The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Town of Indian River Shores is entitled to a coastal construction control line permit to construct a beach access seaward of the coastal construction control line in Indian River Shores, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Town of Indian River Shores (Town) is an incorporated municipality located on a five-mile stretch of the Atlantic Ocean in Indian River County, Florida. The Town has a population of approximately 2,700 residents. The Town's Public Safety Department has the combined functions of law enforcement, fire protection, and life support (lifesaving). All of the Officers of the Public Safety Department are cross-trained and cross-designated as police officers, firefighters, and emergency service specialists who are either paramedics or emergency medical technicians (EMTs). The Officers are on eight-hour shifts; each shift has approximately four to five Officers on duty, i.e., a police officer, a firefighter, a paramedic, and an EMT. When fully staffed, the Public Safety Department consists of 25 Officers. Because of the small number of Officers and their varied duties, restrictions and limitations are placed on their deployment. One of the vehicles used by the Public Safety Department in the performance of duties is an all terrain vehicle (ATV). The Public Safety Department has one ATV which is used on the beach for patrol and rescue purposes and for moving rescue and lifesaving equipment to and from the beach. In order to access the beach, the Public Safety Department must travel across the dune, primarily through private property (Corrigan Beach) located approximately 3.4 miles from the office of the Public Safety Department. The Town determined that this location was unsatisfactory for beach access due to the property being offered for sale, the great distance of the property from the Public Safety Department's office, and the dune being breached each time the ATV is taken onto the beach. The Town determined, however, that Beachcomber Lane, a public street within the Town, was the best choice for beach access and entry by the Public Safety Department. Beachcomber Lane is approximately 1,000 feet in total length and extends from Highway A1A to the bluff of the Atlantic Ocean. The Pubic Safety Department is located approximately 1,500 feet from Beachcomber Lane. The residents of Beachcomber Lane include Peter Broom, Jeremy R. Geffen, and Duane Jackson. At various times, the Public Safety Department has also used Beachcomber Lane as an access to the beach on emergency bases. Currently, a public raised wooden walkway, with steps, leads over the dune and onto the beach at the Atlantic Ocean end of Beachcomber Lane. In order for the Public Safety Department to obtain beach access by way of Beachcomber Lane, an access ramp will have to be constructed seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL). Such construction requires, among other things, a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). To design and present the plan to the DEP for a proposed beach access by way of Beachcomber Lane, the Town obtained the services of Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Technology), an engineering firm. On July 24, 1996, Coastal Technology filed an application on behalf of the Town with the DEP for a permit to construct a beach access ramp seaward of the CCCL. The application process included the submission of detailed drawings and other documents required by DEP. In the application, Coastal Technology described the construction, in pertinent part, as follows: 6. The proposed work consists of the removal of Brazilian Pepper . . . and installation of a 100 foot (approximate) long, 10 foot wide stabilized emergency access ramp. To minimize the impact to the existing native vegetation, the proposed emergency access ramp will be located approximately 8 feet from the north Right-of-Way within the area of the existing Brazilian Peppers. . . . A 2-inch layer of washed concrete sand will be placed between the limestone and paver blocks for a proper leveling of the previous paver blocks. The paver blocks will be TURFSTONE . . . which . . . have been permitted by DEP at other locations. . . . The openings in the TURFSTONE will be filled with excavated beach sand from the proposed access ramp footprint. Any remaining sand . . . will be placed at the seaward end of the proposed access ramp. To mitigate for any potential impact to native vegetation, 6 sea grapes will be installed . . . and any sea oats removed during excavation will be kept alive and replanted within those areas void of sea oats. Three 6-inch by 6-inch pressure treated posts will be installed with a chain fence. A locking chain fence will be used to prohibit the general public from accessing the beach through the emergency access ramp. In the application, Coastal Technology presented the justification for the construction, in pertinent part, as follows: 7. The proposed access ramp at Beachcomber Lane is specifically for the use by the Town of Indian River Shores for emergency access to the beach. The access ramp will have a locking chain only accessible by the Public Safety Department and has been designed to accommodate four-wheel drive patrol and EMT vehicles. . . . Beachcomber Land [sic] site was chosen by the Town because of : 1) the relative stability of the shoreline at that location; and, [sic] 2) accessibility from the Indian River Shores Town Hall which is on the west side of A1A across from Beachcomber Lane. The application indicated that the proposed beach access ramp was being constructed for emergency access to the beach. However, prior to the filing of the application, both emergency and routine patrol access by the Public Safety Department were discussed as uses for the access ramp at public meetings by the Town's public officials in which the subject of the access ramp was brought up. Such use for the beach access ramp was contemplated by the Town from the very inception of the plan for the access ramp. Routine patrol is defined by the Public Safety Department to be patrolling approximately every other day for one or two hours. By notice dated August 7, 1996, the DEP requested public comment on the Town's application for the CCCL permit. By letter dated August 21, 1996, residents of Beachcomber Lane, including Mr. Broom, Mr. Geffen, and Mr. Jackson, provided the DEP with their comments on the Town's application. On September 3, 1996, the Town's application for the CCCL permit was considered complete by the DEP. On November 6, 1996, at the request of DEP, the Town conducted a public meeting to obtain public comments regarding the proposed beach access ramp. The residents of Beachcomber Lane were notified of the public meeting, and among the residents attending the meeting were Mr. Broom, Mr. Geffen, and Mr. Jackson. At the public meeting, the Town clearly stated that the proposed beach access ramp would be used by the Public Safety Department for both emergency and routine patrol purposes with the ATV. Also, the Director of the Public Safety Department indicated that, based upon information collected regarding criminal activity and suspected criminal activity along the beach, routine patrol was needed.2 The application process culminated in the issuance of a Final Order by the DEP on November 27, 1996, granting the CCCL permit, with special permitting conditions in addition to the standard conditions. The CCCL permit granted by the DEP was Permit No. IR-507. The proposed beach access ramp to be constructed is approximately 100 feet in length and 10 feet in width. The construction will utilize turf blocks which permit grass and foliage to grow through the blocks on the access-way. A provision of the DEP Final Order requires the removal of exotic plants (Brazilian Pepper), which are not native plants, and the replanting of native vegetation adjacent to the access-way. On December 6, 1996, public notice of DEP's issuance of the CCCL permit to the Town was published in the Town's local newspaper. The Town agrees to abide by the special conditions, as well as the standard conditions, to the issuance of the CCCL permit. The beach access ramp on Beachcomber Lane will be used by