The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for nonconforming status on his property at 1607 and 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road, Gainesville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of facts filed by the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: Mr. Mayhew resides in Hawthorne, which is located in the southeastern portion of Alachua County (County). (Some papers filed in this case identify his residence as being in Cross Creek, rather than Hawthorne, but with the same street address.) Since November 1998, he has owned property at 1607 and 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road, Gainesville, Florida. More specifically, the property is in an older, single-family residential neighborhood known as Florida Park which is located several blocks west of U.S. Highway 441, which runs in a north-south direction through the City, and approximately one-quarter mile north of Northwest 8th Avenue. In broader geographical terms, the property is located around one mile north of the University of Florida campus. There are two structures (or units) on Petitioner's property. One is a three-bedroom, two-bath dwelling constructed by the original owner (Mr. Gainous) in 1949, who occupied that dwelling with his wife. That unit's address is listed on the County Property Appraiser's records as 1607 Northwest 12th Road. The second structure, a two-bedroom, one-bath dwelling (also referred to as a "cottage"), was built by Mr. Gainous in 1957, and was apparently used primarily as rental property by the owner. The address of the second unit on the Property Appraiser's records is 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road. Separate gas meters and a single water line and electric meter serve the two units. (Although the two units are given separate street addresses by the Property Appraiser, only one tax bill is issued by the County Tax Collector.) When these structures were built, the County did not issue building permits. The property was in the unincorporated area of the County until 1961, when the City annexed the property. In 1964, the City adopted its first zoning plan and placed the property in what was then known as the Single-Family Residential (R-1a) zoning district. This category was used since the property was "closely consistent" with that zoning classification. A few years later, the property was rezoned to the Residential Single-Family zoning district (RSF-1), which apparently replaced the R-1a zoning district, and it still remains in that zoning classification. Under current zoning regulations, unless a property has "legal" nonconforming status, two family dwellings are not permitted in the RSF-1 zoning district. However, if a structure and use of land was in existence before the City annexed the property and adopted its zoning code, and was not otherwise shown to have lost that status, the nonconforming use is grandfathered and allowed "to continue until [it is] removed" or otherwise conflicts with conditions pertaining to nonconforming lots, uses, or structures. See § 30-346, Code of Ordinances. (Nonconforming status allows the owner to rent each unit on the parcel to no more than three unrelated persons. Thus, six unrelated persons could legally occupy Mr. Mayhew's two units. However, Mr. Mayhew has always rented to smaller numbers of tenants, and then only to graduate students or "professionals.") One way a property can lose its status is for the owner to not use the property in a nonconforming status for nine consecutive months. In the case of a rental property, this means that the owner has not rented the property for at least nine consecutive months. If this occurs, the owner is presumed to have abandoned the nonconforming status. See § 30-346(5)(d), Code of Ordinances. The precise date on which the City began using the nine-month time period is unknown. According to Mr. Calderon, this time period has been in the Code of Ordinances for "awhile," it was in the Code of Ordinances when "Citywide zoning" was first used in 1982, and he implied that it was in the first zoning code adopted in the 1960s. The City has no formal process by which it monitors properties to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements for legal nonconforming status. Generally, the issue arises after a complaint is filed by a third party or an inspection is made by City officials, who then require that the owner confirm (or prove) that the property still qualifies for that status. In this case, in October 2006, the tenant who occupied the cottage filed a complaint with the City concerning the installation of a new gas stove and other possible code violations. Prior to that time, no other complaints had been lodged against Mr. Mayhew's property. In response to that complaint, a code enforcement officer, Michael Wohl, inspected the property. During the course of that inspection, Mr. Wohl noticed that there were two rental units on one parcel of land. As a routine part of the inspection process, Mr. Wohl made an inquiry to determine if Mr. Mayhew had a landlord permit for each unit. Under the Code of Ordinances, a landlord permit is required for each rental unit. (The specific provision in the Code of Ordinances which imposes this requirement was not given.) According to Mr. Calderon, this requirement has been in the Code of Ordinances since 1989. Mr. Wohl learned that Mr. Mayhew had purchased one landlord