Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Brown, is the co-owner of Lot 13 and the northern half of Lot 14, Block 7, Lake Addition to Boynton in Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. The property consists of a parcel approximately 150 by 150 feet and is located along the western edge of the Intra-coastal Waterway at N.E. 8th Ave. and N.E. 7th Street in Boynton Beach. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner was the owner of this property which is vegetated along the Eastern half with mature mangrove trees which extend back from the water's edge approximately one half the depth of the lot. These mangroves include red, black, and white species and the larger are approximately between 18 and 22 years old. The majority of the trees, however, are younger than that. The Western half of the property is sparsely vegetated and in the heavily vegetated half, there is an open area approximately 30 by 30 feet which appears to have been cleared and on which there are no mature mangrove trees. On July 19, 1984, Petitioner filed an application for a permit to construct a 1625 square foot house on pilings together with a 164 by 4 foot boardwalk extending in a west to east direction from the westernmost edge of the mangrove community to the waterside of the proposed dwelling giving access thereto. The eastern half of the property in question appears to be lower in elevation than the western half and experiences some tidal inundation during periods of high tide. Though there is a riprap deposit along the eastern edge of the property and two berms extending along the landward side of the riprap, water from the Intra-coastal Waterway periodically flows through the riprap, over the berms, and onto Petitioner's property. This water is afforded access onto the property also, by a northwest running ditch located south of the southern boundary of the property which ditch is connected to the waterway. It intersects with another ditch which runs due north to an intersection with an east-west depression, also connected to the Waterway, running along the northern boundary of the property. Mangroves of some size are found in and on the edges of this ditch. Petitioner's construction proposal, involving the driving of supporting pilings for the dwelling, is a dredge and fill activity as defined by the Department of Environmental Regulation's (DER), experts and requires the issue of a dredge and fill permit. There is a conflict between the Petitioner's evidence regarding the physical location of his proposed dwelling and boardwalk and that of the agency personnel who, with benefit of a survey, determined that the larger clearing referenced by the Petitioner does not lie on his property and that the indicated cleared cut through the mangrove community to the waterway on Petitioner's property for the walkway does not lie on Petitioner's property but instead is approximately 30 feet south of the southern boundary. Having reviewed the application submitted by Petitioner, DER requested additional information regarding construction techniques and plans. These have not, to this date submitted in a tangible form the information requested. Petitioner's attorney provided some of the information requested orally to DER at some time in the past, giving some assurances that the disruption of water quality during construction would be kept at a minimum and would be only temporary. However, since DER did not have available to it the additional information it requested so as to appropriately evaluate the true proposal by Petitioner and the effect of any modifications, based on the failure of Petitioner to provide adequate assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project was not contrary to public interest as is required of him by Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, on January 23, 1985, the Department issued an intent to deny the permit. As a part of this intent to deny, the agency suggested that the project be relocated to the upland one-half of the Petitioner's property. Construction there would not have involved any mangrove disturbance and would have been consistent with the agency's standards and policies. Historically the property owned by Mr. Brown did not border the open body of water which now constitutes Lake Worth or the Intra-coastal Waterway. As far back as 1872, the property was dry and supported no mangrove growth. Mangroves existing currently on the property have developed there since the construction of the Intra-coastal Waterway and its joinder with Lake Worth and the installation of the inlets which connect this water body with the Atlantic Ocean. On the property directly north of Petitioner's boundary sits a house built on fill approximately one and a half feet above the gradient of Mr. Brown's lot. Immediately south of his property is a condominium building also located on fill bordering the Intra-coastal Waterway. Evaluation of photographs of the area reveals that both pieces appear to have been identical in make-up to that owned by Petitioner in both topography and vegetation prior to being filled for construction. In fact, this parcel lies in a rapidly developing commercial and residential area. Petitioner also presented the testimony of two long time residents of the area who indicate that prior to the widening of the Intra-coastal Waterway, Petitioner's property did not border the open water of Lake Worth or the waterway. Back in the 1940's and before, the property was not covered with mangrove trees and was, in fact, used as farmland by Mr. Pinder, one of these two witnesses, who grew bell peppers and squash there. Mr. Pinder was hired by Palm Beach County during the 1940's and 1950's to dig mosquito control ditches on the property and Petitioner contends that it was these ditches which developed the connection with the Intra-coastal Waterway and thereby created a jurisdictional wetland. The weight of the evidence, however, indicates that though ditches were dug for mosquito control as described by Mr. Pinder and even before, it was not these ditches which changed the character of the property to jurisdictional wetland. Review of the maps submitted by Mr. Brown shows to a very limited degree some reference to ditches on or near the property in question but neither this evidence nor the testimony of both long-time residents is sufficiently clear and convincing to establish to the satisfaction of the Hearing Officer that the character of Mr. Brown's property was so radically changed by the digging of these ditches as to become jurisdictional because of them. Turning to the question of the impact of the proposed construction on the mangrove system, the evidence presented by the agency and to a lesser degree by Petitioner himself shows that there would be some adverse impact on the mangrove system through the direct destruction of some existing trees and saplings, the trimming of some of the overhanging mangrove canopy, and the subsequent shading of immature mangroves by the construction of the dwelling and the boardwalk. The evidence available indicates that the construction of the dwelling itself cannot be contained within the existing clearing and for the construction of the boardwalk, an additional cut and shading will be required. Mangroves play an important part in the water quality and biological considerations of Section 403.918 Florida Statutes. The deterioration of fallen mangrove vegetation constitutes an important part in the food chain of fish and small invertebrates. Existing trees and roots provide habitat for various birds, invertebrates, mammals, and reptiles and the water quality considerations relating to the filtering of run-off water from uplands and the assimilation of pollutants in the passing water is significant. DER was and is concerned that the proposed project does not provide reasonable or adequate assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Turbidity, transparency, and dissolved oxygen standards may well be violated during the construction phase and the agency's concerns have not been addressed or lessened by Petitioner's unformed proposals for modification. The fourth standard, that involving biological integrity, will be a continuing and ongoing consideration due to the fact that the shading created by the house and boardwalk will be constant. After full consideration of the application and those limited matters submitted in response to the agency's expression of concern, the agency has concluded that the project will adversely impact the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats in the area; will adversely affect fishing and recreational values and marine productivity; will adversely effect current and relative values of functions performed in the area; and will be of a permanent nature. The agency has not, however, quantified these negative effects or demonstrated that they will be of any significant magnitude. It is difficult to conceive that in an area already violated by the encroachment of civilization as demonstrated by the unrestrained fill both to the north and to the south of Petitioner's property, that the preservation of a relatively miniscule enclave, on highly valuable waterfront property, will have any substantial beneficial effect on the overall biological, ecological, or water quality considerations of the Intra-coastal Waterway, Lake Worth, or the Atlantic Ocean. The construction disruption will be minimal and for a limited period of time. The effects of shading will be of a longer duration but would appear to be miniscule in comparison to the surrounding area. DER and its subordinate associate, the Palm Beach County Health Department, both recommend that the application be denied because of Petitioner's failure to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. The cumulative impact concerns of both DER and the Health Department are valid in theory but inappropriate here. Evidence that the recent mangrove destruction in this area has been been extensive cannot be debated. No doubt it has been. The fact remains, however, that this property is in a highly desirable location. The area has not been preserved by the State in its program for the accumulation and preservation of wetlands under a state umbrella and is of such a small size that the cumulative impact to be felt from the limited destruction of mangroves here would be minimal. There is some evidence to indicate that a permit was issued to a previous owner of this property allowing the destruction of mangrove seedlings in the western section of the community and this action has not been undertaken. This permit has not expired and is transferable to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue permit number 5008992206 to the Petitioner, Robert 8rown for the construction of the house and walkway as proposed, under the provision of adequate and firm reasonable safeguards to minimize water quality disruption during construction by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of February, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this llth day of February, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 325-C Clematis Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Douglas MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 2 & 3. 3 & 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 10. 7 & 8. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 9 & 11 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 3 6 13. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 7 & 8. Accepted and incorporated in Findings of Fact 7 & 8. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. By the Respondent Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. 3 & 4. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 2 & 4. 5. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 3 & 6. 7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 6. 8. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 7. 9 & 10. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 8. 11 Incorporated in Finding of Fact 13. 12. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 14. 13. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15. 14-16. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 16. 17. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 15. 18. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 17. 19 & 20. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 11. 21-24 Incorporated in Findings of Fact 11 & 12. 25. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 17 & 18. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ROBERT BROWN, Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 85-0517 OGC FILE NO. 85-0122 vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION Respondent. /