the Town's Public Safety Department for public service purposes, including emergency rescue, training, and routine patrol. Beachcomber Lane is the appropriate location for the beach access ramp. The DEP has determined that the construction of the beach access ramp meets all the requirements of the DEP for the issuance of the CCCL permit. The DEP has determined the proposed beach access ramp to be a minor structure. The construction of the proposed beach access ramp will cause no significant adverse impact or cumulative impact on the beach dune system. The design of the proposed beach access, with the conditions added by the DEP, minimizes adverse impact of the access ramp. Native vegetation will be maintained and replenished around the proposed beach access ramp. The proposed construction of the beach access ramp will not result in a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system. No net excavation in the sandy soils seaward of the control line will result from the construction. No structurally induced scour will result from the construction because the proposed structure is designed to break- away during a storm. The potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm is minimized by the construction. Public access to the beach is not interfered with by the beach access ramp. The construction of the beach access ramp will occur in a nesting habitat of the marine turtle, i.e., loggerhead, leatherback and green turtle. The DEP addressed protection of the nesting area through one of its special conditions to the issuance of the CCCL permit. The special condition included "no construction, operation, transportation or storage of equipment or materials seaward of the dune crest during the marine turtle nesting season" which is March 1 through October 31 of each year. With this special condition, the construction, itself, will have no adverse impact on the marine turtle or the turtle nesting. The Town agrees to abide by this special condition.3 The access ramp, itself, will have minimal impact on the marine turtles and will not cause a "take" of the turtles. Furthermore, the use of the ATV by the Public Safety Department will have no adverse impact on the marine turtles or the turtle nesting. At hearing, the DEP made another recommendation for the issuance of the CCCL permit, involving the marine turtle. Prior to the issuance of the Final Order, the DEP was not fully aware that the proposed beach access ramp was to be used for both emergency and routine patrol access. Having considered the circumstance of routine patrol, the DEP further recommends that a survey of turtle nesting be conducted after construction, but prior to routine use, on the Town's entire five-mile stretch along the Atlantic Ocean to mark turtle nesting areas for their protection and to place certain restrictions on the use of the ATV vehicle. This recommendation will not prohibit or hinder the construction of the beach access ramp.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting the Town of Indian River Shores the Coastal Construction Control Line Permit No. IR-507, with the special conditions as may be required by the Department for the protection of marine turtles. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents, The Fourth Bayshore Condominium Association, Inc. (“Bayshore”), Karl Stemmler (“Stemmler”), and/or Richard Grove (“Grove”), discriminated against Petitioner, Robert Pagano (“Pagano"), on the basis of his physical handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Pagano is a Caucasian male who is handicapped by virtue of medical complications which resulted in the amputation of his left leg in March 2008. He has been confined to a wheelchair since that time. At all times relevant hereto, Pagano was renting a condominium unit at Bayshore. In January 2012, Pagano saw another unit at Bayshore advertised for rent. He called Grove, listed as the owner of the unit, and inquired about renting the property. Grove told Pagano that a key to the unit would be left under a mat between the screen door and front door on January 19, 2012. On that day, Pagano went to inspect the unit, accompanied by a friend, Philip Saglimebene. Upon arrival at the unit, Pagano and his friend began looking for the hidden key, but could not find it. They apparently made some noise while searching for the key, because they were confronted by Stemmler. According to Pagano, Stemmler began asking them in unfriendly terms who they were and what they were doing at the unit. The friend then told Stemmler they were looking for a key so they could go in and inspect the unit as Pagano was interested in renting it from Grove. Stemmler, supposedly identifying himself as a “building representative,” said there was no key to be found. He also reputedly told Pagano and his friend that they would not need a key anyway, “because you are not moving in.” When the friend explained that the unit was for Pagano, not him, Stemmler allegedly said that Pagano was not moving in either because he was an “undesirable.” When asked to explain that comment, Stemmler purportedly said, “He just is; that’s all you need to know.” (None of Stemmler’s comments were verified by competent evidence and, without verification or support, cannot be relied upon to make a finding of fact in this case.) Pagano believes Stemmler’s purported comments were based on the fact that he (Pagano) has long hair and a beard and does not fit into the conventional norm at Bayshore. He also believes that his handicap served as a basis for Stemmler’s alleged comments. There was no credible evidence presented at final hearing to substantiate Pagano’s suppositions. Grove had put his condominium unit up for rent at the beginning of the year. When Pagano called to inquire about it, Grove – who lives out-of-state – notified a friend to leave a key under the mat, as described above. That friend simply forgot to leave a key at the unit on the designated date. Grove knew nothing about Pagano’s interaction with Stemmler. Grove had not spoken to Stemmler prior to the day he and Pagano had their interaction. Stemmler had no authority to speak for Grove or to make a decision concerning to whom Grove would rent his condominium unit. Subsequent to the day Pagano visited the unit, Grove took the unit off the rental market because his wife decided to use the unit to house family and friends rather than renting it out to someone else. It took several weeks for the rental advertisement for the unit to be removed from a locked bulletin board at Bayshore. Grove said that if the unit ever went back on the market, he would call Pagano first about renting it, i.e., Grove had no opposition whatsoever to Pagano’s being a tenant. Van Buren, president of Bayshore, explained that the condominium association utilizes the support of voluntary building representatives to assist with security and minor maintenance at Bayshore. The volunteers, who are generally seasonal residents at Bayshore, do not hold keys to individual units and have no authority to grant or deny an applicant’s request to rent a unit. Stemmler is one of many building representatives who resides part-time at Bayshore. Pagano does not know of any non-handicapped individual who was allowed to rent a unit at Bayshore to the exclusion of himself or any other handicapped person. In fact, Pagano currently resides in another unit at Bayshore; he is already a resident there.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Robert Pagano in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 5th day of September, 2012.
