Findings Of Fact By Application for Permit to Move Building over State Roads dated November 1, 1985, Eyal Sade, on behalf of Sade Housemovers applied for a permit to move a dwelling over state roads some 32 miles in Tampa and vicinity. Although this application showed the width of the building to be 32.2 feet, including eaves, E & S Construction/Sade Housemovers, was issued regular Permit No. B17531 on November 6, 1985 (Exhibit 1). Width, excluding eaves, was left blank on this application. This permit provided the building would be moved over state roads between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 A.M. and be escorted by local police. The application showed utility companies TECO, GTE and WRec [sic] had been notified of the move and the move had been cleared by the Florida Highway Patrol without comment regarding the need for escort. Also Seaboard railroad system had been notified (Exhibit 1). This move commenced shortly after midnight, November 19, 1985, with escorts from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. The building had to be jacked up on the platform on which it rode and required a 90 degree turn to commence its trip south on Nebraska Avenue (U.S. 41). This delayed the start of the movement down Nebraska Avenue approximately 30 minutes. Shortly after the trip started, the portable generator that provided lighting on the building stopped functioning and the escorts told Mr. Sade he had to get the lights on the building. Sade attempted to have the generator repaired as the move progressed. When the movers stopped for approximately five minutes to repair the generator, the police escorts testified that the crew moving the building stopped working to eat. This was denied by Sade and the members of his crew who all testified that the sandwiches that Sade procured were eaten as the move progressed. The two deputies from the Sheriff's Office who escorted the move considered the move to be progressing slowly and told Sade several times that he should be ready to park the building before 6:00 A.M. Sade had spent three days surveying the route before November 19, and had taken measurements of all bridges and the elevation of lights. Mrs. Sade had contacted by telephone the City of Tampa Utilities Department to advise them of the move as well as Pasco County officials for the portion of the route in Pasco County. There was a conflict in the testimony of the deputies and Sade regarding the presence of a man on top of the building to clear traffic lights as the building passed under these lights. Sade testified he had a man on the building during the time the building was in the City of Tampa. The deputies testified they told Sade he needed someone on the top of the building. The bridge over the Hillsborough River on SR 39 was some twenty miles from the commencement of the trip and the building arrived at this bridge around 5:30 A.M. The escorts had told Sade several times that he should not be on the road after 6:00 A.M. and that hour was approaching. Sade was aware of a large lot on which the building could be parked off the highway located about one mile south of Hillsborough River bridge and decided to cross the bridge to get to that location. While crossing the Hillsborough River bridge, the building got stuck on the guardrail and had to be backed off. Sade's winch broke down but they were able to obtain a bulldozer from a business adjacent to the bridge which helped get the building off the pavement and along the right of way as demanded by the escorting officers. While this was going on, the traffic was totally blocked for about 20 minutes and delayed with one way traffic having to proceed past the building until the building was finally moved completely off the roadway. Even then the overhang of the building extended offer the road to the white line along the edge of the pavement. Sade's testimony that this eave was 17 feet above the pavement was not disputed; however, William Ledden opined that a semi-trailer would hit the roof of the building if it attempted to pass under this eave. By the time the building was parked along the right-of-way, it was approximately 8:40 A.M. and traffic had been stopped and delayed for almost three hours. The problem of getting the building stuck on the bridge, the resulting delay past 6:00 A.M. and that the building was still on the road was reported to Petitioner, and William Ledden, a certified officer employed by DOT as a weights and safety inspector, was dispatched to the scene. Ledden looked at the permit issued Sade for the move, saw it was a regular permit, saw that it expired at 6:00 A.M. and directed Sade not to move the building until a proper permit was issued. Ledden was present during the time the wrecker relocated the building alongside the paved road on the shoulder. For a building exceeding 30'6" in width a Special Permit is required (Rule 14-63.03, Florida Administrative Code). Ledden testified he made it clear to Sade that the building was not to be moved without a valid permit. On the morning of November 20, 1985, after midnight, the building was moved without incident across Hillsborough River bridge to the large lot south of the bridge that Sade had hoped to make the night before. Sade reapplied to DOT for a permit to move the building to its intended destination and on November 25, 1985, Special Permit No. B17546 (Exhibit 2) was issued to Respondent. This permit indicated all necessary parties were notified of the move. Shortly after midnight, November 27, 1985, the movement of this building recommenced pursuant