The Issue The issue for determination in this matter is whether Petitioner, Robert A. Mason, has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding that part of such development will not be in accordance with the Clay County Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact The Property The Applicant, Petitioner Robert A. Mason, is the owner of real property located in Clay County, Florida. The Applicant's property is known as "Cypress Landing," containing 5.977 acres, which consists of a rectangular tract 200 feet by approximately 841 feet in the Hollywood Forest Subdivision, bounded on the east by the west shore of the St. Johns River, and on the west by the right-of-way for Peters Avenue, now known as Harvey Grant Road. The Applicant acquired the property on July 25, 1958, by warranty deed from Victor M. and Ruth C. Covington recorded in Official Records Book 3, page 250, public records of Clay County, Florida. The property was the south 1/2 of Lot 12, Lot 12-A, and Lot 13, and the north 1/2 of Lot 14 of Hollywood Forest, a platted subdivision on Fleming Island in Clay County. At the time Petitioner acquired the property, the applicable zoning district permitted the development of the property for single- family residential at a maximum density of three units per acre. When the Applicant originally acquired the property in 1958, he and his wife had intended at some future time to live on the property and use the property for their own purposes, including recreation, keeping horses, and retirement. At the time the Applicant acquired the property there was an existing dock extending from the property into the river. Due to subsequent changes in his employment circumstances, the Applicant did not build a residence on the property. The Applicant is a registered forester who retired from the Georgia Forestry Commission after 32 years of service. The Applicant and his wife currently reside in Georgia. Cypress Landing contains a multitude and variety of trees, including magnolia, Florida holly, live oak and cypress, many of which are more than 200 years old and have diameters in excess of 36 inches. The Applicant has taken great care and followed specific conservation measures to identify and preserve the historic trees on the property. Development of the Property In 1982-1983, the Applicant prepared a development plan for the Cypress Landing property which comprised a single-family residential development. The planned development consisted of a total of seven single-family lots, two of which faced the river, and the other five which were 122 feet by 200 feet and lay side by side between the road and the waterfront lots. The development plan included an easement (the "Road Easement") for ingress, egress, drainage and utilities along the northern waterfront lot into the southern waterfront lot. From the east end of the Road Easement, an additional pedestrian easement was provided along the northern ten feet of the southern waterfront lot for pedestrian access to the river. The Applicant employed a surveyor, McKee, Eiland & Mullis, Land Surveyors Inc., of Orange Park, Florida. The Applicant instructed the surveyor to plat the property in accordance with the development plan and all existing codes. The property was thereafter subdivided into seven lots, identified as Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Lots A through E are the inland lots and each measure 122 feet by 200 feet with a 30 feet non- exclusive easement for ingress, egress, drainage and utility purposes. Lots A through E are inland lots. Lots F and G are the waterfront lots which are slightly larger than the other five lots and not as uniform in configuration. Lot F has approximately 116 feet of water frontage and Lot G has approximately 97 feet of water frontage. In 1984, relying on the applicable zoning regulations, the Applicant contracted with Robert Bray to install a roadway which is 30 feet in width and 866 feet in length running along Lots A through E and ending at Lot F. The roadway was constructed with specific concern for the protection and preservation of the trees on the property. A pre-cast concrete curb running the entire length of the roadway was installed to protect the trees from runoff. Porous rock was used as the foundation of the roadway to promote proper drainage. The roadway was also constructed with an ellipsis at Lot C to protect a historic tree. The design of the roadway, as well as the materials used in building the roadway, met all Clay County code requirements at the time of construction. In 1984, the Applicant reconstructed the dock on the property. The dock had previously been damaged due to storms. The dock was reconstructed by Duke Marine Construction in accordance with all appropriate regulations. Covenants have been executed to allow for use of the dock as a community dock for all lot owners. The community dock is 300 feet in length. Also in 1984, the Applicant erected a sign indicating the entrance to Cypress Landing. The sign was later vandalized and removed. In 1988, the Applicant contracted with Jacksonville Electric Authority for the installation of an underground electric distribution system in Cypress Landing. The underground utilities distribution system was designed specifically to protect and preserve the existing trees on the property, and was installed by boring under the trees to place a conduit to protect the established roots. The underground electrical distribution system was installed in accordance with the Clay County code at that time. On May 29, 1987, the Applicant sold Lot A to Robert M. and Mary Wasdin. Clay County issued a building permit for the construction of a residence on Lot A. A house has been constructed on Lot A. On September 1, 1989, the Applicant sold Lot E to Robert G. and Marva Lou Widhalm. Clay County issued a building permit for the construction of a residence on Lot E. A house has been constructed on Lot E. Applicant's Expenses The applicant expended approximately $4,609.45 on topographical surveys, tree location surveys, and engineering plans which were prepared for the mapping and platting of Cypress Landing. The surveying expenses were paid prior to the adoption of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant incurred significant expenses in the design and construction of the roadway. Additional costs were incurred by the Applicant for the construction of the roadway in an environmentally sensitive manner which protected and preserved the historic trees on the property. The total amount expended in 1984 by the Applicant for the construction of the roadway was $6,880, all of which was paid prior to the adoption of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant expended $19,540 for the reconstruction of the community dock in 1984, which was paid prior to the adoption of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant expended $7,101.87 for the installation of the underground electrical distribution system in 1988 and 1989. This amount included an additional cost of $1,209.87 paid to JEA, which was the difference in cost between the underground system and an equivalent overhead electrical distribution system. This amount also included a cost of $5,502 paid to Allstate Electrical Contractors, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, for the boring and installation of the PVC conduits to protect the historic trees on the property. The expenses were paid prior to the adoption of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant expended $363.58 for costs associated with the Cypress Landing entrance sign and a security fence. The expenses were paid prior to the adoption of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan. Rights that will be Destroyed In 1991 Clay County originally adopted the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan is now known as the Clay County 2015 Comprehensive Plan. Under the Comprehensive Plan, Cypress Landing was designated with a land use designation in the plan of "Rural Fringe." Policy 2.10 of the Clay County 2015 Comprehensive Plan provides that if land is divided into three or more lots, any three of which are 9.9 acres or less in size, then such land must be platted in accordance with the County's regulations, and all lots must be provided access to a road improved to meet County paved road standards. The County's Subdivision Regulations were amended after 1990. Section 16(1)(d)1.a.i. thereof now requires a minimum width for subdivision streets of 60 feet. The regulations further require that such streets be paved. The Cypress Landing Road Easement is only 30 feet wide. Moreover, new surface water runoff requirements require retention areas for rainwater. To comply with the post-1991 Clay County land use regulations would require a reconfiguration of the lots in Cypress Landing. Reconfiguration is not possible because two of the lots have been sold to new owners. Policy 2.9 of the Clay County 2015 Comprehensive Plan restricts any easement that provides access to multiple lots to a length of 1,000 feet, and limits to five the number of lots that may utilize the same for access. While the Cypress Landing Road Easement is less than 1,000 feet in length, the number of lots within the Cypress Landing development exceeds the maximum that can access the Road Easement. The Petitioner would be precluded from selling or developing the remaining lots within the Cypress Landing development without reconfiguration and loss of one or more lots. Moreover, because Lots "A" and "E" have already been sold, the Petitioner cannot add additional right-of-way width to the Road Easement in order to comply with the County's Subdivision Regulations regarding minimum right-of-way width. The Applicant would have been entitled to statutory vested rights if 50 percent of the lots had been sold prior to 1992. Procedural Requirements The procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. To promote affordable housing in Florida, Florida Housing offers a variety of programs to distribute housing credits. (Housing credits, also known as tax credits, are a dollar-for-dollar offset of federal income tax liability.) One of these programs is the State Apartment Incentive Loan program (“SAIL”), which provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers. SAIL funds are available each year to support the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low- income individuals and families. See § 420.5087, Fla. Stat. Additional sources of financial assistance include the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (“MMRB”) and non- competitive housing credits. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funds, nontaxable revenue bonds, and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive application process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The Request for Application at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments to Be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt Bond Financing and Non-Competitive Housing Credits.” Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-108 on August 31, 2017. Applications were due by October 12, 2017.6/ The purpose of RFA 2017-108 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing intends to award approximately $87,000,000 for proposed developments serving elderly and family demographic groups in small, medium, and large counties. RFA 2017-108 allocates $46,279,600 to large counties, $32,308,400 to medium counties, and $8,732,000 to small counties. RFA 2017-108 established goals to fund: Two Elderly, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; Three Family, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; One Elderly, new construction Application located in a Medium County; and Two Family, new construction Applications located in Medium Counties. Thirty-eight developers submitted applications in response to RFA 2017-108. Of these applicants, Florida Housing found 28 eligible for funding, including all Petitioners and Intervenors in this matter. Florida Housing received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-108, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67- 48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. RFA 2017-108 provided that applicants were scored based on certain demographic and geographic funding tests. Florida Housing sorted applications from the highest scoring to the lowest. Only applications that met all the eligibility requirements were eligible for funding and considered for selection. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to review and score each application. On November 15, 2017, the Review Committee announced its scores at a public meeting and recommended which projects should be awarded funding. On December 8, 2017, the Review Committee presented its recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors for final agency action. The Board of Directors subsequently approved the Review Committee’s recommendations and announced its intention to award funding to 16 applicants. As a preliminary matter, prior to the final hearing, Florida Housing agreed to the following reassessments in the scoring and selection of the applications for funding under RFA 2017-108: SP Lake and Osprey Pointe: In the selection process, Florida Housing erroneously determined that SP Lake was eligible to meet the funding goal for the “Family” demographic for the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. (SP Lake specifically applied for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Consequently, Florida Housing should have selected Osprey Pointe to meet the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. Osprey Pointe proposed to construct affordable housing in Pasco County, Florida. Florida Housing represents that Osprey Pointe is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (While Osprey Pointe replaces SP Lake in the funding selection for the “Family” demographic, SP Lake remains eligible for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Sierra Bay and Northside II: In the scoring process, Florida Housing erroneously awarded Sierra Bay proximity points for Transit Services. Upon further review, Sierra Bay should have received zero proximity points. Consequently, Sierra Bay’s application is ineligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. By operation of the provisions of RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing should have selected Northside II (the next highest ranked, eligible applicant) for funding to meet the Elderly, Large County, New Construction Goal. Florida Housing represents that Northside II is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. Harbour Springs: Florida Housing initially deemed Harbour Springs eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108 and selected it to meet the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal. However, because Harbour Springs and Woodland Grove are owned by the same entity and applied using the same development site, under rule 67-48.004(1), Harbour Springs is ineligible for funding. (Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove for funding for the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal, is not affected by this determination.) The sole disputed issue of material fact concerns Liberty Square’s challenge to Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Liberty Square and Woodland Grove applied to serve the same demographic population under RFA 2017-108. If Liberty Square successfully challenges Woodland Grove’s application, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, will be selected for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal instead of Woodland Grove. (At the hearing on December 8, 2017, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors awarded Woodland Grove $7,600,000 in funding.) The focus of Liberty Square’s challenge is the information Woodland Grove provided in response to RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” Liberty Square argues that Woodland Grove’s application is ineligible because its Development Location Point, as well as the locations of its Community Services and Transit Services, are inaccurate. Therefore, Woodland Grove should have received zero “Proximity” points which would have disqualified its application for funding. RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d(1), states, in pertinent part: All Applicants must provide a Development Location Point stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. RFA 2017-108 set forth scoring considerations based on latitude/longitude coordinates in Section Four, A.5.e, entitled “Proximity.” Section Four, A.5.e, states, in pertinent part: The Application may earn proximity points based on the distance between the Development Location Point and the Bus or Rail Transit Service . . . and the Community Services stated in Exhibit A. Proximity points will not be applied to the total score. Proximity points will only be used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference ” In other words, the Development Location Point identified the specific location of an applicant’s proposed housing site.7/ Applicants earned “proximity points” based on the distance between its Development Location Point and selected Transit and Community Services. Florida Housing also used the Development Location Point to determine whether an application satisfied the Mandatory Distance Requirement under RFA 2017-108, Section Four A.5.f. To be eligible for funding, all applications had to qualify for the Mandatory Distance Requirement. The response section to Section Four, A.5.d., is found in Exhibit A, section 5, which required each applicant to submit information regarding the “Location of proposed Development.” Section 5 specifically requested: County; Address of Development Site; Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites?; Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Proximity; Mandatory Distance Requirement; and Limited Development Area. Section 5.d. (Latitude and Longitude Coordinates) was subdivided into: (1) Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place In its application, Woodland Grove responded in section 5.a-d as follows: County: Miami-Dade Address of Development Site: NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032. Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites? No. Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 25.518647 Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 80.418583 In plotting geographic coordinates, a “-” (negative) sign in front of the longitude indicates a location in the western hemisphere (i.e., west of the Prime Meridian, which is aligned with the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England). A longitude without a “-” sign places the coordinate in the eastern hemisphere. (Similarly, a latitude with a negative value is south of the equator. A latitude without a “-” sign refers to a coordinate in the northern hemisphere.) As shown above, the longitude coordinate Woodland Grove listed in section 5.d(1) did not include a “-” sign. Consequently, instead of providing a coordinate for a site in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Woodland Grove entered a Development Location Point located on the direct opposite side of the planet (apparently, in India). At the final hearing, Florida Housing (and Woodland Grove) explained that, except for the lack of the “-” sign, the longitude Woodland Grove recorded would have fallen directly on the address it listed as its development site in section 5.b., i.e., the “NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032.” In addition to the longitude in section 5.d., Woodland Grove did not include a “-” sign before the longitude coordinates for its Transit Services in section 5.e(2)(b) or for any of the three Community Services provided in section 5.e(3). Again, without a “-” sign, the longitude for each of these services placed them in the eastern hemisphere (India) instead of the western hemisphere (Miami-Dade County). In its protest, Liberty Square contends that, because Woodland Grove’s application listed a Development Location Point in India, Florida Housing should have awarded Woodland Grove zero proximity points under Section Four, A.5.e. Consequently, Woodland Grove’s application failed to meet minimum proximity eligibility requirements and is ineligible for funding. Therefore, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, should be awarded funding for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108.8/ Liberty Square asserts that a correct Development Location Point is critical because it serves as the beginning point for assigning proximity scores. Waiving an errant Development Location Point makes the proximity scoring meaningless. Consequently, any such waiver by Florida Housing is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to competition. At the final hearing, Woodland Grove claimed that it inadvertently failed to include the “-” sign before the longitude points. To support its position, Woodland Grove expressed that, on the face of its application, it was obviously applying for funding for a project located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, not India. In at least five places in its application, Woodland Grove specified that its proposed development would be located in Miami-Dade County. Moreover, several attachments to Woodland Grove’s application specifically reference a development site in Florida. Woodland Grove attached a purchase agreement for property located in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 8). To satisfy the Ability to Proceed requirements in RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove included several attachments which all list a Miami-Dade address (Attachments 9-14). Further, Woodland Grove submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form executed on behalf of the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which committed Miami-Dade County to contribute $1,000,000.00 to Woodland Grove’s proposed Development (Attachment 15). Finally, to qualify for a basis boost under RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove presented a letter from Miami-Dade County’s Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, which also referenced the address of the proposed development in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 16). In light of this information, Woodland Grove argues that its application, taken as a whole, clearly communicated that Woodland Grove intended to build affordable housing in Miami-Dade County. Nowhere in its application, did Woodland Grove reference a project in India other than the longitude coordinates which failed to include “-” signs. Accordingly, Florida Housing was legally authorized to waive Woodland Grove’s mistake as a “harmless error.” Thus, Florida Housing properly selected the Woodland Grove’s development for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Florida Housing advocates for Woodland Grove’s selection to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017- 108. Florida Housing considers the omission of the “-” signs before the longitude coordinates a “Minor Irregularity” under rule 67-60.002(6). Therefore, Florida Housing properly acted within its legal authority to waive, and then correct, Woodland Grove’s faulty longitude coordinates when scoring its application. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s current Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process; although, she did not personally participate in the review, scoring, or selection decisions for RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button initially explained the process by which Florida Housing selected the 16 developments for funding under RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. The Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored their assigned portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. Ms. Button further explained that applicants occasionally make errors in their applications. However, not all errors render an application ineligible. Florida Housing is authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities.” As delineated in RFA 2017-108, Section Three, A.2.C., Florida Housing may waive “Minor Irregularities” when the errors do not provide a competitive advantage or adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 60.002(6) and 67-60.008. Such was the case regarding Woodland Grove’s application. Heather Green, the Florida Housing staff member who scored the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, waived the inaccurate longitude coordinates as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green then reviewed Woodland Grove’s application as if the proposed development was located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Florida Housing assigned Ms. Green, a Multifamily Loans Manager, as the lead scorer for the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, which included the Development Location Point listed in Exhibit A, section 5.d. Ms. Green has worked for Florida Housing since 2003 and has scored proximity points for Request for Applications for over ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Green. In her deposition, Ms. Green testified that she is fully aware that, to be located in the western hemisphere (i.e., Miami-Dade County), a longitude coordinate should be marked with a negative sign or a “W.” Despite this, Ms. Green felt that the longitude coordinates Woodland Grove used without negative signs, particularly its Development Location Point, were clearly typos or unintentional mistakes. Therefore, Ms. Green waived the lack of a negative sign in front of the longitude coordinates in section 5.d. and section 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green understood that she was authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities” by rule under the Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green felt comfortable waiving the inaccurate longitude coordinates because everywhere else in Woodland Grove’s application specifically showed that its proposed housing development was located in Miami-Dade County, not India. Accordingly, when scoring Woodland Grove’s application, Ms. Green corrected the longitude entries by including a negative sign when she plotted the coordinates with her mapping software. Ms. Green then determined that, when a “-” was inserted before the longitude, the coordinate lined up with the address Woodland Grove listed for the Development Location Point. Therefore, Woodland Grove received proximity points and was eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (See RFA 2017-108, Section Five.A.1.) However, Ms. Green acknowledged that if she had scored the application just as it was presented, Woodland Grove would not have met the required qualifications for eligibility. Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing fully accepted Ms. Green’s decision to waive the missing negative signs in Woodland Grove’s response to section 5.d. and 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Button opined that Woodland Grove’s failure to place a “-” mark before the longitude was clearly an unintentional mistake. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing did not believe that scoring Woodland Grove’s development as if located in the western hemisphere (instead of India), provided Woodland Grove a competitive advantage. Because it was evident on the face of the application that Woodland Grove desired to develop a housing site in Miami-Dade County, Ms. Green’s decision to overlook the missing “-” sign did not award Woodland Grove additional points or grant Woodland Grove an advantage over other applicants. Neither did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. However, Ms. Button also conceded that if Ms. Green had scored the application without adding the “-” sign, Woodland Grove would have received zero proximity points. This result would have rendered Woodland Grove’s application ineligible for funding. Ms. Button also pointed out that Ms. Green waived the omission of “-” signs in two other applications as “Minor Irregularities.” Both Springhill Apartments, LLC, and Harbour Springs failed to include negative signs in front of their longitude coordinates. As with Woodland Grove, Ms. Green considered the development sites in those applications as if they were located in Miami-Dade County (i.e., in the western hemisphere). Ms. Green also waived a mistake in the Avery Commons application as a “Minor Irregularity.” The longitude coordinate for the Avery Commons Development Location Point (section 5.d(1)) was blank. However, Ms. Green determined that Avery Commons had placed the longitude in the blank reserved for Scattered Sites coordinates (section 5.d(2)). When scoring Avery Commons’ application, Ms. Green considered the coordinate in the appropriate section. According to Ms. Button, Florida Housing felt that this variation did not provide Avery Commons a competitive advantage. Nor did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Finally, Ms. Button explained that the application Florida Housing used for RFA 2017-108 was a relatively new format. In previous Request For Applications, Florida Housing required applicants to submit a Surveyor Certification Form. On the (now obsolete) Surveyor Certification Form, Florida Housing prefilled in an “N” in front of all the latitude coordinates and a “W” in front of all the longitude coordinates. However, the application used in RFA 2017-108 did not place an “N” or “W” before the Development Location Point coordinates. Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, Liberty Square did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to Woodland Grove for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Florida Housing was within its legal authority to waive, then correct, the missing “-” sign in Woodland Grove’s application as “Minor Irregularity.” Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to select Woodland Grove for funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-108.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by Liberty Square. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation rescind the intended awards to Sierra Bay, SP Lake, and Harbour Springs, and instead designate Northside II, Osprey Pointe, and Pembroke Tower Apartments as the recipients of funding under RFA 2017-108.10/ DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 19th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether just cause exists for Petitioner, Lee County School Board (School Board), to terminate Respondent's employment as a classroom teacher on the ground she is incompetent and did not satisfactorily correct performance deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The School Board is charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise public schools in Lee County. This includes the power to discipline instructional staff, such as classroom teachers. §§ 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33, Fla. Stat. (2018). Respondent began her teaching career in Dunnellon, Florida, and has been certified as an educator since 1997. She has been employed by the School Board as a classroom teacher since 2001 and is certified in five areas, including exceptional student education (ESE). She currently holds a professional service contract, which is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the School Board and the Teachers Association of Lee County (TALC Agreement). Beginning in school year 2014-2015, Respondent was assigned as a classroom teacher at Cypress Lake Middle School (Cypress Lake) where she remained for three years. In school year 2017-2018, Respondent was reassigned to Royal Palm Exceptional Center (Royal Palm) as an ESE teacher. The Intensive Assistance Program (IAP) Process A performance evaluation must be conducted for each employee at least once each year. § 1012.34(3)(a), Fla. Stat. The annual evaluation is found in the Annual Performance Evaluation Form, which identifies the evaluation areas and assigns to each area a "grade" of unsatisfactory, needs improvement/developing, effective, or highly effective. Sch. Bd. Ex. 17. A final performance rating also is given the employee. If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, section 1012.34(4) establishes a process for addressing the performance deficiencies. Under this process, the evaluator first must notify the employee in writing that the employee is not performing her duties in a satisfactory manner. The notice must include a description of the unsatisfactory performance areas, make recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and offer assistance to the employee to correct those deficiencies within a prescribed period of time. The employee then is placed on "performance probation" for 90 calendar days (excluding school holidays and vacation periods) following the receipt of the notice, during which time the employee is "evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved." Also, the employee is provided assistance and in- service training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. Within 14 days after the close of the 90-day period, the evaluator must decide whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the recommendation, the superintendent must decide whether to continue or terminate the employment contract. To implement the foregoing statute, and to ensure that employees who are not meeting professional standards are given an opportunity to be successful, the School Board has created a process known as the IAP, which provides more detail than the statute itself. Sch. Bd. Ex. 26. The IAP is the School Board's version of "performance probation." According to the School Board's IAP Manual (Manual), the assistance program is designed to "provide intensive direction and support to employees who seem to be experiencing serious difficulty in meeting professional performance standards." Id. The School Board also has created a two-page outline of the IAP process, which reiterates the steps to be followed when using the process. Resp. Ex. 2. Notably, the goal of the process is not to get rid of a teacher, but rather to make him or her successful, especially at a time when the Lee County School District is facing a teacher shortage. Once a decision is made to initiate the IAP process for a teacher, an IAP team is picked by the superintendent or his designee. The team consists of a "team coordinator," the "immediate supervisor" of the employee being reviewed, another "site administrator or manager," a "job-related coordinator or supervisor," and "others, as may be appointed by the Superintendent." Sch. Bd. Ex. 26. The teacher's union representative also is invited to attend the meetings on behalf of