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 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 Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern pursuant to Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, and 380.07, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding and to DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI, Petitioner, Fred Snowman, owned the real property known as Lot 75, Matecumbe Ocean Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in Monroe County, Florida (the subject property). A building permit issued by Monroe County, described below, for this property was the subject of DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI (the underlying proceeding.) The lot is approximately 100 feet wide and, at different points, between 200 and 225 feet deep. The subject property is bounded on the landward side by U.S. 1 and fronts the Atlantic Ocean in an area known as Matecumbe Beach. Matecumbe Beach is a known resting and nesting habitat for marine turtles. This building permit constituted a development order on property within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On September 30, 1993, Monroe County issued to Mr. Snowman, as the owner and general contractor, building permit number 9330008850, which authorized the construction on the subject property of a single-family residence containing 2,472 square feet of heated and cooled area, 1,568 square feet of porches, 1,435 square feet of storage enclosure below base flood elevation, and a swimming pool. The authorized construction was to be consistent with the building site plan, which was also approved by Monroe County. On November 18, 1993, the Department timely appealed the subject building permit to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. FLWAC referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI. A formal hearing was conducted in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI in Key West, Florida, on June 30, 1994. Following the formal hearing, the parties were afforded the opportunity to file post-hearing submittals. Thereafter, a recommended order was entered which recommended that FLWAC enter a final order that dismisses the Department's appeal. After the entry of the recommended order, the Department voluntarily dismissed its appeal. FLWAC subsequently entered a final order of dismissal. Petitioner, Fred Snowman, was the prevailing party in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI. SMALL BUSINESS PARTY The issue as to whether Petitioner is a "small business party" as defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, was disputed by the Department in this proceeding. The parties stipulated that Mr. Snowman meets the remaining criteria contained in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, for an award of attorney's fees and costs. The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner was the sole evidence pertaining to the number of employees of the Petitioner: Could you tell us a little bit about your business? What's the nature of your business? Primarily I'm a speculation - spec builder and general contractor in the Florida Keys, and have been since 1973. Q. How many employees do you maintain on a regular basis? A. I mainly have subcontractors. Occasionally when I have a job, I hire for that particular job. But I'm the sole proprietor and I'm the employee. (Transcript, page 9, lines 12-22.) While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner was the sole proprietor and sole employee of his business, it does not establish that Petitioner had fewer than 25 employees in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. 1/ The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner pertains to his net worth: Q. What is your net worth? Let me ask you this. Does your net worth exceed a million dollars? A. No. Q. Less than a million dollars? A. Yes. (Transcript, page 9, line 23 through page 10, line 3) The following testimony elicited by Respondent's counsel of the Petitioner on cross examination also pertains to his net worth: Q. When you're identifying your net worth, what exactly are you considering? A. Well, net worth is all my assets minus my liabilities. Q. All of your personal assets? A. Which are far and few between (sic) today. Q. Do you have business assets? A. No. Q. Do you own any property? A. Lot 75. Q. Any property other than Lot 75? A. I own three lots, small lots in Plantation Key. Q. Are they developed or undeveloped? A. No, they're undeveloped. Q. Do you know how much they're worth? A. They're valued at fifteen thousand per lot. Q. They're not on the water? A. Not on the water. Q. Lot 75, do you know what that property's worth? A. That property is worth about a hundred and seventy-five thousand. Q. Without the house on it? A. Without the improvements, yes. Q. How about in its improved condition? A. I would say, in the improved condition, with this home, it would be about five hundred thousand. Q. Okay. Other than the real estate, do you have any personal or business investments, stocks or -- A. No. Q. No? A. Just my condo. (Transcript, page 10, line 8 through page 11, line 13.) There was no other evidence presented as to Petitioner's net worth. While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner had a net worth of less than two million dollars, it does not establish that his net worth was below that figure in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION The Department's appeal initially raised several issues. All issues in the underlying proceeding but one were voluntarily dismissed by the Department either prior to the hearing or at the hearing. The only issue litigated at the formal hearing in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI was the appropriate setback from the portion of the beach-berm complex located on the subject property known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9.5-345(3)(f), Monroe County Code, provides: f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds; There was no dispute in Case 93-7165DRI that the turtle nesting setback applied to Mr. Snowman's property. The dispute was how to apply the setback. There was a bona fide factual dispute as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property that should be considered to be "beach berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles" within the meaning of the setback ordinance. The Department established that it followed its standard procedures in deciding to appeal the subject development order. The Department maintains a field staff in the Florida Keys that routinely reviews development orders issued by Monroe County for consistency with the land development regulations, the Monroe County comprehensive plan, and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. The permit package typically reviewed, and reviewed in this case, includes the permit, a permit conditions sheet, surveys, and site plans. The Department staff usually reviews a biological survey or habitat evaluation index, reviews the County's entire file, reviews aerial photographs and conducts a field assessment. In this case, the Department also looked at records of the Department of Natural Resources and of the Save A Turtle volunteer environmental group. In this case, the Department conducted a field assessment of Mr. Snowman's lot and measured the point it considered to be the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Kate Edgerton, an experienced biologist employed by the Department, measured the point the Department asserted was the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Ms. Edgerton made a good faith assessment of the beach berm complex and considered the property to contain one beach berm complex. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93-7165DRI, page 166, line 17.) Ms. Edgerton testified in the underlying proceeding that she considered herself bound by the definitions in the Monroe County land use regulations and that she believed herself to be applying the pertinent definition when she measured the setback line. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93- 7165DRI, page 163, lines 20-23.) Following field staff review, a report is prepared and forwarded to Tallahassee for review by additonal staff, including the Department's administrator of the critical state concern program. Department staff in Tallahassee review the field staff report and participate in formulating a recommendation as to whether to appeal the permit. The appeal decision is then made either by the Department Division Director or by the agency head. Each material step in the Department's customary practice of reviewing permits was followed in reviewing the subject permit. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition of the term "beach berm" that was found to be pertinent to the underlying proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. The term "berm" is identified in the Monroe County comprehensive plan as . . . a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. A berm is higher in elevation than both the beach and the area landward of the berm. At the formal hearing in the underlying appeal, there was conflicting evidence as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property. The Recommended Order found that there were two distinct ridges located on the subject property. The issue of whether both ridges could be considered part of the "beach berm complex" was one of first impression. Succinctly stated, it was the position of the Department in the underlying appeal that both ridges were in an area of potential habitat on a beach that is known habitat and it asserted the position that both ridges should be considered to be one beach berm complex. The Department asserted the position that the setback should be measured from the landward extent of the second ridge (the more landward of the two ridges). Monroe County had measured the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge. Mr. Snowman agreed with the County's determination of the setback. Mr. Snowman presented evidence that the County had, for several years, applied the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge and argued that, based on the foregoing definitions each ridge should be considered to be a separate beach berm, but that only the first should be considered to be a beach berm. The Department presented evidence that the County had applied the setback provision in an inconsistent manner by measuring from the crest of berms in some cases and measuring from the landward extent of berms in other occasions. The Recommended Order rejected the Department's position and concluded that the definition of "beach berm" contained in Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, and the description of "berm" in the comprehensive plan were unambiguous. Although the Department argued that other provisions of the code and comprehensive plan supported their construction of the setback requirement, it was concluded that the issues should be resolved based on the unambiguous definition of "beach berm". It was also concluded that no deference should be afforded the Department's construction of the term "beach berm" because there is a plain and unambiguous definition of the term that is a part of the Monroe County Code. It was observed that "[w]hile a greater setback may better serve the goals of the comprehensive plan, as argued by the Department, the imposition of a greater setback requirement should come from a change in the Monroe County Code." This observation was made because the Department had found support for its interpretation of the setback requirement from other parts of the code and comprehensive plan. This case involved bona fide disputed issues of material fact and legal issues that were of first impression. It is found that those issues, although resolved against the Department following the formal hearing, were of sufficient merit to substantially justified the Department's actions in initiating the underlying appeal.
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 The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Petitioners challenged the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) preliminary Final Order, alleging that Petitioners committed the "unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation for the purposes of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line [(CCCL)] without benefit of a permit." The ultimate issue is whether the work Petitioners performed was seaward of the CCCL, and if it was, whether there was a violation of Amended Permit FR-563 and Section 161.053(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Ben Withers, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ben Withers, is the President and owner of Ben Withers, Inc., and a resident of Panacea, Florida. (Henceforth, Ben Withers and Ben Withers, Inc., are referred to collectively as "Mr. Withers," unless otherwise noted.) Mr. Withers is a licensed general contractor. The Department is the executive agency of the State of Florida operating pursuant to, among others, Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the Department administers the CCCL program for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. Coastal Construction Control Line Program The Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources regulates construction and excavation activities seaward of the CCCL. The Department is responsible for determining and setting the CCCLs. The CCCL is a scientifically established line pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. By definition, the CCCL "defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a one-hundred-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Rule 62B-33.002(13), Florida Administrative Code. Construction and excavation activity seaward of the CCCL is regulated by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B- 33, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Withers admitted that he is aware of Department rules regarding beaches and coastal construction and is also aware that excavation seaward of the CCCL requires a permit unless it is otherwise exempt, and that he had this knowledge prior to the present case. Accessing the Pepper Project Site Under Amended Permit FR-563 Dog Island is a barrier island south of and about three miles off the coast of Franklin County, Florida. The island is approximately eight miles in length. There is no bridge to the island. The Pepper project site is on the far western end of the island. The Gulf of Mexico borders the island on the south and St. George Sound borders the island to the north. The most common way to access the Pepper site with any vehicle carrying equipment and materials, would be to use a boat or barge to a marina area (Tyson's Harbor) near the center of the island, or a private dock, and then traverse west down the middle of the island or down the beach itself, or a combination of the two. The Easy Street Easement is an easement area for a roadway running east and west through Dog Island. The parties agree that Easy Street and the Easy Street Easement are the same. The Easy Street Easement had been an unpaved roadway years before; part of the roadway was still visible in May 2001, and other parts had been covered with vegetation. There are portions of Easy Street and Easy Way east of the cul-de-sac which are visible roadways. See, e.g., Department Exhibit 13. Additionally, parts of Easy Street are seaward of the Department's CCCL (e.g., in the narrows area which is west of the cul-de-sac) and other parts are landward of the CCCL. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 29. Pursuant to its statutory duty, in 1996, the Department set the reference monuments R-158-R-160 for the CCCL on the west end of Dog Island. These monuments are in the narrows area of the island and run west to east. The CCCL is not visible on the ground. A surveyor is needed to locate the line. The alleged violation in this case was committed between R-158 and R-160, part of the narrows area. The Easy Street Easement on Dog Island runs both north and south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac and then runs westerly to the west end of Dog Island. The CCCL Permits On October 21, 1999, the Department issued Permit FR-563 to Leonard Pepper, the property owner, for the construction of a single–family dwelling and for structures associated with the dwelling on the west end of Dog Island. Permit FR-563 contained Standard Permit Conditions that required in part: (1)(a) all construction or activity for which the permit was granted be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications which were approved by the Department as a part of the permit; (1)(b) all construction or activity authorized under the permit shall be conducted using extreme care to prevent any adverse impacts to the beach and dune system; and (1)(g) existing beach and dune topography and vegetation shall not be disturbed except as expressly authorized in the permit. Permit FR-563 did not authorize the start of construction until a construction