permit for the parcel in the year 2000 (and had renewed that permit each year) but did not have a second permit. (When he purchased the property in late 1998, Mr. Mayhew did not know that such permits were even required. He obtained one as soon as this was brought to his attention.) After Mr. Mayhew advised Mr. Wohl that he was unaware that a permit was needed for each unit on his property, Mr. Wohl spoke with Mr. Calderon, who instructed Mr. Wohl to verify if the property was a legal nonconforming use (and therefore could qualify for two landlord permits) since it was located in a single-family zoning classification. Shortly thereafter, a citation was issued to Petitioner. The specific nature of the citation was not disclosed. In any event, by letter dated September 25, 2006, Mr. Calderon requested that Mr. Mayhew provide documentation to support the nonconforming use of the cottage at 1607 1/2 NW 12th Road as an accessory dwelling unit. In response to Mr. Calderon's request, on October 2, 2006, Mr. Mayhew submitted a lengthy letter with supporting documentation, including photographs of the units; copies of rental agreements of tenants who had rented the cottage since he had purchased the property in November 1998; information regarding the date of construction of the two units; and Property Appraiser records showing two units on the parcel. On December 7, 2006, the Department advised Mr. Mayhew by letter that "[b]ased on the physical evidence, property appraiser records and documents provided by you, the property is therefore classified as an existing non-conforming two-family development and is subject to regulations governing non-conforming uses." However, because the City apparently has a policy of notifying residents who live within 300 feet of the subject property of this type of decision, the City also issued on the same date a Notice of Decision to Issue Non-Conforming Status to Petitioner's Property (Notice)." (The record is unclear whether this notice was given pursuant to a policy or a specific Code provision. Other provisions within the Code of Ordinances provide for such notice when the Board conducts hearings on variances, appeals alleging error by an administrative official, and requests for special zoning exceptions. See § 30-354(h)(6)(i)-(k), Code of Ordinances.) In response to the Notice, affidavits were filed by a number of residents who lived adjacent to, or near, the subject property. After reviewing those affidavits, on December 20, 2006, the Department advised Petitioner by letter that based on "new information . . . submitted by affected persons within 300 feet of your property . . . [the] staff [is going to] reconsider the nonconforming status of your property." On January 25, 2007, Mr. Calderon issued a letter denying Mr. Mayhew's request for the following reasons: I have reviewed the information you submitted and those submitted by surrounding property owners. Based on the information and affidavits, there appears to be no consensus or conclusive data establishing emphatically that the subject property has been used consistently as a two-family development since annexation into the city. Evidence from the property owner would suggest that since 1998, the subject property has been used as a two- family dwelling and that no nine-month period has elapsed where the property was not used as a two-family dwelling. However, due to uncertainty for the period around and prior to 1998, staff cannot make a determination about the status of the development around and prior to 1998. Staff cannot determine whether the subject property was illegal, legal non-conforming or lost its non-conforming status at the time of ownership change in 1998. Since the current zoning of the subject property is RSF-1 (Single-family residential, 3.5 dwelling units per acre), the current use as a two-family dwelling is not permitted. Staff is therefore denying the request on the basis that available information cannot demonstrate continued use of the property as a two-family development, since annexation into the [C]ity of Gainesville. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Mayhew filed his appeal of that decision. Because Mr. Mayhew alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact, the appeal was forwarded to DOAH, rather than the Board. In his appeal, Mr. Mayhew alleged that the City had improperly relied on affidavits from neighbors to reconsider its decision, that there was no new evidence submitted to support a change in the City's initial decision, and that he could not get a fair hearing from the Board because several members of the Board live in the affected neighborhood or are members of a neighborhood association that includes the Florida Park area. Section 30-346(5)(d), Code of Ordinances, as amended in November 2006, provides the following restrictions on nonconforming uses: Whenever a nonconforming use of land or a building or other structure or any portion thereof is abandoned or the use is discontinued for a continuous period of nine months or more, such abandonment or discontinuance shall be presumed to constitute an intention to abandon or discontinue such use, and such use shall no longer be permitted. Any subsequent use of such building or structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Although this section was amended in November 2006, the amendment did not affect (or otherwise change) the nine- month time period for losing a