent assumption to impeach the expert testimony on water quality. But when the quality of the bottom material was ascertained to be less than one percent, the variance request was withdrawn at DEP's request as being unnecessary and therefore inappropriate. SOB and STBR also argued in their PRO that, if a 1660-meter mixing zone was needed for five percent fines, then a 332-meter mixing zone would be needed for one percent fines. This argument was based entirely on counsel's arithmetic extrapolation. There was no evidence in the record from which to ascertain the validity of the extrapolation. In addition, the evidence was that the bottom material in the borrow area in this case will be less than one percent fines. Shore-Parallel Sand Dike Specific Condition 6 of the Draft Permit requires the permittee to "construct and maintain a shore-parallel sand dike at the beach placement area at all times during hydraulic discharge on the beach to meet turbidity standards prescribed by this permit." The shore-parallel sand dike is essentially a wall of sand built parallel to the shoreline to keep the sand slurry (the mixture of sand and water) being pumped onto the beach from washing back in the water, thereby giving the materials more time to settle out of the water before the water returns to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if this condition were not in the Draft Permit, the City and County would be required to build the dike since it is part of their design for construction of the Project. Turbidity Monitoring The Application included a proposal to monitor turbidity, and the Draft Permit includes the proposed monitoring as a Specific Condition 38. Every six hours during dredging and pumping operations, the City and County are required to sample 150 meters down-current of the borrow area, and down-current and offshore of the discharge point, and report the results to DEP within a week. In addition, Specific Condition 38 requires work to stop if turbidity standards are exceeded, which must be reported immediately. Work may not proceed "until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels." If more than one exceedence of the turbidity standard is reported, DEP will require the City and County to redesign the project to address and cure the problem. These conditions are part of the reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan Pursuant to Special Condition 4.b. of the Draft Permit, the City and County are required to do a Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan, which requires them to measure the quality of the sand as it comes out of the pipeline before it can cause a turbidity problem. If the dredge hits pockets of bad material, which is not expected in this case, work could be stopped before it creates a turbidity problem. Absence of Natural Resources in Project Area DEP performed side-scan sonar tests in the vicinity of both the borrow site and near-shore in the Project area and determined that there were no hard bottoms or seagrasses in either area. Therefore, there are no natural resources within the project area that would be covered or placed in jeopardy by a turbidity plume. Reasonable Assurance Given For all of these reasons, the City and County have provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. Required Riparian Interest Generally, and in the beach nourishment project area, the BOT owns seaward of the mean high water line (MHWL). The City and County own some but not all of the beachfront landward of the MHWL.3 In anticipation of the beach nourishment project, the City and County had the MHWL surveyed as of September 7, 2003.4 The surveys state that the MHWL as of that date shall also be known as the ECL. The surveys also depict the landward and seaward limits of construction and the predicted post-construction MHWL. The surveys indicate that construction is planned to take place both landward and seaward of the ECL. The predicted post-construction MHWL is seaward of the ECL. By resolution, the BOT approved the surveys and established the ECLs for the Project. The City survey was approved, and ECL established, on December 30, 2004; the County survey was approved, and ECL established, on January 25, 2005. The BOT's decisions are being challenged in court. If the decisions are upheld, the BOT intends to file its resolutions and record the surveys. There was no evidence that the City and County have an easement or the consent of all of the other beachfront owners to undertake the proposed beach nourishment project. Some of the other beachfront owners do not consent, including members of SOB and STBR. Standing SOB was incorporated not-for-profit in Florida on January 28, 2004. STBR was incorporated not-for-profit in Florida on February 16, 2004. Both were incorporated to protect and defend the natural resources of the beaches, protect private property rights, and seek redress of past, present, and future unauthorized and/or inappropriate beach restoration activities. No evidence was presented by any party as to whether SOB and STBR have filed their annual reports with the Department of State, and no party filed a Department of State certificate of status as to either SOB or STBR. STBR has six members, all owners of beachfront property in the area of the proposed beach nourishment project.5 SOB has approximately 150 members. These members own approximately 112 properties in the City, approximately 62 of which are beachfront and the rest condominium units of beachfront condominium developments. However, it is not clear from the evidence how many of these beachfront properties are in the area of the proposed beach nourishment project (beyond the four owned by Linda Cherry, who testified). The testimony of Slade Lindsey was sufficient, together with member affidavits, to prove that all six members of STBR use the beaches and waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Project area for swimming, fishing, boating, and/or enjoying beach and Gulf vistas. As a result, the construction of the Project will affect their interests at least during the time construction is taking place near their property. If the Project were to result in violations of water quality standards for turbidity, their interests would be affected as long as the violations lasted and perhaps longer if lasting damage to natural resources were to result. However, as found, there will not be any lasting damage to natural resources, and reasonable assurance was given that no water quality violations will occur and that exceedences of water quality standards in the mixing zone will be of short duration, lasting for no longer than an hour. These effects will not be substantial. The evidence was not sufficient to prove that construction of the Project will affect the interests of a substantial number of the members of SOB. First, it was not clear how many of them own beachfront property or even condominium units in developments adjacent to the Project area. Second, the only witness on the subject, Linda Cherry, does not know all of SOB's members and did not state how many of the 39 SOB members who signed affidavits as to their use of the beaches and waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Project area are known to the witness. Even if a substantial number would be affected, their interests would be affected no more than the STBR members' interests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Draft Permit DEP JCP File No. 0218419-001-JC. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 30th day of June, 2005.