access plan to the Pepper project site was approved, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system. On October 16, 2000, Amended Permit FR-563 was issued with a Notice to Proceed Withheld. The Amended Permit also contained Special Condition 1.5 which required the submittal and approval of "[a] construction access plan showing the route and timing for bringing equipment and materials to the site, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system." The Department was concerned about the manner in which equipment and materials would be brought to the project site without causing further harm to the system. Amended Permit FR-563 did not expressly or implicitly authorize excavation or grading seaward of the CCCL in any area on Dog Island off of the project site and footprint of the house. In late 2000, Mr. Withers became involved with the Pepper project after Amended Permit FR-563 (with the Notice to Proceed Withheld) was issued on October 16, 2000. Part of Mr. Withers' job responsibility was to prepare and submit a construction access plan to the Department for approval. The Department does not normally require an access plan because most job sites are located in areas with established roads for ingress and egress. Here, there was no established road to and from the project site. The access plan was necessary in order to determine how Mr. Withers would transport equipment and materials to the Pepper project site on the west end of Dog Island due to the site's remote location and the absence of an established roadway to the site. Mr. Withers expected that materials and heavy equipment, including cranes, would be off-loaded at Tyson's Harbor, located approximately in the middle of Dog Island, and transported by vehicle to the project site along the access plan route. He expected to only transport pilings using the beach access route. On March 15, 2001, Mr. Withers submitted an access plan which described the route Mr. Withers would traverse by vehicle with construction equipment and materials. See Endnote 1. The Easy Street Easement starts at the east end of the island as an established roadway. Proceeding in a westerly direction, Easy Street comes to a dead-end at a cul-de-sac landward of the CCCL. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to access the job site using part the Easy Street/Easy Street Easement (starting on the east end of the island) going north from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac, then heading in a westerly direction just south of the Ausley house (west of R-158 and just landward of the CCCL) and across the narrows area and continuing in a westerly direction along the northern shoreline and in southerly direction toward R-154. The access plan then authorized Mr. Withers to proceed in a westerly direction over the middle portion of the west-end of the island, then in a southerly direction toward the project site.1 The access plan showed a route both landward and seaward of the CCCL along the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 4- orange line then blue line after the orange circle on the west-end of the island. As described by Mr. McNeal of the Department, the access route is seaward, for the most part, of the CCCL from R-157 to R- 159 (running west to east) and landward of the CCCL east of R-159. The Department described the damaged area of 5,305.6 square feet (Department Exhibit 11A, insert "B") caused by Mr. Withers as east of R-159 and seaward of the CCCL and south of the access plan route. See also Finding of Fact 35. However, it appears that a portion of Easy Street, between R-159 and R-160, is seaward of the CCCL. Compare Department Exhibit 12 with Department Exhibits 4, 11A, and 13. During a pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Withers marked in pink the route he took through a portion of the narrows area which coincides with the portion of Easy Street between the approximate locations of R-159 and R-160, depicted on Department Exhibit 12. See Finding of Fact 43. (Mr. Withers had the Easy Street Easement staked prior to doing any work on Dog Island. See Findings of Fact 33-35.) The damaged area appears to coincide with this portion of Easy Street, and seaward of the CCCL. See Department Exhibit 11A. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to drive (vehicular traffic) his equipment over the easement following the route depicted on the access plan until he arrived at the project site. See Endnote 1. The Department expected that travel along the access route would cause minimal and temporary damage or destruction to the topography, so the plan was considered acceptable. The access plan did not authorize excavation of a roadway within the route, including the narrows area, nor did it contemplate any other activity over or around a dune other than what might occur as a result of driving.2 The Department understood that Mr. Withers would be driving daily over the access plan route to the project site. The Department assumed that trucks would be used to transport equipment and materials. The Department did not differentiate among vehicles which could be used, including large trucks. On April 11, 2001, the Department issued a Notice to Proceed to Mr. Pepper to begin construction of his single-family dwelling in accordance with Amended Permit FR-563. The access plan is part of the Amended permit. Shortly after the Notice to Proceed was issued, The Nature Conservancy advised the Department of concerns it had with the access plan. As a result, on April 24, 2001, there was a meeting in Apalachicola, Florida, convened by the Department and attended by other interested governmental entities and private persons, including Mr. Withers. The purpose of the meeting was explore other possible ways and means of access by Mr. Withers to the Pepper project site.3 No resolution was reached during the meeting and the access plan previously approved by the Department remained effective. The previously issued Notice to Proceed was also in effect. The Violations Mr. Withers hired Kenneth Greenwood of Garlick Environmental Associates to perform a threatened/endangered species inspection, plant and animal, on an approximately 30-foot wide strip on the Easy Street Easement (approximately 1,800 feet) being utilized in Mr. Withers' access plan and within the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 13-yellow markings. On May 2, 2001, Mr. Greenwood performed the inspection within the easement that Mr. Withers had staked out by a land surveyor, approximately 15 feet on either side of the stakes. He found no threatened/endangered species. (The CCCL was not staked by Mr. Withers because, according to Mr. Withers, the Department did not ask him to locate the CCCL with stakes.) The access route depicted by Mr. McNeal in orange on Department Exhibit 4, which runs east of R-159, is similar to the description of the staked areas east of R-159, described by Mr. Greenwood and marked in yellow on Department Exhibit 13. See Findings of Fact 28-29. Both areas are landward of the CCCL. However, the 5,305.6 square foot damaged area is east of R-159 and is seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Greenwood described the area where he performed his investigation as being "relatively undisturbed," "relatively stable," having no vehicle tracks, and he stated that there were areas of bare sand as well as areas of "natural beach dune vegetation." He described the area as "relatively flat with some small amounts of mounding." The pictures taken by Mr. Greenwood within the staked easement on May 2, 2001, as part of his investigation, do not depict any vehicle tracks. After Mr. Greenwood completed his investigation on May 2, 2001, he observed Mr. Withers landward of the CCCL on a front-end loader and north of the cul-de-sac, proceeding west along the Easy Street Easement scraping off the top layer of soil and heading in a westward direction. Mr. Greenwood believed that the activity performed by Mr. Withers at this time was consistent with unpaved, road construction. According to Mr. Greenwood, the width of the scraped area appeared to be approximately the width of the bucket on Mr. Withers' front-end loader. Mr. Withers stated that he was doing minor