the teacher. And, of course, the affected employee attends all meetings. The Manual (but not the statute) calls for "not more than eight meetings" of the IAP team, "typically scheduled biweekly," during a 90-day period. Id. An initial team meeting, also known as an "orientation meeting," is conducted at the school site to review the areas of concern, identify the areas needing improvement, and outline the IAP process. A binder is given to each participant, which contains the IAP Manual and outline. Written minutes of each meeting are prepared, typically by the principal's secretary. The process is intended to be confidential, with discussions of the observations to occur only in team meetings. However, other persons may be called to a meeting to "share information that might be relevant, or if the teacher in question wants to bring somebody in." During the IAP process, the teacher meets with team members individually and as a group and receives feedback, coaching, and suggestions. In addition, formal classroom observations are made by team members so that they can address any perceived deficiencies. The focus of the observations is in the areas noted as "needs improvement" or "unsatisfactory." In Respondent's case, the process was concerned not only with classroom skills, but also with the preparation of individualized education plans (IEPs) and how to properly conduct teacher/parent IEP meetings, all deficient areas. After the last meeting, the "[a]ssistance team meets with [the] Executive Director of Human Resources to determine [a] recommendation to [the] Superintendent." Sch. Bd. Ex. 26. The Manual provides that after receiving the recommendation, the superintendent shall take one of the following steps: Performance meets standards - plan follow-up review; Performance below standards - continued assistance; Reassignment to more appropriate position; Withhold recommendation for reappointment; Performance unacceptable file charges for dismissal; or Recommend employee's resignation be accepted. The establishment of an IAP team is not a regular occurrence, and, in this case, was the first and only time that the principals (and team members) at Cypress Lake and Royal Palm participated in such a process. Although Respondent denies that her performance warrants termination, and she presented extenuating circumstances to justify her lack of progress, the focus of her challenge is a contention that in numerous respects, the Royal Palm IAP team and school administrators (and to a lesser degree the Cypress Lake team) did not follow strictly to the letter the process described by the statute, Manual, and IAP outline. Cypress Lake Performance Issues Respondent began teaching at Cypress Lake during school year 2014-2015. Besides teaching language arts/reading, she also was a support facilitator and a self-contained ESE teacher for the sixth grade. Ms. Maniscalco was the principal. Following her first year, Respondent received an overall "Needs Improvement" on her annual performance evaluation. In her year- end conference with the principal, Respondent did not object or otherwise complain that the evaluation was incorrect. Ms. Maniscalco's evaluation noted a variety of areas where Respondent needed to improve or was unsatisfactory, including: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Technology; Creating an Environment of Respect; Establishes a Culture for Learning; Stops Misconduct by Using Effective Appropriate Techniques; Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques; Engaging Students in Learning; Showing Professionalism; Maintaining Accurate Records; and Participating in a Professional Community. Sch. Bd. Ex. 17. Following her second year, school year 2015-2016, Respondent again received a "Needs Improvement" on her annual evaluation. Ms. Maniscalco cited numerous areas where Respondent needed to improve or was unsatisfactory, including: Designing Student Assessment; Setting Instructional Outcomes; Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources and Technology; Establishes and Manages Classroom Procedures; Stops Misconduct by Using Effective Appropriate Techniques; Communicating with Students; Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques; Engaging Students in Learning; Using Assessment in Instruction; Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness; Showing Professionalism; and Maintaining Accurate Records. Sch. Bd. Ex. 17. Based on formal observations of Respondent that year, Ms. Maniscalco noted that Respondent failed to do "individualized assessments" or "modified assessments" for her ESE students. Also, after a year of working at Cypress Lake, Respondent still did not know how to utilize the interactive SMART board in her classroom or the District's Outlook email system, even though training in both programs was provided. She observed that none of the classroom guidance that Respondent received was being utilized, and none of the children in Respondent's classroom were "working." Rather, they were simply sitting there "playing when [Ms. Maniscalco] would come in." On days when Respondent was scheduled to have IEP meetings with students and parents, Respondent sometimes would call in sick, and her IEP plans either were not written or were completely wrong. Ms. Maniscalco then would have to call in a substitute ESE teacher who would be forced to write a new plan in front of the parents. During school year 2015-2016, Respondent had numerous meetings with the principal; the head of the ESE department worked with Respondent "on paperwork"; she was sent to "quality writing IEP" with another teacher; and Ms. Maniscalco conducted a number of formal observations and provided feedback after those observations. At the year-end conference with the principal, except for stating that she was under a great deal of pressure, Respondent did not provide a satisfactory response for her continued deficiencies. On May 18, 2016, Ms. Maniscalco wrote a letter to the superintendent recommending that Respondent be placed in an IAP program for the following school year. Sch. Bd. Ex. 27. The letter reads as follows: During her two years at Cypress Lake Middle School she has received additional support from administration, reading coach, select faculty members and the staffing specialist. Her struggles with correct completion of ESE documentation, instructional strategies, and classroom management have prevented her from being an effective teacher. She was cooperative and always attempted to implement what she learned. However, she was unable to sustain and implement this knowledge in ESE required documents, future lessons and her teaching lacked depth and vigor. Mrs. Miller's classes during the 2016/2017 school year was [sic] of great concern. As evident by the documentation on PeopleSoft and my personal notes, her classroom management and lack of vigor was [sic] of particular concern. Despite having classes of no more than 13 students, Mrs. Miller was unable to maintain classroom control throughout the entire school year even with the added support of an ESE paraprofessional. Students were up and out of their seats, off task, talking over her or simply ignoring her. Often she was [missing text from exhibit] interventions or she would make comments such as "Please do your work. Stop bothering the other students. I asked you to sit down[,]" without follow through when students did not change their behavior. Mrs. Miller has struggled with the proper completion of IEP paperwork, manifestation processes and parent contact for the documentation needed on ESE paperwork. This is of great concern due to the legal implications that could result. Throughout the school year, Mrs. Miller was always cooperative and understanding of our concerns regarding her ineffectiveness as a classroom teacher, continued errors on ESE students' paperwork, and ESE processes. She was receptive to our suggestions and assistance. However, in May of 2016, when I notified her I was going to refer her to the Intensive Assistance Program, she became upset and stated I had no idea what pressure was put on her. For the sake of our students and their learning, I respectfully request immediate intervention with Mrs. Miller. She needs additional help learning the pedagogical processes of effective teaching. Pleading with middle school age students is highly ineffective. Students need an orderly, safe environment, where skills and concepts are scaffold, differentiated, and rigorous. Proper completion of ESE paperwork is imperative as it relates to individual students['] IEPs. I would like to discuss my concerns further with you and answer any questions you may have pertaining to this request. On August 2, 2016, the superintendent informed Respondent by letter that he was accepting Ms. Maniscalco's recommendation that she be placed in a Plan of Assistance. He added that an IAP team would be formed immediately, and her union representative was invited to accompany her to the meetings. Sch. Bd. Ex. 1. The IAP Process Used by Cypress Lake A Cypress Lake IAP team was established consisting of the principal, the TALC representative, the district administrator, the assistant principal, and the chief human resources officer, Dr. Pruitt. An initial meeting was held on September 12, 2016. At that meeting, the team reviewed Respondent's areas of concern, identified areas requiring improvement, and reviewed the IAP outline. The deficient areas identified by the team included preparation of IEPs, classroom teaching methods, and student engagement. The team was "extremely specific" and "very, very detailed" in identifying the specific areas that would be addressed. The team agreed that each member would formally observe Respondent two times during the IAP process. No written minutes of the orientation meeting were prepared, as Ms. Maniscalco did not know at that time that written minutes were required. Respondent contends that without written minutes, there is no way to prove that she was told which performance areas would be reviewed during the IAP process, or even if the team members understood the areas of concern. On this issue, the undersigned has accepted the testimony of Ms. Maniscalco and Dr. Pruitt that these areas were discussed in detail at the orientation meeting. In fact, Ms. Maniscalco testified that she could "guarantee 100 percent that we talked about IEPs and classroom management, and I would swear to that." Additional team meetings were conducted on September 26, October 17, October 31, November 14, and December 12, 2016, and March 30, 2017. Respondent and her representative attended all meetings. At no time during the process did Respondent or her representative object to the process, file a grievance with respect to a misapplication of the process, or complain that she was not getting enough support. The team provided Respondent with the opportunity to observe other teachers, shared best practices, recommended behavioral management techniques, gave advice on student engagement strategies, and offered advice on managing and completing IEPs. At each meeting, the team reviewed Respondent's strengths, opportunities for growth, and suggestions for improvement. The results of each member's observations also were discussed. Although Respondent testified that during the process she encountered a number of problems which prevented her from adequately resolving her performance issues, she never raised that subject with any team member. In fact, only once during the entire IAP process did Respondent ask for assistance (through a colleague, and not the principal), and after doing so, she was assigned a paraprofessional. After the final team meeting on March 30, 2017, on April 17, 2017, Dr. Pruitt informed Respondent by certified mail that the IAP team "had determined that her performance was not at an acceptable level." Sch. Bd. Ex. 8. The letter noted that the areas requiring improvement were planning; human