nonconforming use. Prior to the amendment, the section provided that if a nonconforming use was lost due to abandonment or discontinuation, the reestablishment of the use could be authorized by the Board, after hearing, if the Board found the design, construction, and character of the building not suitable for the uses in the district in which the nonconforming use is situated. Under the new amendment, that option no longer exists. The history note to this provision indicates that the original ordinance (No. 3777) was adopted on June 10, 1992, and was later amended on July 25, 1994.1 (However, Mr. Calderon indicated that the nine-month period dates back many years before the adoption of this particular Ordinance. See Finding of Fact 5, supra.) When an owner is required to demonstrate that his rental property has continuously retained its nonconforming status, he must show that the property has been continuously rented (with no nine-month breaks) not only for the period of time that he has owned the property, but also for the entire time the property has enjoyed nonconforming status, or in this case since the property was annexed by the City. Thus, Mr. Mayhew was obligated to show that the original owners (Mr. and Mrs. Gainous) rented the property continuously from the time the property was annexed in 1961 until it was sold to Mr. Mayhew in late 1998. The City's practice is to determine nonconforming status on a case by case basis but the burden is on the owner to prove that status through records such as building permits, landlord permits, zoning compliance permits, and occupational licenses, and "records from reputable sources." The parties agree that both units were continuously rented by Mr. Mayhew since the time he purchased the property in November 1998. The dispute here is whether the nonconforming use was abandoned for any nine-month period prior to Mr. Mayhew's purchase of the property. The City contends that Mr. Mayhew has presented no evidence to show that the cottage was rented by the prior owner from 1996 until the property was sold in late 1998. Although Mr. Mayhew clearly established (and the City agrees) that the property has been continuously rented since he purchased the parcel in late 1998, he conceded that the cottage was vacant when he purchased the property, that he had made no inquiry to the seller as to how long the cottage had been vacant, and that he had no personal knowledge regarding the rental history of the property during the three years preceding the purchase. He contended, however, that there are always periods of time when a unit remains vacant while the owner is actively seeking a new tenant or when necessary renovations must be made. While this is true, there is no evidence that this occurred during the years 1996, 1997, or 1998. (It is unknown where Mrs. Gainous presently resides, or even if she is still alive. When the property was sold in late 1998, Mrs. Gainous was described as being elderly and in poor health.) Significantly, City records show that Mrs. Gainous had secured landlord permits to rent the cottage from 1989 (when permits were first required) through 1995, but she had failed to obtain any permits for the years 1996, 1997, or 1998, at which time she sold the property to Mr. Mayhew. This raises a logical inference, not overcome by Mr. Mayhew, that she did not rent the cottage during those years. In addition, Dr. Kosch, who has lived across the street from the subject property for the last twenty years, testified that he personally observed several periods of time before the property was sold to Mr. Mayhew when there were no tenants in the cottage. Although Dr. Kosch could not specifically identify the exact time periods when this occurred (due to the passage of time), his testimony adds further support to a finding that there is insufficient evidence that the cottage was rented continuously (without any nine-month breaks) during the years 1996-1998. Mr. Mayhew purchased the property with the understanding that he could legally rent both units. While it may seem unfair for him to now have to prove that the property has been continuously rented (with no breaks exceeding nine consecutive months) since the 1960s, this interpretation of the Code of Ordinances has always been followed by the City without exception. According to Mr. Wohl, this situation has occurred at least 8 or 9 times in the last few years alone, and in each case, the property owner was required to prove a continued nonconforming use since the property was annexed by the City or placed in a more restrictive zoning classification.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), and (k), Florida Statutes, 1/ by: committing fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or breach of trust in a business transaction; acting as a broker; and failing to place funds with her registered employer; and if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to practice real estate and for regulating licensees on behalf of the state. Respondent is licensed as a real estate sales person under license number 0555229. The last license issued to Respondent was issued as a sales person percentage A.A. Carnes, Inc., 1399 W. Highway 434, Longwood, Florida 32750. In August, 1993, Respondent operated as a licensed real estate sales person for Mannix Realty, Inc. Respondent managed rental property located at 3551 Malona Drive in Orlando, Florida. The rental property was owned