to the Special Permit. The move progressed satisfactorily until the bridge on SR 39 over Blackwater Creek was reached. Petitioner's witness testified the building hit the rub rails on both sides of the bridge. Photograph admitted on Exhibit 4 shows one side of the building rubbing on the guardrail. Respondent acknowledged that the clearance was close and that to clear the guardrail on one side, the building had to be raised on that side. The driver of the towing truck acknowledged that he initially got off line and one side of the building touched the guardrail and it was necessary to back off the bridge to get realigned. To raise one side of the building to enable it to clear the guardrail on the right side, 2 x 12 planks were placed on the roadway for the right wheels of the carriage to ride on. These planks had to be moved continuously as the building progressed across the bridge. This materially slowed the progress across the bridge. Other than the initial rubbing of the guardrail, the only complaint of Petitioner regarding this part of the move is that the bridge was blocked to traffic for one and one-half hours while the building crossed the bridge. Sade testified the building was on the bridge for only 30 to 45 minutes; however, the longer period is deemed more reliable. After clearing the bridge, the building struck some tree limbs alongside the road and a railroad stop sign over the road which had to be realigned. This realignment was done by the moving crew and no safety hazard resulted. The carriage for the building had been raised as much as possible to clear the bridge guardrails and still be low enough to clear the overhanging traffic signals, hence the need to raise one side of the carriage to clear the guardrail at the Blackwater Creek bridge. The November 27 move was completed prior to 6:00 A.M. in accordance with the permit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Janice Prather lives in a subdivision in unincorporated Bay County, Florida. She owns her house, which faces Brookins Road and stands on a lot 135 feet long and 100 feet wide. STAR In April of this year Ms. Prather acquired a six-year old sorrel mare, a Tennessee Walking Horse named Star, who stands 15.2 hands high. Ms. Brunty, whose horse trailer was used to bring the horse to Ms. Prather's home, described Star and Rhonda, Ms. Prather's teenaged daughter, as a "beautiful combination." Star is a gentle horse and small children, including Mr. Serpas grandchildren, have petted her. Some days Rhonda and her friend Michelle take Star riding and let her graze in Michelle's back yard before bringing her back. She spent one night at Michelle's. But most of the time she is confined to the Prathers' fenced back yard, although she was not there for a week or two around the time of the fair. SIX POUNDS A DAY Star produces manure at a rate of about six pounds a Day. Ms. Prather has taken some of this manure to church and to the parsonage for use on shrubbery and gardens there. Over an unspecified period, she has also taken horse manure to Mr. Harold B. Taylor of Millville about three times a week. It has made his gardens green. Thelma King has also used Star's excrement in her garden. Not all of the manure Star has deposited in the Prather back yard has left the premises. Trenches have been dug along the fence line and manure has been buried there. Before removing the manure that she has given away, Ms. Prather or others have gathered it in buckets which are kept in a child's wagon in the back yard, and which may stand there for several days. Nor do the droppings reach the buckets every day. There was testimony that Star's excrement lay where it fell for weeks on end, and Ms. Prather, who holds a full- time job, conceded that she did not remove the manure daily, although she insisted that there was almost daily removal. Sometimes the manure would be covered over with an inch or two of sand. When it rains, some of the waste leaves in the water that flows across the Prather back yard, turns brown and smelly, and covers the neighbors yards. By the time of the hearing, the ground in the Prather back yard, which has a high water table, was saturated with horse urine. Subdivision residents depend on individual wells and septic tanks. A CONGREGATION OF FLIES Most witnesses conceded that there were houseflies in the area long before Star's arrival, but there was overwhelming agreement that the horse bought with it a significant increase in their number. Mr. Serpas, whose house stands directly behind Ms. Prather's testified to the increase and reported, without contradiction, that a "tremendous number" of these flies enter his house whenever a door is opened. The Atwells, whose house is 100 feet from Ms. Prather's lot line also have more flies inside their house than before Star came to live in the neighborhood. The Clarks, whose house is next door to Ms. Prather's, installed an electronic fly killing device from which they regularly remove handfuls of dead flies. It was Mr. Clark who testified that Star's presence has meant "a congregation of flies" in and over his yard as well as Ms. Prather's. The housefly (Musca domestica) is a real, if familiar, health hazard. Because houseflies eat the same things people do, their control is a crucial element in food hygiene. When they land on food intended for human consumption, they bring with them germs they have picked up elsewhere. Horse manure is among the very best breeding grounds for houseflies. Adult houseflies deposit eggs in horse manure where larvae then pupae thrive before emerging as a new generation of adult houseflies seven to ten days later and flying from dung to food. Houseflies are capable of transmitting diseases to human beings and are a major factor in the transmission of some diseases. The wooden fence Ms. Prather has begun building around her back yard has not diminished the number of flies or the "barn yard odor," also attributable to Star's excrement. Both the flies and the excrement were the basis for the neighbors' repeated complaints to the Bay County Health Department (BCHD). ACTION BY THE AUTHORITIES With the neighbors' complaints, there began a series of visits by BCHD employees. BCHD records reflect that the inspector concluded that the neighbors' complaints were "invalid" on April 13, 1983, and reached the same conclusion on April 18, 1983, when the "yard was clean." Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. On May 2, 1983, the BCHD inspector found "[e]ight piles of horse manure in yard. One wagon full of manure also," Respondent's Exhibit No. 3, which, however, was at the BCHD's request, "cleaned up" by May 6, 1983. Before visiting thereafter, the BCHD inspector called ahead, as Ms. Prather had requested. On May 13, 1983, a BCHD employee took pictures of the horse manure he found on that visit. On May 24, 1983, two BCHD employees found "[s]ome manure" but "no flies." Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. Early on BCHD employees suggested to Ms. Prather informally that she board Star somewhere else. They eventually directed her in writing to remove the horse and threatened to initiate the present proceedings to impose an administrative fine if she did not. She received the administrative complaint on or before August 4, 1983. Photographs taken on November 19, 1983, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 show an accumulation of dung that must have been at least four days in the making. Star was in residence on November 5, 1983, and, indeed, during the whole period between August 4, 1983, and the time of the hearing, with the possible exception of a two-week period.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner impose a fine against respondent in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON 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 January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: JOHN PEARCE, ESQUIRE SUITE 200-A 2639 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303 JANICE PRATHER 3013 BROOKINS ROAD PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA 32405 DAVID PINGREE, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
The Issue Whether Grandview Landscaping Services, Inc., is liable to Petitioner for the purchase of landscaping trees; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Southeastern Trees, LLC (Petitioner or Southeastern Trees), is a Florida Limited Liability Corporation located in Gainesville, Florida, engaged in the business of commercial tree farming. Keith Lerner is the President of Southeastern, and David Lerner is the Vice President. Respondent, Grandview Landscaping Services, Inc. (Respondent or Grandview), is a Florida corporation headquartered in Ocala, Florida, engaged in commercial landscaping. Grandview is licensed by the Department as a dealer in nursery products, flowers, and sod. In August 2015, John Sapp, Grandview’s owner, visited Petitioner’s tree farm and selected 27 live oak trees to purchase. On December 11, 2014, Mr. Sapp returned to Southeastern Trees and took possession of the 27 live oak trees. Mr. Sapp used his own equipment to haul the trees. Petitioner sent an invoice to Respondent on December 11, 2014, in the amount of $5,724.00 for the 27 live oak trees. The invoice term was “net 30,” allowing 30 days for Respondent to pay in full. After 30 days had elapsed without payment, David Lerner contacted Mr. Sapp to request payment. Mr. Lerner also requested the location of the trees in order to place a lien thereon. According to Mr. Lerner, Mr. Sapp refused to divulge the location of the trees. After 60 days had elapsed without payment, Keith Lerner contacted Mr. Sapp via telephone. According to Keith Lerner, he spoke with Mr. Sapp on March 1, 2015, who informed him the trees were beautiful and Mr. Sapp would “get him a check.” Keith Lerner attempted to reach Mr. Sapp via telephone again on March 10, 2015, and left messages with Grandview’s office and on Mr. Sapp’s personal mobile phone. Mr. Lerner did not receive a return call. On March 25, 2015, Petitioner sent Respondent, via certified mail, a letter requesting payment of $5,724.00 for the 27 live oak trees and “any interest available to us beyond the 30 days of credit that were extended to you.” The letter was delivered to both Grandview’s business address and Mr. Sapp’s home address. The certified mail receipts were returned to Southeastern Trees, signed and dated March 26, 2015. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department on March 31, 2015, against Southeastern Trees. Petitioner paid a filing fee of $50.00 As of the date of the hearing, Southeastern Trees had not responded to Petitioner’s request for payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the claim of Southeastern Trees, LLC, against Grandview Landscaping Services, Inc., in the amount of $5,774.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2015, 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 8th day of October, 2015.