grading landward of the CCCL with a John Deere 310-E front-end loader tractor when Mr. Greenwood was present on May 2, 2001. This tractor had a front bucket (approximately seven to eight feet wide) and a backhoe for excavating dirt on the back-end. Mr. Withers described the work which he performed when Mr. Greenwood was present as moving out and smoothing off the top of the sand landward of the CCCL in order for his equipment to get through. Mr. Withers also stated that he made areas in the easement seaward of the CCCL smooth by using the bottom of the bucket of his front-end loader to move sand around. Mr. Withers mentioned that he was very concerned that he needed to have the pathway he was utilizing in the access plan marked and smoothed off and fairly level. He believed the access plan authorized him to smooth off the areas on the access route. Mr. Withers stated that he had to have the access path level because he was bringing a self-propelled, 25-ton crane down the access path and they are top heavy and can get off balance, topple over, or get stuck. Mr. Withers described two types of work that he performed in the Easy Street Easement as: 1) clearing landward of the CCCL that required scooping and moving dirt, and 2) smoothing several areas seaward of the CCCL, just east of R-158 to around R- 160. An area of excavation damage seven feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning approximately 130 feet east of R-158) and an area 41 feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning at R-159, continuing east approximately 500 feet) are located within the area Mr. Withers stated he did some "smoothing off areas," again, east of R-158 and continuing east toward, but west, of R-160. Mr. Withers believed that Amended Permit FR-563 allowed him to use the Easy Street Easement in the access plan "to do . . . whatever was necessary and . . . needed to get [his] equipment, access [his] equipment down to the job site." He also admitted smoothing the areas. Mr. Withers also stated that Amended Permit FR-563 granted him permission to access the west end of Dog Island. Therefore, there was no need for him to locate the CCCL. Mr. Withers referred to the easement in the access plan as turning into a good pathway after he smoothed the areas. Mr. Withers stated that it was his "intention to gain access to the west end of Dog Island through a legal easement and an existing roadway" and that he wanted to utilize it. Mr. Withers testified "that he knew a lot of roads on Dog Island crossed seaward of the [CCCL]" in response to questioning whether he knew at the time of his performing work on the easement, whether or not the Easy Street Easement crossed seaward of the CCCL. He knew he was going to be traversing "fairly close" to the CCCL. Mr. Withers stated he did not knowingly violate the conditions of the Amended Permit. Mr. Withers was aware of the Department's permit requirements for work seaward of the CCCL when he performed his access work in the easement on Dog Island. However, Mr. Withers never had a survey done to figure out where the CCCL was located. Notice of the Alleged Violations Around May 2, 2001, the Department received a complaint that excavation was occurring seaward of the CCCL on Dog Island in the narrows area of the Easy Street Easement. On May 4, 2001, John A. Poppel, William Fokes, and Phil Sanders went to Dog Island on behalf of the Department to investigate the complaint of excavation in the narrows area seaward of the CCCL. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Poppel performed a survey of the narrows area and located the CCCL. He located monuments R-158- R-160. Department Exhibit 11. As a product of his survey, Mr. Poppel was able to depict the newly excavated roadway or pathway in relation to the CCCL. Mr. Poppel calculated that one area of damage was seven feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 503.8 square feet of damage and a second area of damage was 41 feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 5,305.6 square feet of damage. These square foot areas represent only the disturbed areas seaward of the CCCL, not the entire area between the CCCL and the Gulf of Mexico. Both areas of damage are within the area where Mr. Withers stated that he smoothed out the sand. As part of the May 4, 2001, investigation, William Fokes, an Engineer I with the Department, took photographs of the damaged areas and prepared an inspection report. Mr. Fokes' report indicates that an approximately 11-foot wide roadway or pathway had been cleared by excavation with the most seaward extent of the road being about 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. In addition, the report states that small dunes and beach vegetation had been destroyed. Mr. Fokes described the damage as excavation or grading done by some kind of machine, which cut and uprooted vegetation and pushed sand to the side as it leveled the ground. Mr. Fokes testified that the damage did not appear to be caused by merely traversing the area. Mr. Sanders, an engineer with the Department, processes CCCL permit applications and supervises Mr. Fokes, a field engineer. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Sanders observed the narrows area in question and confirmed that it looked like a "graded road" in that "[i]t appeared in the road bed that vegetation was gone and had been pushed out to the side, graded away," and that there was "excavation" seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Sanders stated that this activity did not comply with the approved access plan. On May 7, 2001, a Notice of Violation was issued to Mr. Withers for the "the unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and native vegetation for the purpose of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line." Mr. Greenwood's photographs taken May 2, 2001, when compared with Mr. Fokes' photographs taken May 4, 2001, show that no discernable roadway or pathway was present landward or seaward of the CCCL in the narrows area at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection on May 2, 2001. This is evident when comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Exhibit 15a, taken on May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibit 16g taken on May 4, 2001--the roadway or pathway present in the May 4, 2001, photo is absent in the May 2, 2001, photograph, and the vegetation has been removed from part of the area. Comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Department Exhibit 15b, taken May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibits 16c and d, taken on May 4, 2001, also shows that the roadway or pathway was not present on the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection. The previously mentioned pictures, which were used for a comparison, were taken by two different people on separate dates, and from approximately the same locations. Also, Department Exhibit 16j was taken 250 feet east of R-159 and within the narrows area, facing east which shows clearing approximately 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. On May 14, 2001, at the request of the Department, Ken Jones, a principal engineer with Post Buckey et al., performed a damage assessment of the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement which was seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Jones has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in physical oceanography. Mr. Jones was familiar with the narrows area having been to Dog Island for recreation during the past 20 years and as a Dog Island property owner for the last three years. Mr. Jones described the narrows area as relatively flat and located between the St. George Sound to the north and the Gulf of Mexico beaches to the south. Between these two areas, the land is undulating sand and fairly consistent vegetation. At the time of Mr. Jones' damage assessment, he determined that a road had been cut through the vegetative portion of the dune of the narrows. Mr. Jones observed cut roots and a majority of the vegetation destroyed. Mr. Jones stated it appeared that the damage was caused by a vehicle with a blade on the front. The result was the road sat down in the sand approximately four