by Ramesh and Harjit Zala who lived outside the state (the "Zalas" property). On November 1, 1993, Respondent solicited and negotiated a lease agreement with Scott and Winifred Houldin at the monthly rental of $2,100 (the "tenants"). The tenants paid two months rent to Respondent as a reservation deposit. Respondent appropriated the reservation deposit and rental income for her own personal use. She failed to disclose the rental agreement, reservation deposit, or rental income to Mr. Amos W. Harris, Respondent's broker. Respondent requested the owners and the tenants to direct all correspondence to Respondent's home address. The owners and tenants complied with Respondent's request. Respondent did not disclose the transaction to Mr. Harris. Respondent neither accounted for nor returned the rental funds to her broker or to the owners. In August 1993, Respondent managed rental property located at 1346 Stearman Court in Orlando and owned by Robert and Patricia Sheetz (the "Sheetz" property). The owners lived outside the state. After Respondent assumed responsibility for the Sheetz property, the rental income declined and expenses increased. Although the Sheetz property was rented, Respondent failed to deliver the rental income from the Sheetz property. In December, 1993, the owners discovered that the rental property was in fact occupied. They informed Mr. Harris, and demanded delivery of the rental income. Mr. Harris was unaware that the property was rented or that Respondent had failed to deliver the rental income from the property. On December 29, 1993, Mr. Harris confronted Respondent. Respondent paid $475 of the rental income to the owners of the rental property. Mr. Harris subsequently terminated Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(b), (e), (k), and 475.42(1)(b); and revoking Respondent's real estate sales license. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 27th day of March 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony adduced at the hearing and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner seeks three variances as follows: (a) a variance of 13 feet from the real property line rather than the 15 feet required by the Code; 2/ (b) a variance of 12 feet 6 inches from the south property line rather than the 15 feet required by the Code; and (c) a variance of 15 feet from the side of the adjacent building rather than the 20 feet required by the Code. The real property, which is the subject of the application for variance, is zoned CG (general business district) according to Respondent's Code. However, Respondent is allowing the property owners to utilize the standards of RM-28 (high density multi-family use) zoning in order that property owners can develop the subject property to maximum density. The property is developed, and has been, as a six-unit apartment building since 1977. The lot area of the subject real property is 10,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot area in RM-28 districts. Petitioner asserts that the subject variance is needed in order to allow for the construction of a meeting or recreational room for tenants who reside at the six-unit apartment building. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that the facility will allow adequate storage space for its tenants. However, noteworthy was the absence of any residing tenants who could express, or otherwise demonstrate, a need for a community meeting or recreational room. None of the other properties in the area, similarly developed, have a meeting or recreational room.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant, Respondents Arthur C. Enger and William L. Baldwin were registered real estate salesmen and T. Maurice Rouede and Rouede Realty, Inc. were registered real estate brokers. In 1969 the cities of Eau Gallie and Melbourne were merged into the City of Melbourne. A comprehensive zoning plan for the new City of Melbourne was embarked upon and by Melbourne Ordinance No. 72-4, a comprehensive zoning plan was adopted. Because of the large area affected by the plan individual property owners were not advised of any changes in zoning of adjacent property. Southgate sub-division was sub-divided into lots and platted in 1964 by Disc Corporation, the owners of this property. Between this date and 1972 several of these lots had been sold to individuals who had erected houses on these lots. In 1972 some 38 lots in this sub-division remaining in the ownership of Disc Corporation were purchased by Rouede Builders, Inc. for the purpose of erecting homes thereon for sale. A model home was erected and used as the on-site sales office while the remainder of the property was sold. Since numerous lots in Southgate had already been sold by Disc when the remaining lots were bought by Rouede, a map showing the two platted units in Southgate were obtained from Disc by Rouede and placed on the wall in the on- site sales office with those lots already sold so indicated in red. Although there was some discrepancy in the testimony regarding which particular map was exhibited on the wall of the on-site sales office, each of these maps (which were introduced into evidence as Exhibits 11, 13, and 15) contained the entire plat of the Southgate lots and showed 11 lots number 7 - 17 adjacent to and immediately south of the lots which Rouede was offering for sale. Since all of these maps showed lots 7 - 17 south of the Rouede property and they differed