development and learning; learning environments; critical thinking; student achievement and continuous improvement; and state, school, and district requirements. Dr. Pruitt believed that a new location and a new administration could raise Respondent's level of proficiency. Therefore, she recommended that Respondent "be placed at another work location for the 2017/2018 school year and continue to receive assistance." Id. This course of action is authorized by the IAP Manual, which allows "continued assistance" for an employee when deficiencies are not remediated during the IAP process. Otherwise, given her lack of progress, Respondent's termination would be the only logical outcome. The letter added that the second IAP process would begin approximately three weeks after the beginning of the new school year. The recommendation was accepted by the superintendent. Royal Palm On July 13, 2017, Respondent was notified by certified mail that she was being reassigned to Royal Palm, a much smaller school than Cypress Lake. Sch. Bd. Ex. 9. Unlike Cypress Lake, which had a mix of mainstream students and ESE students, Royal Palm's enrollment was 100 percent exceptional students, none of whom could function in a "gen ed setting." However, Dr. Pruitt believed that Respondent would be a good match for the school because it had no more than eight students in a classroom, and she had an ESE background. Dr. Pruitt testified that it was the "easiest teaching assignment [she] could find to help [Respondent] be successful." Respondent was told that a new period of performance probation would commence after the beginning of the school year 2017-2018. When Respondent reported to duty in August 2017, the principal, Mr. Moretti, welcomed her and told her, "You'll have a ton of support here," which turned out to be true. He especially was glad to have her on the faculty because he had no reading teachers with ESE certification. i. The Royal Palm IAP Process On October 2, 2017, Dr. Pruitt assembled a new Royal Palm IAP team comprised of the facilitator, Ms. Freeman; principal, Mr. Moretti; assistant principal, Ms. Wilson; and district administrator, Ms. Taylor. None had ever been involved in the IAP process. Mr. Moretti acknowledged that he did not familiarize himself with the IAP process and instead relied on Dr. Pruitt (a non-member) and Ms. Freeman, the facilitator, to provide advice on how the process would work. Respondent and her union representative, Dr. Fazzone, also attended the meetings, which were overseen by Ms. Freeman. An initial team meeting was conducted the same day. Dr. Pruitt, who attended the first meeting only, told the team that the focus areas for improvement consisted of completing IEPs, progress reports, and interims; classroom management issues; and active engagement of students. Sch. Bd. Ex. 28. The areas of concern were the same as those identified in her April 19, 2017, letter and tracked the performance areas that were addressed unsuccessfully at Cypress Lake. During the meeting, the team was introduced to the IAP process and given a binder with the IAP outline. Dates for formal observations were also set, including one the following day by Ms. Taylor, the district administrator. Notably, Ms. Taylor pointed out that the team knew that this was Respondent's second time in the process, and they "wanted to provide all the resources that we could for her, ensuring that she had the tools that she needed to, also looking at how she was utilizing the information, based on the daily teaching in her classroom, and how that was going to be best used outside of administrative assistance, through the IAP process." After the orientation meeting, Mr. Moretti decided to include Ms. Allbritten, the instructional coach for the school district, in the IAP process. He chose her because she would be performing formal observations on Respondent in lesson development, and she could give Respondent first-hand feedback. Respondent contends the inclusion of Ms. Allbritten at team meetings "contaminat[ed] the clearly defined process" and violated the "confidential nature of the process." This contention is rejected. Additional IAP team meetings were conducted on October 30, November 20, and December 5, 2017, and January 22, February 5, February 26, and April 9, 2018. During the first few months of the process, the team noticed "a great deal of improvement" on the part of Respondent. Mr. Moretti was "very pleased" with her progress. By that time, the team had helped her prepare lesson plans, restructured the physical classroom, reviewed IEPs, allowed her to visit other classrooms, and assisted her in revising her teaching strategies for different students. When asked at the December 5, 2017, meeting if her caseload was manageable, Respondent answered "yes." Despite the early improvement, a formal observation by Ms. Taylor on January 22, 2018, showed otherwise. Only one student was in the classroom on time and two more came in late. Their behavior was "terrible," and one student was not engaged the entire period. During the process, Ms. Taylor attempted to provide Respondent with additional training on the Language Live Academic Plan (Language Live), a reader intervention program for struggling students. The program was utilized as the primary teaching tool in Respondent's classroom. Although the program was used at other schools in the district, this was the first year that it was used at Royal Palm. In an effort to improve Respondent's use of the tool, Ms. Taylor arranged for her to visit Gulf Middle School to observe the program being utilized by another teacher. Ms. Taylor reported that Respondent was not engaged and appeared to be disinterested in learning how to utilize the program. Also, even though Language Live was Respondent's primary teaching tool, the team learned that Respondent was not even logging into the program and had gone a significant time period without utilizing and/or accessing it as an instructional tool. Sch. Bd. Ex. 14. At the team meeting on February 5, 2018, it was noted that Respondent's students were well below the district expectations of three activities and 100 minutes per week online; the most time spent online by any student was 78 minutes by one and the student was a self-motivated gifted student; there were numerous students who had not logged into the program; and Respondent did not log into the program for the week of January 29 through February 2, 2018. Sch. Bd. Ex. 14. According to Ms. Allbritten, who provided Respondent with extensive assistance and training, Respondent's failure to utilize the Language Live program had a detrimental effect on the students at Royal Palm who were transitioning back into general education classes. She added that Respondent was not always receptive to her assistance and training. The reading coach, Ms. Meltzer, was asked to attend the February 5, 2018, meeting so she could present the results of the Language Live data for the team to examine. The data showed "very little to no progress for the majority of the kids" in Respondent's classes. The undersigned has rejected Respondent's contention that the inclusion of Ms. Meltzer for the meeting tainted the process. For a teacher to actively engage the students, lesson plans are required. This is a basic requirement for a teacher. At the February 5, 2018, meeting, the team learned that no lesson plans had been turned in by Respondent since November 13, 2017. In fact, she had prepared only four out of 16 to 18 that were due. In response, Respondent contended that all were prepared, but she needed to "adjust" them. However, later on, she turned in one lesson plan, with multiple dates on that plan, which was intended to satisfy the requirement for the next six or seven weeks. During the February 26, 2018, meeting, the team noted that the following interventions on behalf of Respondent had been performed: (a) she visited Gulf Middle School to observe a reading class using the Language Live program; (b) steps were taken to ensure Respondent's classroom had all necessary materials; (c) Respondent's lesson plans and template were designed; (d) she was provided with the Language Live Academic Plan and all necessary material; (e) she was given assistance in preparing IEPs and attending IEP meetings; (f) a team member sat with her during the first IEP meeting so she would be familiar with the process; (g) a Language Live training session was established every other week for Royal Palm reading teachers; and (h) data was examined to ascertain student success and areas of improvement. Sch. Bd. Ex. 14. At the meeting on February 26, 2018, Respondent was directed to have all lesson plans for the last half of November, December, January, February, and March prepared and submitted before the next meeting. Also, it was noted that Respondent's IEPs were not always prepared for parent meetings, and this placed the school's receipt of federal funds in jeopardy. During the meeting, Dr. Fazzone, Respondent's union representative, questioned why the reading coach was in the room. He was told that Ms. Meltzer is Respondent's immediate supervisor and an instructional coach in reading, and she could provide feedback regarding how effective Respondent was in using the Language Live program to teach reading. This was one of the very few criticisms made by Respondent during the entire process. Dr. Fazzone testified that he did not know he could grieve a part of the process, or otherwise object, but never inquired if he had such a right. A final team meeting was conducted on April 9, 2018. Principal Moretti was unable to physically attend due to medical issues, but he spoke with Ms. Freeman regarding the team's concerns. Also, he discussed Respondent's progress in numerous conversations with team members throughout the school year. The team reviewed the minutes of the prior meeting and the performance deficiencies that were to be corrected. Although Respondent had made progress in some areas during the early part of the process, the members noted that her lesson plans were still incomplete, a "behavior" plan was inadequate, and based on a number of formal observations, there was a "lack of instruction" in her classroom. Respondent was told that the intervention program would be ended. Mr. Moretti testified that even though it would "make [his] life a whole lot easier" if he could keep a certified ESE reading teacher, it was in the school's best interest to find another teacher. At the end of the meeting, when asked if she had been given support during the preceding months, Respondent answered, "Absolutely," and said the school had a "wonderful support system." The team consensus was that Respondent had not corrected her deficiencies. However, the final recommendation was made by Dr. Pruitt. On May 1, 2018, Dr. Pruitt informed Respondent by certified mail that the team had recommended that her contract not be renewed at the close of the school year. Resp. Ex. 4. On May 7, 2018, Dr. Pruitt sent a second letter, correcting the first letter, in which she advised Respondent that her performance was not at an acceptable standard and that she (Dr. Pruitt) would be recommending that the superintendent terminate her employment. Sch. Bd. Ex. 12. Respondent contends that the IAP Manual was violated because Dr. Pruitt made her recommendation without input from the team. But the team discussed the results of the process amongst themselves and with Mr. Moretti, who then conveyed his thoughts to Dr. Pruitt. Dr. Pruitt's recommendation was accepted by the superintendent. On May 29, 2018, a Petition for Termination informed Respondent that the matter of her termination would be taken up by the School Board on June 26, 2018. As grounds for termination, the Petition for Termination alleged that Respondent was incompetent within the meaning of section 1012.33, as further defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-5.056(3), and