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Dean R. Stewart, held real estate license number 0172552 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. He was employed as a salesman for Don Capin, Inc. a real estate firm located at 3001 Salzedo Street, Coral Gables, Florida. In March, 1977, Respondent and one Raymond W. Romeo purchased a parcel of property located at 1720 Wa-Kee-Na, Coconut Grove, Florida, for approximately $65,000. The parcel consisted of a large two-story house built in 1930 and an adjoining vacant lot. The vacant lot was later sold by Stewart and Romeo to a builder who wished to construct a new home. Respondent began a substantial restoration of the older house shortly after the parcel was purchased and eventually spent approximately $100,000 in modernizing and repairing the house. The entire first floor was torn out and replaced with new walls, windows, bathrooms, kitchen and electrical wiring. The house was repainted inside and out, recarpeted and landscaped. A swimming pool was installed in the back yard. The studs and plates on the second floor were also replaced and the bathrooms and kitchen modernized. An associate of Don Capin, Inc. described the list of things done to the house as incomprehensibly large". In March, 1979, Respondent contracted with Cooper Roofing, Inc. to "reroof" the house. According to the terms of their agreement dated March 12, 1979, Cooper was to perform the following work: Remove roof to sheating and hauling all trash away replacing rotten lumber where needed, using 30 lbs. felt in cap 12 on 12. Gravel stop around edges nail every 8" mopping on 2-15 with hot asphalt strip out with 1, 6" and 1, 9" 15 lbs felt flood coat and gravel, on top part only. On tile remove roof to locations of leaks re- pairing and relaying tiles back. gravel roof carries four (4) year guarantee. This roof is water tight with no evidence of leaks at this time. Price $1,400 /s/ Lonnie Cooper The main portion of the roof consisted of a large flat gravel area with parapets; the remaining area was made up of several smaller roofs, one covered with barrel tile and the other two with gravel. The two small gravel roofs were on the lower deck where the entrance to the house is located. Cooper reroofed the main gravel area and replaced missing tile on the small tile roof. However, notwithstanding the contract, he did not check the three smaller roofs for leaks. After the job was completed, he certified that the roof was in "satisfactory condition with no evidence of leaks at the time of inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14). When the work was performed, Stewart believed that approximately 80 percent of the entire roof was being replaced and that the work was guaranteed. Stewart later repainted the small tile roof to improve its appearance. At the hearing, representatives of Cooper Roofing, Inc. agreed with Stewart that the area replaced represented about 80 percent of the entire roof. In April, 1979, Stewart and Romeo decided to sell their property. They listed the home with Respondents's employer, Don Capin, Inc., with an asking price of $275,000. The realtor accepted the listing knowing that the restoration project on the house was still underway, and was not yet completed. On April 18, 1979, Stewart gave the realtor an information sheet from which the firm prepared a brochure for inclusion in the Coral Gables Multiple Listing Service. The brochure described or stated the property's location, legal description, lot size, year built, improvements, taxes, price, terms, and procedure for inspection. It also included the following information: First Floor consists of 2 Large Apts: 3 Bedrooms 2 Baths, Large Living Room, NEW KITCHEN. 2 Bedroom 1 Bath, Living Room, NEW KITCHEN. Baths on First Floor are NEW, NEW ROOF, NEW CARPETING. NEW BLACK LAGOON POOL with Wood DECKING, Circular Drive, Entire Property is Walled In for Privacy Over 5000 Square Feet. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The listing included a proviso that it was made subject to omissions, errors and prior sale without notice. After reviewing the brochure several weeks later, Stewart noted a number of errors. Thereafter, on May 14, 1979, be prepared a corrected listing. In it, he changed the year the house was built from 1928 to 1930, modified the lot size from 90' x 120' to 89' x 122' and advised that the purchaser must qualify for assumption of the mortgage and be subject to escalating interest rates. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). John F. Phillips, a salesman at Don Capin, Inc., received an inquiry concerning the property in May, 1979, from one Shirley Deitz, who had read an advertisement in the Miami Herald. Prior to this he had shown the house to only one other prospective buyer. Phillips took Dietz and her late husband to the property where they met Stewart. There Phillips accompanied Dietz and Stewart on an inspection of the house while Stewart explained the work done in the restoration project, including those areas that were not finished. During the inspection, Phillips and Dietz noted several items requiring repair. As is pertinent here, they included sagging and water-damaged ceilings in the living room, the upstairs hall, and above the kitchen sliding door. Stewart readily acknowledged that the ceilings had been damaged by a leaking roof, but advised the roof had been recently replaced. He also agreed to repair the sagging ceilings, and other items, prior to closing. Stewart claimed he told Dietz that only the parapet roof had been replaced; Dietz did not recall this, and Phillips was not privy to their conversation. Although the brochure stated that the entire property was "[w]alled in for