only in the manner in which previously sold lots were indicated, it is immaterial to the issues herein which map was actually exhibited on the wall of the sales office. While the testimony on how the Rouede lots were sold was not clear, it appears that these lots were sold only to individuals who also contracted with Rouede for the construction of a residence, or were sold only with the residence. The property immediately south of the Rouede property was zoned R-1 prior to 1972, and it appears that lots 7 - 17 were shown on the map used by the Tax Assessor prior to 1975. The Comprehensive Zoning Plan enacted in 1972 zoned this property R-3 for multiple family dwellings. The current parcel map (Exhibit 10) indicates that in May, 1975 the parcel map was corrected by the addition of Village Green. Village Green occupies the same geographical area as lots 7 - 17 shown on Exhibits 11, 13, and 15 without any lot lines separation. On May 29, 1973 Rouede Builders, Inc. entered into a contract, (Exhibit 12) with William E. and Irene Cook to erect a residence thereon and deed lot number 27 in Southgate Section 2, Unit 1 to the Cooks. The construction was delayed for several weeks to obtain a variance for the purchasers. The construction was completed, and by warranty deed dated January 28, 1974 (Exhibit 8) Rouede Builders, Inc. conveyed the property to the Cooks. Following the occupancy of the residence by the Cooks the owners of the property immediately south of the Cook's property, designated as Village Green on Exhibit 10, commenced the construction of townhouses. These are two story units with each unit comprising a ground floor and second floor, and with walls common to an adjacent unit on either side. These units are constructed 25 feet from the property line as required by the setback restrictions, and by virtue of the two-foot variance obtained for the Cook's residence they are located 48 feet from the Cook's house. Mrs. Cook testified that prior to entering into a contract for the purchase of Lot 27, the salesman with whom she was dealing, Arthur C. Enger, in response to her question, advised her that the property immediately south of Southgate (lots 7 - 17 on the wall plat) was zoned for single family residences the same as lot 27. Subsequent to the commencement of the construction of her house she testified that William C. Baldwin, in a telephone conversation also indicated that the property immediately south of Lot 27 was zoned R-1. She talked to Mr. Rouede once or twice by phone regarding construction of her home, but never discussed zoning with him. Other witnesses who contracted for the erection of a home in Southgate from Rouede recalled no discussion with any salesman regarding the zoning of the area to the south. One of these witnesses took it upon himself to ascertain this fact prior to having his house built and learned from the zoning authorities that the property was zoned R-3. All Respondents denied that they ever knew what the zoning of the area immediately south of the Rouede property was while they were building and selling houses in Southgate or that they ever discussed such zoning with prospective purchasers or among themselves. None of the Respondents knew who the owners of the property were at the time Rouede was building homes in Southgate; only that it was not included in their sales package. At the initial sales meeting, where the salesmen were advised how the lots would be sold as well as at subsequent monthly sales meetings, no mention was ever made regarding the zoning of the property later known as Village Green. At this time the property was undeveloped and what is shown as Berkley Avenue on Exhibits 11, 13, and 15, was not in existence. The map on the wall was reproduced to an 8 1/2 x 14 size (Exhibit 14) and copies of this smaller map were given to all salesmen. These maps were used only as visual sales tools and to keep the salesmen current on which lots were available for sale.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, K. S. Ravines Corporation, has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property. The Applicant, K. S. Ravines Corporation, is the owner of real property located in Middleburg, Clay County, Florida. The Applicant's property, known as the "The Ravines," is being developed as a 435-acre residential and golf course development. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied upon by Silver Sands. On or about June 1, 1990, the Applicant entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement agreeing to purchase The Ravines. Subsequent to the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Applicant pursued a due diligence effort. In particular, the Applicant contacted Clay County to confirm that The Ravines had been zoned as a Planned Unit Developed as represented by the seller of The Ravines. The Applicant also sought to confirm that the property possessed the development capabilities associated with the zoning. In response to the Applicant's inquiries, Keith I. Hadden, then Director of Development for Clay County, informed the Applicant of the following in a letter dated August 7, 1990: The property commonly known as The Ravines, as shown on that certain map of J. M. Ard & Associates, Inc., dated May 30, 1990, (Job No. 3751B), together with a parcel commonly referred to as the McCumber Contracting Parcel as shown on said map, and the access road from County Road 218 to the main property of