to six inches. Mr. Jones stated that the work appeared to have been recent because distinct edges were still present. Mr. Jones took photographs and compiled an inspection report as part of his damage assessment. Mr. Jones testified that the damage "was pretty consistent from both landward and seaward of the [CCCL]." The pictures labeled Department Exhibits 18a1 and 18a2 depict a level pathway or roadway barren of vegetation seaward of the CCCL. Department Exhibit 18a4 is a photograph of a typical vegetated dune. Mr. Jones took this picture in order to have a general idea of what the vegetation coverage was in order to get an idea from a cost-estimating perspective. Mr. Jones's cost estimate for repairing the damage to the narrows area seaward of the CCCL, was approximately $7,500.00.4 Mr. Jones calculated the $7,500.00 by making an estimate of what it would cost to buy coastal vegetation, and by estimating what it would cost to employ laborers to hand rake the sand back into position and to plant the vegetation. Administrative Fine and Damages Jim Martinello, an environmental manager in charge of enforcement and compliance with the Bureau, used Mr. Jones' damage assessment estimate for informational purposes in assessing the damages amount for the narrows area. Mr. Martinello calculated the administrative fine and damages in accordance with Section 161.054, Florida Statues, and Rules 62B-54.002 and 62B-54.003, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.002, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department shall assess fines for willful violations of, or refusing to comply with, for example, Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and the fine should be sufficient to ensure immediate and continued compliance. In determining the actual fine within the range, the Department shall consider the offender's past violations, if any, and other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include prior knowledge of rules. Mitigating circumstances may be considered. Id. Mr. Withers had knowledge prior to the issuance of Amended Permit FR-563 of Department rules regarding permit requirements for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. On October 4, 1996, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. This matter was resolved by entering into a consent order. On October 29, 1997, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible permit violation seaward of the CCCL. On November 13, 1997, Mr. Withers was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. On October 27, 2000, Mr. Withers wrote a letter to Mr. McNeal indicating that he believed that the Easy Street Easement on Dog Island heading south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de- sac, then west to the west end of Dog Island, is landward of the CCCL and, therefore, no permit was necessary to reopen and use the easement, but he would have a surveyor establish the control line prior to work commencing. On November 7, 2000, Phil Sanders replied by letter to Mr. Withers' October 27, 2000 letter, in which Mr. Sanders reminded Mr. Withers of the pertinent rules and laws and suggested that Mr. Withers have the CCCL surveyed. On December 20, 2000, Mr. Martinello sent Mr. Withers an advisory letter informing him that the area he traversed (on July 2000) on the south route of the Easy Street Easement from the cul- de-sac on Dog Island was considered to be a dune as defined by Rule 62B-33.002, Florida Administrative Code. However, Mr. Martinello further advised that the Department did not take any action because "the traversing [did not] cause any substantial damage, it was minimal damage." In regard to the present case, it is more than a fair inference that Mr. Withers had specific knowledge of the CCCL and the Department's laws and rules, and that he knew excavation was not authorized seaward of the CCCL. The information in the prior Findings of Fact was used by the Department, and specifically Mr. Martinello, to determine that the harm to the beach resource or potential harm was major, and the administrative fine assessed was $7,500.00. However, part of Mr. Martinello's determination was predicated on Mr. Jones' assessment that the site one narrows violation was approximately 700 feet in length when, in fact, the area was approximately 500 feet in length, which explains in part the disparity between a 9,800 square foot area and the proven 5,305.6 square foot area. See Finding of Fact 78 and Endnote 4. Even the additional amount of damage of 503.8 square feet for the site two narrows area, when viewed in the aggregate, is significantly less than Mr. Jones' assessment of damages by square feet. (Mr. Martinello used the Jones' assessment as a guideline. Mr. Martinello says that the mistake did not alter his decision, although he was unaware of the mistake until the final hearing. He also says that Mr. Jones recommended a higher damage amount than the $5,000.00 assessed by the Department in its preliminary Final Order. He did--$7,500.00 for 9,800 square feet of damage.) Grossly negligent or knowing violations of statutes and Department rules regarding coastal construction seaward of the CCCL, which result "in harm to sovereignty lands seaward of mean high water or to beaches, shores, or coastal or beach-dune system(s), including animal, plant or aquatic life thereon," shall be considered in determining damages. Rule 62B-54.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a damage amount greater than the minimum amounts may be assessed to ensure, immediate and continued compliance and the Department may consider, e.g., the need for restoration and the damaged ecological resource. The Department determined that the violation was knowing based on the factors mentioned above. The Department also considered the need for restoration and the damage to ecological resources and whether the amount would ensure immediate and continued compliance. Id. The Department determined that there was harm to the resource and that it was major and knowing. The Department proposed to assess the minimum damage amount of $5,000.00. On January 11, 2002, the Department entered a preliminary Final Order for the unauthorized grading and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation seaward of the control line for the purpose of constructing a roadway. The amount assessed in the Final Order was $12,500.00, $7,500.00 in administrative fines and $5,000.00 in damages, as described above. As noted, there has been harm to the beach area resource seaward of the CCCL and the Department proved the need for restoration and the damage to the ecological resource. In mitigation, Mr. Withers' construction access plan was approved by the Department. The Department knew that Mr. Withers intended to use the access route, which ran seaward of the CCCL from approximately R-157 to R-159 (except for a small portion between R-158 and R-159) in the narrows area; that Mr. Withers planned to transport equipment and materials by truck using the access route and necessarily would traverse seaward of the CCCL; and that he would continuously use the access route until the project was completed. The actual damaged area is less than originally determined by Mr. Jones, thus the need for restoration reduced. Mr. Jones, without the benefit of a survey, estimated the total cost to restore the damaged area of 9,800 square feet to be approximately $7,500.00. The total square feet of damage proven in this proceeding is 5,809.4 square feet in the narrows area and the Department is requesting $12,500.00 in fines and damages. Based on an approximate ratio of square feet and dollars needed to restore, a damage assessment in the amount of $4,500.00 is appropriate. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a fine of $3,500.00 is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: That a final order be issued adopting this Recommended Order; and Within 30 days of a final order being effective, Petitioners shall pay a fine of $3,500.00 and $4,500.00 in damages with the total amount of $8,000.00, to the Department of Environmental Protection. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 9th day of January, 2003.