privacy", there was no fence or wall on its west side. At the time of inspection, the property was enclosed on three sides by a concrete wall in front, and wooden fences in the back and on the east side. The missing wall was obvious to all, and Stewart made no effort to conceal it. In fact he agreed to construct a fence in the missing area prior to closing which was acceptable to Dietz. Stewart told her he intended to construct a wooden fence rather than a wall so that it would be compatible with the fences on the other two sides of the house and decking on the rear. There was no objection by Dietz. When the fence was constructed, it lay slightly over the property line and on the adjoining neighbor's property. This was caused by a water pipe which lay under the property line and required the foundation and fence to be placed beyond Stewart's property. Dietz executed a contract for sale and purchase on May 19, 1979. After an initial offer was rejected, the parties finally agreed upon a sales price of $225,000. The contract provided that: [s]ellers shall give credit at closing (to) repair ceilings in living room and hall upstairs, repair wall above sliding glass in upstairs kitchen, complete fence to west, property line, resurface driveway, and paint steps and porch to upstairs apartment. Prior to closing, Stewart repaired the ceilings, resurfaced the driveway, painted the steps and porch, and completed the fence as required by the contract. On or about Augusta 15, 1979, a closing was held on the property. Both parties were represented by counsel. Just after the closing, Respondent orally advised Dietz that the newly constructed fence on the west side was actually six inches over the property line and lay on Lot 4, her neighbor's property. Earlier that day Stewart had given Dietz a letter that she had signed and which acknowledged this problem. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). The letter explained that a conveyance of the fence to the neighbor was necessary in order "to avoid any dispute with the owner of lot 4." However, Dietz claims she did not understand what this meant. At the closing Stewart and Romeo also executed a quit-claim deed conveying a strip of land...and fence lying approximately two feet from the east boundary of Lot 4..." to George I. and Rebecca Pope Stoeckert, who owned the adjacent property. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). The document was prepared upon the advice of both parties' counsel although Dietz claimed it was never shown to her. Approximately one week after the closing a tropical storm swept through the Miami area and caused large amounts of rainfall. As a result, the ceiling in the house began to leak. Dietz complained to John Phillips, who told her that it should not leak because Stewart had recently had a new roof installed. Dietz attempted to contact Stewart but he was out of the State. She then called Cooper Roofing who, after a number of visits, ran a water test on her roof and found the lower deck to be leaking. This was the area that had not been replaced or repaired. Cooper advised her to get a roofing contractor to fix the leak. After finally contacting Stewart, he paid Andrews Roofing $900 to replace and repair a part of the barrel tile roof. The leaks continued and Dietz finally hired Fredrico Jaca, a roofing contractor, to inspect the roof. Jaca found the three smaller roofs needing repair and thereafter replaced "about two or three hundred feet of bad lumber" and about 500 square feet of tile. Dietz incurred the cost for making these repairs. In early November, 1979, George Stoeckert told Dietz that the fence between their property was actually 2.4 feet over his property line. He showed her a copy of a property survey to verify this. Dietz claimed this was the first time she was aware of the problem. Stoeckert then removed the fence in January, 1980, for ten months while he built a swimming pool and landscaped his yard. When it was rebuilt, the new fence was compatible with his own fencing rather than the one torn down. Stewart contended that neither the realtor or Dietz was misled. He stated he always advised that the house was rebuilt and that it had a new parapet roof, which covered approximately 75 percent to 80 percent of the roofing area. He believed the remainder had been patched and made watertight by Cooper Roofing, Inc. After learning of Dietz's dissatisfaction, he offered to re- purchase the house for what she had paid plus any moving expenses she had incurred; however, Dietz refused. Given the amount of money spent in remodeling the housed ($100,000), he considers the brochure representation that the house was "completely" rebuilt to be accurate. He further stated that he signed the quit-claim deed only after being advised to do so by both attorneys at the closing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED on this 5th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 1982.