The Ravines commonly known as Ravines Road (all hereinafter "The Ravines") is currently zoned "PUD" Planned Unit Development. . . . Mr. Hadden also confirmed that The Ravines was approved for development of 261 single family lots, 49 condominiums, 107 hotel units, and 60 patio homes; a total of 477 units. Silver Sands' Detrimental Reliance. In reliance upon Mr. Hadden's representations as Clay County Director of Planning, the Applicant purchased The Ravines for $10,709,423.00. At the time of the purchase the golf course was valued at $6,900,000.00. The Applicant purchased 168 single-family lots (44 developed and 124 undeveloped) and 60 undeveloped patio home lots. The undeveloped lots and the existing developed single- family lots purchased by the Applicant were valued at $3,943,000.00. The Applicant also spent $495,115.00 to make capital improvements to The Ravines after it purchased The Ravines. Rights that will be Destroyed. In January 1992 Clay County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Ravines was designated with a land use designation in the plan of "Rural Residential." The "Rural Residential" land use classification of the Clay County Comprehensive Plan allows development of one residential unit per one acre of land. As a result, The Ravines may be developed at a total of 435 units instead of the 477 units that Clay County informed the Applicant The Ravines could be developed for in the August 7, 1990, letter from Mr. Hadden. As a result of the "Rural Residential" land use classification, the total developable lots at The Ravines would be reduced from 228 lots to 186 lots, or a reduction of 42 lots. This reduction represents a reduction of 18.4% of the total lots purchased by the Applicant. It is possible that this reduction could result in an 18.4% loss of the $3,943,000.00 paid for the lots, or approximately $496,000.00. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, St. Lucie County Expressway Authority, was created by the Florida legislature in 1983, and is governed by Chapter 348, Florida Statutes. The Authority is composed of two members from the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, two members from the City Commission of Ft. Pierce, two members from the City Council of Port St. Lucie and three members appointed by the governor. Based on the anticipated future growth of St. Lucie County, there is a need for additional East-West traffic arteries in the southern portion of the county to ease expected traffic conditions. The St. Lucie County Expressway Authority employed consultants and conducted public hearings to determine the best location for such a roadway. Prior to selecting the location for the proposed East-West Expressway, the St. Lucie County Expressway Authority examined feasibility studies, traffic count reports and engineering and road design proposals on alternative alignments and found the proposed corridor to be the best choice from both an economic and environmental standpoint. The proposed expressway route connects Interstate 95 to U.S. Highway 1. Phase 1 of the project would begin in the southern portion of St. Lucie County at U.S. Highway 1 and continue east, following existing transmission lines owned by Florida Power and Light Company and extend to a point which is now called East Torino Parkway. The total length of Phase One of the project is approximately 2.6 miles. Phase Two would extend the project to Interstate 95. The St. Lucie County Expressway Authority expects to obtain funding for construction of the East-West Expressway from various sources including the State of Florida's Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund, the Florida Department of Transportation and state-backed revenue bonds. The use of state-backed revenue bonds would require St. Lucie County to pledge a certain portion of its gas tax revenue as security to cover the bonds in the event that the expressway did not generate enough money from tolls to pay back the bonds. A public hearing is scheduled for January, 1988 at which the St. Lucie County Commission will review updated feasibility studies and traffic count estimates to determine whether to pledge the necessary funds to support the bonds. Assuming that approval is obtained for state-backed revenue bonds, the letting of a contract to construct the East-West Expressway could be accomplished by July 1, 1989. The time period for construction of a project such as the East-West Expressway is approximately two (2) years from the date that the contract for construction is executed. Thus, under the most optimistic outlook and projections, the proposed East-West Expressway could be completed by July of 1991. However, difficulties in obtaining funding and/or necessary environmental permits could delay completion of the expressway for ten (10) years, or until 1997. In conjunction with the preparation of plans for construction of the East-West Expressway, the St. Lucie County Expressway Authority filed "right-of- way reservation maps" on October 13, 1986, in accordance with Section 337.241, Florida Statutes. The reservation maps were filed and approved by the St. Lucie County Expressway Authority in compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations. The purpose of filing the right-of-way reservation maps by the St. Lucie County Expressway Authority is to preclude development of properties within the proposed corridor of the East-West Expressway while final