she failed to adequately perform her educational duties. Respondent has been suspended without pay since that date. Other Procedural Objections Raised by Respondent Beside the procedural issues addressed in the prior findings, Respondent contends that the School Board's failure to strictly follow the statute and IAP process resulted in "multiple errors" that render the process void. Notably, during the process itself, neither Respondent nor her union representative filed a grievance or otherwise contended that the teams had violated, misapplied, or misinterpreted any provision. And they have not complained that either school failed to provide adequate assistance to Respondent to correct the deficiencies. Respondent points out that even though the Manual (but not the statute) provides that team meetings be held "biweekly," and the process be completed within 90 days, the Cypress Lake process began in September 2016 and ended in March 2017, while the Royal Palm process stretched out from October 2017 until April 2018. Also, meetings were staggered and not conducted on a biweekly basis. Ms. Pruitt responded that the requirement for biweekly meetings and a 90-day probation period is only a guide, and the primary goal of the process is to assist the employee, rather than meet hard and fast deadlines. She testified that many factors cause these requirements to be adjusted. For example, Respondent had "attendance issues" and was not available at all times, a disciplinary issue required that she be reassigned to a different department for several weeks, there are intervening school holidays and statewide testing, team members may be absent or tied up with other school duties, and there are days when formal observations cannot be conducted. The overall goal is to help the teacher, rather than forcing a meeting every two weeks and ending the process based on an arbitrary deadline, regardless of other circumstances. For the same reasons, a final evaluation cannot always be made within 14 days after the final meeting. In the same vein, Respondent contends that the lengthy process, especially by the spring of 2018, wore her down to the point she gave up. But here the whole purpose of allowing the process to continue as it did was to give Respondent more assistance and time to show progress. Respondent contends that no evidence was presented regarding the performance of the students during the IAP process, as required by section 1012.34(3). At the meeting on February 5, 2018, however, Language Live data reviewed by the team showed that Respondent's students were well below the district expectations of three activities and 100 minutes per week online. Formal observations reflected also that "numerous" students did not log into Language Live, which tracks data to measure a student's progress. Ms. Allbritten testified that Respondent's failure to use the program had a "detrimental effect" on her students who were transitioning back into general education classes. Finally, at the last Royal Palm meeting, it was noted that the students simply were not receiving "instruction." Respondent contends she was never fully informed at the outset regarding which performance areas would be reviewed, and they changed throughout the Royal Palm IAP process leaving her to chase a moving target. The only mention of this concern was at the February 26, 2018, meeting, when her union representative, Dr. Fazzone, asked what the goals of the team were, the initial reason for the IAP, and the plan of action that was given to the team at the beginning of the process. In response to those questions, Ms. Freeman reviewed again the process and the expectations with the team and reaffirmed that these were exactly what the team was doing. At no other time during the year did Respondent or her representative raise the issue. The accepted testimony of School Board witnesses confirms that Respondent was apprised of performance issues at every step in the process. Admittedly, there were minor deviations from the Manual. However, the two teams substantially conformed to the process. To the extent there were deviations, they did not affect the overriding goal of making Respondent a better teacher and correcting the performance deficiencies noted by the evaluators. While Respondent suggests otherwise, the overwhelming evidence shows that both schools devoted extensive manpower and resources in an effort to make her successful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Lee County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a teacher. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Anthony Williams, Esquire The School District of Lee County 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 (eServed) Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman Post Office Box 2089 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 (eServed) Gregory Adkins, Superintendent Lee County School Board 2855 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33966-1012 Richard Corcoran, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issues presented concern the attempt on the part of the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to impose a fine against Ron Harrod (Respondent) for willfully or knowingly damaging or removing products from sovereign lands without the consent of DNR or the State of Florida, Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund. The products spoken to is timber allegedly cut and removed from state-owned lands on November 20, 1985, and April 1, 1986. This purported conduct on the part of the Respondent is said to have violated Section 253.04(2), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 16Q- 14.03(2) and (6), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1985, Blanche Farrow made an agreement with the Respondent which allowed the Respondent as the owner of "Rons Cypress" to cut all the timber on her property. Rons Cypress is a business for cutting cypress slabs. This property is described in the agreement as being located on Highway 48 approximately 1 mile east of Floral City, on both the north and south sides of the road. Further it was stated that the timber contemplated in this arrangement could be found along Daniels Drive. A copy of the statement of agreement between Farrow and the Respondent may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. The exact nature of the Farrow property which is the subject of the agreement with the Respondent may be found in a copy of the Warranty Deed pertaining to this property, which has been admitted as DNR Exhibit 4. This property is located in Citrus County, Florida. The extent of the property over which Blanche Farrow and her husband, Chester B. Farrow, hold ownership does not extend into Lake Tsala Apopka, Lake Bradley and Little Lake, lakes adjacent to their property. These lakes constitute part of an historically meandered lake system and are subject to the sovereign rights of the State of Florida. In effect, the State of Florida owns those water bodies. The limitations of the boundaries of the Farrow property are made clear in the Warranty Deed in which certain language describes the boundaries of the property owned by the Farrows as being ". . . to the waters of Lake Tsala Apopka; thence Southerly along the water's edge of said Lake Tsala Apopka . . ." and ". . . to the water's edge of Lake Bradley . . ." Therefore, notwithstanding Respondent's protestations to the contrary and any statement made by Chester B. or Blanche Farrow, the legal description of the property does not convey title to those individuals for the several lakes described, nor create any leasehold interest on the part of the Farrows to the lakes. In pursuit of the agreement with the Farrows, Respondent made arrangements with Jerry Lovett, who is in the lumber business, to cut trees, principally cypress trees. Through this agreement, Lovett would write checks to Blanche Farrow which would be given to her by the Respondent. The Respondent in turn would be able to take the stumps left over from the cutting of cypress trees and use them for slabs in his business of selling cypress tree products. Respondent was to pay Ms. Farrow for the stumps from which he cut slabs. Respondent also took cypress knees in this area for use in his business. Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3 describes payment made by Jerry Lovett to Blanche Farrow for trees removed. On October 14, 1985, $600.00 was paid for cypress trees. On October 28, 1985, $1,275.72 was paid, of which 52.31 tons of cypress at $6.00 a ton was included in that purchase. On November 4, 1985, $551.28 was paid for cypress trees. On November 15, 1985, he paid $131.92 for removal of cypress trees. In this endeavor, Lovett in the person of his work crew had cut and removed cypress trees which belonged to the State of Florida. Respondent cut and removed slabs from the stumps left following Lovett's lumbering operation and took cypress knees as well belonging to the state. Respondent's involvement with the stumps and knees was through activities of a crew working for the Respondent. Neither the Farrows, Lovett nor Respondent had permission to take cypress products from this land belonging to the State of Florida. Lovett, in his activities, had operated under the misapprehension that the Farrows owned the disputed cypress trees that were cut from lands of the sovereign. He was led to believe in his discussions with Blanche Farrow that Respondent would point out the places where the cut could be made. Lovett also understood from his conversation with Ms. Farrow that certain monuments identifying the extent of her ownership could be found on the side of the road near Lakes Tsala Apopka and Bradley, described as cement corners. Lovett never located those monuments in that as he understood the outer bounds of the Farrow ownership, as Ms. Farrow described them, he would not approach those outer limits in his activities. Respondent likewise believed that the Farrows owned the property where the cypress cutting was being done. Nevertheless, Lovett cut and removed cypress trees in Lake Tsala Apopka, Lake Bradley and Little Lake and Respondent took stumps and knees from those lakes owned by the sovereign. Lovett sold the cypress logs which he removed from the area in dispute, to include cypress logs belonging to the State of Florida. Lovett removed less than 300 trees from the site and left some cypress logs at the site. Lovett through his crew was operating at the site of the dispute sometime approximately a week before October 14, 1985, through November 15, 1985. Lovett ceased his activities in the cutting of cypress when instructed to do so by the Respondent who mentioned something to the effect that the local zoning board said that this cutting had to cease. In the course of his operations in the three lakes, Respondent took 693 knees and between 800 and 1,200 cypress slabs. DNR became aware of the activities of Lovett and the Respondent based upon an investigation that was prompted by observations which Linda Sanford made. Linda Sanford is a zoning inspector for Citrus County. She also lives adjacent to Lake Bradley. As she describes it in her testimony, she observed work crews in the water cutting cypress "off and on." Among the people that she identified as being a member of the work crew was a James Gunn, who is an employee of the Respondent. The first time she saw the Respondent's crew was on November 13, 1985, around Daniels Road and Highway 48. Three persons were in the water and a chain saw was being operated. On November 16, 1985, while at home, Ms. Sanford received complaints from some neighbors about saws being operated and observed Respondent's crew again. One other time on a date that Ms. Sanford does not remember, which would have been following the first two occasions of her observations, Ms. Sanford asked the work crew if they had permits for the activities. Ms. Sanford