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents owe Petitioner approximately $65 for one pallet of sod which Petitioner delivered to a third party building contractor's construction site at the instigation of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products, grass sod, and Respondent Arsham & Associates, Inc., (Arsham), is a dealer of such products in the course of its normal landscaping business activity. Respondent Safeco Insurance Company is the bonding agent for Respondent Arsham pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. Petitioner generally deals on a cash basis with customers, unless the customer is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the sale of agricultural or horticultural products. Customers, who are licensed, may maintain an open account status with Petitioner. Respondent Arsham was such a customer. For approximately two years, Respondent Arsham and Petitioner enjoyed a relationship whereby Petitioner sold Respondent Arsham grass sod for various projects. An employee of Petitioner provided sod installation services on an independent basis to Respondent Arsham for these shipments. On Monday, September 26, 1988, Tom Shaldjian, the president of Respondent Arsham, discussed with Petitioner's personnel an arrangement whereby Petitioner would provide grass sod for a particular project under construction by a third party builder. Shaldjian told Petitioner that billing for the sod should be made directly to this builder, rather than to Respondent Arsham as had been the practice on previous occasions. However, Shaldjian promised Petitioner personnel that if payment for the sod was not made by the builder, then Respondent Arsham would pay the bill. Petitioner agreed with this arrangement. Confirmation of the required quantity of sod, approximately 15 pallets or 7500 square feet, was made by Shaldjian on Wednesday, September 28, 1988. Petitioner delivered 15 pallets of grass sod to the building site on Friday, October 28, 1988. In his independent capacity, an employee of Petitioner provided installation services at the site for the grass sod. Subsequent to the delivery and installation of the sod, Petitioner followed Respondent's instructions and submitted a bill to the construction builder for a total amount of $ 1033.50. Of this amount, $975 was allocated to 15 pallets of sod at a cost per pallet of $65. The remainder of the amount consisted of sales tax in the amount of $58.50. The builder paid only $964.60, or an amount equal to the cost of 14 pallets plus 6 per cent sales tax. Shaldjian, Respondent Arsham's president, visited the construction site after what he determined to be the completion of the grass sod installation and noted that almost one complete pallet of grass sod had not been utilized. Only a few pieces of sod were missing from the pallet. As a result of this observation, he later advised Petitioner that Respondent Arsham would not be responsible for paying the $65 deducted by the builder from the initial bill for the 15th pallet of sod. Shaldjian's testimony that Petitioner worked this particular sod job alone and without the involvement of Respondents is not credited in view of other testimony establishing that Petitioner had no arrangement or contract with the builder regarding the sale of the grass sod in question beyond submission of the bill for the product, after delivery, to the builder as opposed to Respondent Arsham. Testimony of personnel employed by Petitioner establishes that the sod in this instance was a perishable product in view of weather conditions at the time, making salvage of any sod remaining after the installation impossible. The proof fails to establish that Petitioner took possession of any grass sod remaining at the conclusion of its installation or otherwise obtained any salvage value from any of the product which may have been left over.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Respondents to pay Petitioner the sum of $68.90. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 7th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Arsham & Associates, Inc. 254 Longwood Hills Road Longwood, Florida 32750 Safeco Insurance Company of America Safeco Plaza Seattle, Washington 98185 Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. 1620 E. State Road 46 Geneva, Florida Hon. Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Mallory Horne General Counsel 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
Findings Of Fact In 1982 Petitioner erected a stilt home on the beachfront lot located at 926 Eldorado Avenue. The property is zoned RS-50. Prior thereto the property had been vacant and fenced with a four-foot chain link fence to keep trespassers off the property. The original fence was erected before the zoning regulations were passed, and upon passage of these regulations the fence became nonconforming. This fence was removed to facilitate construction of the residence and, when Petitioner applied for a permit to replace the fence, he was told he needed a variance and the proceedings leading to this appeal were started. His application for a permit came within less than one year from the time the fence was removed. Property in the vicinity is characterized by the use of four-foot chain link fences. The property immediately to the north of Petitioner's property has a four-foot chain link fence across the front of the property. Most of the other fences in the area are located on the sides of the property. Although there is a public access to the beach in the near vicinity of Petitioner's property, people cross Petitioner's property to get to the beach, park in his driveway, discard litter on his property, and even use the private outdoor shower on his mother's adjacent property. The regulations would allow Petitioner to erect a 30-inch fence on the front of his property. This would not contain the large dog Petitioner has. If the front fence were set back to the front of Petitioner's house and from each corner thereof run to the fence at each side of his property, this would not keep trespassers off his property, because people could walk up his driveway and under the stilt house.