construction and engineering plans are being prepared, thereby preventing an increase in cost of acquisition of those properties pending eventual eminent domain proceedings. The right-of-way reservation maps will prohibit the granting of development permits, as defined in Section 380.031(4), Florida Statutes, by any governmental entity for a period of five (5) years from the date of recording of the reservation maps. This period may be extended for an additional five years at the option of the Expressway Authority pursuant to Section 337.241(2), Florida Statutes. The reservation maps do not prohibit sale, continued use of the property by its owners nor is any use prohibited which does not require a development permit as defined in Section 380.031(4), Florida Statutes. The engineering construction plans for the East-West Expressway encompass less area than the reservation maps. However, the larger reserved area will be utilized to facilitate construction of the project and for water retention on site. Thus, less private property will ultimately be taken than that which is included in the right-of-way reservation area. The property owned by Petitioners, T. L. Sloan, James Taylor and Bill Stewart (hereinafter referred to as the "Sloan property") consists of a front and rear parcel. The front parcel consists of 6.54 acres of which 2.28 are within the right-of-way reservation area. The rear parcel is physically separated from the front parcel by a drainage canal and consists of approximately 4.25 acres. The rear parcel is not within the reservation map area, but access to this parcel can only be gained by U.S. Highway 1 through the front property. The property owned by Petitioners Mark C. Walters and David J. Gonzalez (hereinafter referred to as the "Walters' property") measures approximately 55,450 square feet of which approximately 46,000 square feet are within the right-of-way reservation area. The Sloan and Walters' properties are located at the easternmost end of the proposed East-West Expressway and front the east side of U.S. Highway 1 in Ft. Pierce, Florida. Both properties were purchased in 1984 as investment property and are presently vacant, unimproved acreage. The front parcel of the Sloan property is zoned commercial general and the rear parcel is zoned multifamily residential at five units per acre. The Walters' property is zoned commercial general and is adjacent to the Florida Power and Light transmission lines. The St. Lucie County Expressway Authority intends to use the property within the reserved area for the construction of the entrance and exit ramps of the proposed expressway. The engineering design of the East-West Expressway was done with as little intrusion upon Petitioner's properties as practical and only that property absolutely necessary for construction will ultimately be taken. Pursuant to the right-of-way reservation maps, all of the highway frontage on U.S. Highway 1 for both properties has been reserved for the expressway construction. Because of existing regulations, the St. Lucie County zoning office will not issue any development permits for property which has no access to a public highway. Therefore, the local zoning office will not issue any development permits for any portion of the Petitioners' properties, whether included in the reservation area or not. Thus, all of the property owned by Petitioners has been affected by the right-of-way reservation maps. The Sloan property was listed for sale prior to the recording of the right-of-way reservation maps. The Walters' property was purchased with the intent to build a gun shop which is now operated by the present owners at another location. After the recording of the reservation maps, the Walters' property was actively listed for sale. After the recording of the reservation maps, purchase inquiries regarding the Sloan property began to rapidly decrease. Inquiries regarding the Walters' property have also been extremely slow. No written offers to purchase the subject properties have been submitted to any of the Petitioners. David Fuller, a real property appraiser called as a witness by Petitioners, prepared an appraisal estimating the effects of recording the right-of-way reservation maps on the Sloan and Walters' property. The testimony of Mr. Fuller is accepted as more credible and pertinent to the issues involved in this cause than the testimony presented by Mr. Davis, the Respondent's expert appraiser. Mr. Davis admitted that the purpose of his appraisal was to estimate the fair market value of the property in fee simple, the part "taken" and damages to the remainder for the purpose of eminent domain. Mr. Davis' analysis is more appropriate for an action sounding in eminent domain. Mr. Fuller used the Sales Comparison or Market Approach combined with a discounted cash flow method of appraisal in determining the difference in the value of the properties before the recording of the right-of-way reservation maps, and the market value of the properties immediately after recording of the reservation maps. The value of real property is directly related to the use to which it can be put. Thus, a particular parcel may have several different value levels under alternative uses. In determining what, if any, substantial impact the record of the right-of-way reservation maps had on the market value of the Sloan and Walters' property, Fuller evaluated the difference in the value of the properties utilizing