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of the Florida Condominium Act (Chapter 718, Florida Statutes) and, if so, whether a cease and desist order and/or civil fine should be imposed. Petitioner contends that the allegations of the Notice to Show Cause have been established and that a cease and desist order and civil fine are appropriate. The Respondent contends that to the extent any violations of the Act have been established, they are only of a technical sort, and do not justify the imposition of any sanction.
Findings Of Fact Nautico Bay Club, Inc., is the developer of the Nautico Bay Condominium, located at 6937 Bay Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Samuel Weintraub was the president of Nautico Bay Club, Inc., and was primarily responsible for conducting its day-to-day business activities. The Nautico Bay Club Condominium includes 48 residential units. The first units were sold on December 1, 1980. The final closing on the 48 units occurred on December 31, 1980. The Respondent failed to call an annual meeting of the unit owners at Nautico Bay Condominium during 1981. The Respondent was having some difficulty communicating with some of the unit owners because they lived outside of the country. Nonetheless, the Respondent did not give written notice to unit owners of an annual meeting during 1981, did not post notice of an annual meeting during 1981 on the condominium property, did not send a notice of an annual meeting during 1981 by mail to each unit owner, and did not retain a post office certificate of mailing as proof of mailing of notice to unit owners. No annual meeting of unit owners was conducted during 1981. As the developer who maintained control over condominium activities during 1981, the Respondent was obliged to call and conduct an annual meeting of unit owners. The Respondent retained a private public accounting firm to prepare a financial statement for the Nautico Bay Club Condominium for the year ending December 31, 1981. The statement was completed on February 10, 1982. The Respondent remained in charge of the administration of the condominium association at that time. The Respondent made no effort to provide copies of the financial statement by mail or personal delivery to each unit owner. While some unit owners may have obtained copies of the financial statement within 60 days of December 31, 1981, most did not. At least one unit owner did not receive a copy of the financial statement until sometime in November, 1982. On or about September 17, 1982, the Respondent turned over operation of the condominium association to the Nautico Bay Club Condominium Association. The Respondent's president, Mr. Weintraub, offered to have the financial records reviewed by the independent certified public accounting firm that he had utilized in the past. The unit owners protested and asked instead that he pay to have the documents reviewed by a firm of their choosing. The Respondent did not have the financial records and statements reviewed by an independent accounting firm. He offered to have them reviewed by the firm he had utilized in the past, but the unit owners declined that offer. In the prospectus that the Respondent offered to potential unit purchasers, an estimated monthly operating budget and an estimated annual operating budget for the condominium, and an estimated monthly operating budget and an estimated annual operating budget per unit were set out. No other proposed budget was issued for 1981, nor does it appear that one was required, since the first persons who purchased units did not do so until December, 1980. No proposed annual budget of common expenses was prepared for the 1982 calendar year. Instead, the Respondent merely utilized the estimated budgets that had been set out in the prospectus. These were never, however, presented as a proposed annual budget for 1982. The Respondent did not provide as a part of its budgets for 1981 or 1982 for reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. Accounts were not established to reserve funds for roof replacement, building painting, pavement resurfacing, and the like. The estimated replacement costs of such items were not a part of any budget prepared by Respondent. The funds were neither established nor funded by the Respondent. Mr. Weintraub testified that the reason the accounts were not established is that he had difficulty collecting assessments from unit owners. It does not appear, however, that the Respondent made any effort to collect assessments from unit owners, nor that the accounts were established with such funds as could have been collected.
Findings Of Fact W. B. Johnson Properties, Inc., Petitioner, is the owner of the 428- room Holiday Inn Surfside located on Clearwater Beach. This hotel was constructed in 1981 on land zoned CTF-28 for commercial tourist facilities. The tract of land on which the hotel is situated is approximately ten acres and the maximum density of 42 rooms per acre is utilized. This hotel is currently in conformity with all building and zoning regulations. Holiday Inn Surfside has decking around its swimming pool which is capable of accommodating only 120 to 150 deck chairs for the guests of the hotel. Additional chair space, if needed, must be obtained by using the undecked area of the beach in front of the hotel. The occupancy rate for this hotel from the beginning of 1983 to date has been 80 percent. Petitioner owns the entire beach fronting its property, a distance of some 340 feet. Prior to the passage of Clearwater Ordinance No. 3075-83, the western setback line for this property was 50 feet from-mean highwater (MHW). Ordinance 3075-83 made the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), as established by Section 161.063, Florida Statutes, as the western setback line for property located on Clearwater Beach. This is now the Coastal Control setback line. The Coastal Construction setback line as it crosses Petitioner's property is 338 feet from MHW of the Gulf of Mexico. Prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 3075-83, Petitioner could have constructed decking up to the then setback line, 50 feet from MHW. Petitioner is one of the few property owners on Clearwater Beach that has undisputed ownership of the beach fronting its property seaward of the CCCL. This area of Clearwater Beach in the vicinity of Holiday Inn Surfside is the widest part of the beach between the CCCL and MHW. Exhibit 7, which was submitted as a late-filed exhibit, clearly shows the beach north of Petitioner's property is not as wide as is the beach fronting Petitioner's property, and much of the property on the beach south of Petitioner's property is owned by the City. Solely by having ownership of more beachfront property seaward of the CCCL, Petitioner is more adversely affected by Ordinance No. 3075-83 than are other property owners. Petitioner has signs restricting the use of the decking around the pool to hotel guests. Petitioner also has a patio bar in the vicinity of the pool which is accessible from the beach and from the hotel. Drinks are served to the public at this patio bar. By extending the deck 28 feet seaward of the OCCL, Petitioner would be able to provide decking for an additional 150 to 170 chairs for the use of hotel guests. With an 80 percent occupancy rate there is insufficient deck space to accommodate all of the hotel guests who desire to use these facilities. Currently the excess place their deck chairs in the sand seaward of the CCCL. Those who testified in opposition to the variance requested did so on the grounds that the increased deck facilities would bring more people to the patio bar, thereby increasing the traffic and parking problems on the beach, that the hotel did not adequately restrict the use of the existing deck to guests of the hotel, and that if this application is granted it will open the doors to others who would like to construct a deck seaward of the CCCL. None of these grounds is deemed particularly meritorious. Many factors could increase the patronage of the patio bar and more adequate decking would not be a significant one, particularly in view of Petitioner's contention that the deck was reserved for guests of the hotel, albeit not strictly enforced during periods of low occupancy.