Findings Of Fact Antonios Markopoulos, Appellant, applied for seven variances on property located at 200 Coronado Drive, Clearwater, Florida, to allow the construction of a 7 to 9 story parking garage covering the property from lot line to lot line. The property in question is a 95 feet x 105 feet parking lot adjacent to a hotel, shops and restaurants owned by Appellant. The first waiver requested was of the minimum lot size of 150 feet on which to build. Since this property was unique in that regard and could never attain the 150 feet minimum dimension, the Board granted that variance. The other six requests for variances involved setbacks and open space requirements. Appellant proposes to build a parking garage with two elevators to lift cars to the various parking levels with the building extending to the lot lines in all four directions. The hotel, restaurants and stores located at this site and owned by Appellant are nonconforming uses. The hotel has 86 rooms and if built today would require a minimum of 86 parking spaces. The stores and restaurants would require additional parking spaces that are now not available. Appellant proposes to construct a garage with approximately 340 parking spaces which he contends are the minimum needed to provide adequate parking for patrons at the hotel, stores and restaurants. At the hearing before the Board, Appellant contended that the parking garage would also serve to relieve parking problems at other establishments in the vicinity. Appellant proposes to have parking customers drive up a ramp through a ticket machine which will dispense a ticket which can be validated at the hotel, restaurants or shops. The car will then be parked by attendants who will drive the car onto an elevator to lift the car to a floor with parking space. This clearly indicates that Appellant is proposing to construct a parking garage which will be open to the general public. Appellant presented testimony that if the setbacks required by the Code were followed on all sides, there would be insufficient square feet per floor to make the parking garage financially feasible. He also presented testimony of the City of Clearwater Traffic Engineer to the effect that construction of a parking garage at this location would not create a traffic problem. Although most, if not all, of the property surrounding Appellant's property are nonconforming with less setbacks than are required by the existing code, none of these properties have been covered lot line to lot line with a structure or structures. The primary emphasis of the evidence submitted by Appellant is that there is insufficient parking at Clearwater Beach, and erection of a parking garage will do much to alleviate this problem.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, L. Noel Jones and Ann Jones, are the owners of Lot 4, Block 3, Beckett Lake Estates, located at 2122 Beckett Lake Drive, Clearwater, Florida. The property is currently zoned RS-60 (Single-Family Residence District) and was created primarily for low-density single-family residential development. Petitioners' lot lies between Sunset Point Road on the north, and Montclair Road on the south. It is located within Beckett Lakes Subdivision, an exclusive single-family subdivision approved for development by the City in April, 1978. The lot is one of only six within the subdivision that has frontage on both Sunset Point and Montclair Roads. These lots are numbered Lots 1-6 in Block 3. There are approximately 62 other lots within the subdivision. Under an agreement with the City, the developer of the subdivision erected a four-foot open wood ranch-style fence on Montclair Road. The fence sits approximately one and one-half feet from the right-of-way line and runs the length of Lots 1-6. The developer also agreed to landscape the area adjacent to the fence to comply with a fence and landscaping plan approved by the City. Petitioners applied for a building permit to construct a fence on Montclair Road and were verbally advised by a City Building Department official that it would be granted. Based on this representation, Mr. Jones removed the existing four foot fence and replaced it with a six foot fence at a cost of $325. He was later cited for violating the zoning code because he had failed to obtain a variance to construct the fence. The citation precipitated the instant case. Existing zoning regulations require that the height of the fence on Petitioners' property be no more than four feet. Therefore, in order to erect a six foot fence, a variance from the City is required. Petitioners desire to retain their new fence in order to provide more privacy from a public sidewalk and street which run adjacent to their rear property line. Further, their home has been broken into on two occasions within the last year, and they believe a fence would provide more security. They also point out that the owner of Lot 6 recently obtained approval from the City to construct an identical fence on his property. Finally, Petitioners contend that the City initially approved their application, and it is unfair to now require them to tear down their fence. They have agreed to provide appropriate landscaping in conjunction with the fence. The City opposes the application on the ground the new fence is not in conformity with the style and height of the other fence erected on Montclair Road, and would lead to multiple types of fences on the street. It also fears that if this application is approved, it will trigger similar applications from Petitioners' neighbors, and will destroy the neighborhood's aesthetic appeal and character.