their highest and best use before the filing of the right- of-way reservation maps and the highest and best use after the recording of the maps. The highest and best use for the Sloan property without the encumbrance of the right-of-way maps would be to improve the front commercial zoned parcel with a commercial use consistent with neighborhood use trends (i.e., strip shopping centers, rental storage buildings and/or automobile dealerships) and improve the rear multifamily zoned parcel with a support use for the front commercial property. The highest and best use of the Sloan property after filing of the right-of-way reservation maps would be to hold the property as vacant until the right-of-way reservation map filing expires. Although the Sloan property could be sold with the right-of-way reservation, a majority of the potential market would be eliminated and the remaining market would require a discount to purchase the property knowing that the restrictions exist. The potential market in the neighborhood consists of generally three types of investors; (1) the owner occupant; (2) the real estate investor seeking income from an improved property; and (3), the short term land speculator. The owner occupant seeking to immediately build would not consider the property in question because the potential to immediately construct a new improvement is not available. Likewise, the investor seeking to build an income producing improvement, either immediately or in the next three years, would not be interested in the property. The short term land speculator would not be interested because there is no certainty that the property would be able to be developed to its highest potential market value within the next two to three years. The highest and best use for the Walters' property without the encumbrance of the right-of-way reservation maps would be to improve the parcel in approximately one to two years with a commercial use consistent with the neighborhood trends (i.e., owner occupied small business and/or mini-storage property). Improved uses such as an automobile dealership or shopping center could not be physically constructed on a site the size and shape of the Walters' property. The highest and best use of the Walters' property after filing of the right-of-way reservation maps would be to hold the parcel vacant until the reservation filing expires. As with the Sloan property, although the parcel could be sold, a majority of the potential market would be eliminated and the remaining market would require a discount to purchase the property knowing that the restrictions exist. Mr. Fuller stated that in his opinion, using the discounted cash flow model of appraisal, the Sloan properties suffered a total loss in value of approximately $441,450.00 on the date the reservation maps were filed. As to the Walters' property, the loss was calculated at $78,480.00. Mr. Fuller's financial calculations as to loss are misleading and not very useful because they were specifically calculated for a period of time of ten years. In other words, Mr. Fuller's total loss of value calculations are based on the assumption that the reservation map restrictions would exist for the full initial five (5) year period and that they would be extended for an additional five (5) year period. The ability to develop vacant and unimproved commercial property and to put the land to its highest and best use is a substantial beneficial ownership interest arising out of the ownership of commercial property. Both of the properties owned by Petitioners are fully capable of development and no other impediments to development exist except for the reservation maps. Substantial payments on the mortgages for the properties are being made by Petitioners each year totalling over $58,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the St. Lucie County Expressway Authority enter a Final Order in favor of Petitioners after which the Authority shall have 180 days from the date of said order to acquire the Petitioners property or initiate appropriate acquisition proceedings pursuant to the requirements of Section 337.241, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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 2nd day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2279, 87-2517 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12 and 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 13 and 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 17 and 18. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23, 25 and 27. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 26. Matters not contained therein are rejected as misleading and/or argument. Adopted in substance inn Finding of Fact 27. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Matters not contained therein are rejected as misleading and/or not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as misleading. The Petitioners' expert projected that "completion" and not "construction" could possibly take 10 years. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. COPIES FURNISHED: John T. Brennan, Esquire Post Office Box 3779 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33448-3779 Frank J. Lynch, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 4027 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33448-4027 David Stuart Chairman St. Lucie County Expressway Authority Post Office Box 4027 Ft. Pierce, Florida 33448-4027