never saw the Respondent's work crew remove any of the cypress materials. On November 20, 1985, Lieutenant Louis Feulner, then a Sergeant for the Florida Marine Patrol, went to the area where cypress trees had been cut by Lovett and cuttings from stumps and cypress knees were being taken by Respondent's work crew. This area was described by Feulner as the Lake Tsala Apopka chain. A copy of his report of the incident may be found as DNR Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence. Feulner was sent to investigate by his superior, Major Brown of the Florida Marine Patrol. Feulner arrived at the scene of the cutting activity around 3:30 in the afternoon and saw three subjects in the water. Those persons were James Gunn and Respondent's two sons. Feulner saw that cypress trees had been cut down on the site and some were located in the water. He observed stumps in the water as well. These observations were made of cypress products in knee- deep water. Feulner saw a chain saw being operated by the crew. The cutting that was being done was a slab from a stump. He did not see trees being removed from the site of the cutting. Upon inquiry, Gunn told Feulner that he worked for the Respondent and that the Respondent had gotten permission to cut the cypress trees from Ms. Farrow. Feulner advised Gunn that the activities involved in the cutting violated state law. In fact those activities did involve cutting of property belonging to the State. Major Brown had dispatched Lieutenant Fuelner to the questioned site on November 20, 1985, based upon a request of Gordon Roberts, Assistant Chief of Aquatic Lands for NR. At that time, Roberts was employed in a Division of State Lands, as an administrative assistant involved with investigations and enforcement. He held that position until May 1, 1987. On December 4, 1985, Roberts went to the site and observed that cypress harvesting had taken place in wetlands, in a submerged area. The area he observed was one involving buttress cypress trees. Roberts observed that harvesting was being done in an area below a line which represents the minimum flood plan line, a control line for what is described as the water management division. In conversation which Roberts had with the Respondent following the Feulner visit to the site, Roberts explained to the Respondent that there was some question about whether the cutting was on privately owned land or submerged land belonging to the State. He further advised the Respondent not to cut anymore in that area until a determination could be made about ownership of the property. Roberts wrote to the Respondent on December 13, 1985. A copy of this correspondence may be found as DNR Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Respondent says he did not receive this correspondence Nonetheless it was sent to the address utilized in noticing of the Respondent of the final hearing in this cause, as attended by the Respondent. The letter mentions concerns of the State on the subject of the belief held by the State that cutting was being done on its property. It went on to say that a survey was going to be conducted to decide where the line of demarcation between the upland owners property and that of the State would occur. The letter states that DNR preferred to have the matter settled amicably but indicated that trees should not be cut where buttressed cypress were found nor any other trees below the ordinary high water line of the lakes in question. It warned Respondent that a fine of $10,000 could be imposed under the provisions of Rule 16Q-14, Florida Administrative Code, for unauthorized removal of the trees and that the fine could be mitigated. Further it was stated voluntary cessation of the tree cutting would be a consideration on the amount of the fine. Finally, the letter stated that the Respondent could contact the State concerning these issues. By activities of Louis Neuman, Senior Forester for DNR, an attempt was made to ascertain the value of cypress trees which were cut in the areas in dispute. Mr. Neuman is qualified to assess the value of the trees cut. A description of his evaluation may be found in DNR Exhibits 12A-C representing the assessment made in Little Lake, Lake Bradley, and Lake Tsala Apopka. This involves a survey of December 18-20, 1985, as made by Mr. Neuman. He found that value involved in the cutting to be $440, $1,364 and $2,948, respectively, for Little Lake, Lake Bradley and Lake Tsala Apopka. These findings were related to Gordon Roberts in a memorandum of February 25, 1986, a copy of which may be found as DNR Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. His assumption was that 78 trees, 306 trees and 815 trees had been cut within Little Lake, Lake Bradley and Lake Tsala Apopka, respectively. The total amount for cut cypress trees in all three lakes was $4,752, per Mr. Neuman's observations. Comparing his observations to those of the Respondent and Lovett, there is a disparity in valuation; however, it suffices to say that a substantial dollar amount of product was destroyed and removed from sovereign waters. This was an arrangement in which the Respondent was a knowing participant, who profited from the endeavor. In spite of the conciliatory tone of the letter of December 13, 1985, from Roberts to the Respondent, on March 26, 1986, a notice of violation or administrative complaint was brought against the Respondent concerning the observations made on December 4, 1985 and in view of the $4,752 statement of damages on the part of Mr. Neuman. The State sought to collect that amount of money and $2,000 punitive damages. A copy of the March 26, 1986 complaint letter may be found as DNR Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence. That complaint or notice of violation was subsumed in action of July 2, 1986, which forms the basis of the present dispute and for which the Respondent sought timely hearing. In the present complaint, allegations are made concerning observations of November 20, 1985, and the assessment of an administrative fine of $6,752 for what is described as a first offense. There is set forth in the notice of violation a second count or claim of violation pertaining to events of April 1, 1986, in which Respondent is stated to have willfully and knowingly removed products from the same area in which sovereign lands are said to have been involved. For this alleged second offense, DNR sought the imposition of an additional $10,000 fine. The accusations concerning a second offense arise from an investigation performed by Robert Verlato, an officer with the Florida Marine Control, which was conducted on April 1, 1986. He went to the Bradley Lake site where the cutting had been done in the past and observed three individuals at work. These were members of the Respondent's crew, including James Gunn and Respondent's two sons. He saw them operating a chain saw cutting the base of the stump which was approximately two feet in length. Gunn was operating the saw. Verlato told the individuals to stop work and they did. He arrested them for trespassing and removing state property. Respondent then arrived at the scene and indicated that he should be charged if there were any violations, and that the three men were members of his crew under his supervision and control. Verlato also observed other freshly cut stumps than the one which he had seen crew members working on, which stumps were in the same general area. He collected ten of the these fresh-cut stumps and took them as evidence for the criminal court case. Respondent indicates that the activities of April 1, 1986, had to do with the cleanup of this site requested by Ms. Farrow and not for purpose of further removal of cypress products for Respondent's benefit. The facts lead to the conclusion that while the Respondent may have had in mind accommodating Ms. Farrow, he also was accommodating his financial interests as well. This conclusion is supported by Respondent's Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence which was a letter from Ms. Farrow to Respondent on May 19, 1986, after the April 1, 1986, incident in which she asked the Respondent to observe the state's suggestions that no further cutting and hauling be done related to the cypress trees in question. Composite Exhibit 5A-D constitutes photographs of the site related to Lake Tsala Apopka showing where trees have been removed. DNR Common Exhibits 6 and 14 is an aerial photograph which marks the places where the subject cypress trees have been cut in the three lakes. They are shown in red marking. The findings about cutting that was done in Tsala Apopka Lake are not conclusive because the ordinary high water line for Lake Tsala Apopka was not established. This circumstance is discussed in the following paragraph. DNR commissioned an ordinary high water line study to be performed by Douglas A. Thompson, Professional Land Surveyor, registered in the State of Florida, and other states. He is the Assistant Chief of the Bureau of Survey and Mapping for DNR. Other members of his team included Kenneth M. Campbell, Bureau of Geology, and geologist for DNR; Catherine M. Gilbert, Bureau of Aquatic Plants, and botanist for DNR; and Louis A. Neuman of the Bureau of Mine Reclamation, forester. The details of this study are set forth in DNR Exhibit 11 admitted into evidence which is a copy of the ordinary high water lines survey of Bradley Lake and Little Lake. This study established the ordinary high water line elevation for Bradley Lake at 42.75 feet and for Little Lake at 41.75 feet. Areas where cypress trees were observed to have been cut in the operations of Lovett and the Respondent showed that in Little Lake the maximum elevation for those cuttings was 40.3 feet and at Lake Bradley the maximum elevation was at 41.4 feet. Both of these measurements are below the ordinary high water line elevation for those two water bodies. This confirms that Lovett and the Respondent were destroying and taking products belonging to the State which were below the ordinary high water line and within the boundaries of the sovereign's ownership. Due to the special nature of Lake Tsala Apopka, DNR was unable to establish with exactitude the high ordinary high water line for Lake Tsala Apopka. They were able to approximate that line at 42.75 feet in a setting where the maximum elevation of cuttings of cypress within that lake were found at 41.2 feet.
The Issue At issue in these consolidated proceedings is whether certain development orders (permits) issued by Monroe County to the respondents, as owners and Your Local Fence, Inc., as contractor, for the construction of fences in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern are consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact The parties Respondents, Charles and Kathleen Moorman (Moorman), Nicholas and Jean Hornbacher (Hornbacher), James and Kathryn Daniels (Daniels), and Raymond and Rosemarie McRae (McRae), are the owners of certain real property, described more full infra, that is located within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern and the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, and upon which they have received development orders (permits) from Monroe County to erect fences. Respondent, Your Local Fence, Inc. (Your Local Fence), is a business owned by Mr. Moorman and is the contractor that applied for the permits on behalf of the Moormans, Hornbachers and Daniels. The McRaes applied for their own permit, and proposed to install the fence themselves. Respondent, Monroe County, is a local government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern designated by Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for the implementation of, and the issuance of development orders that are consistent with, the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, as approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and all rules promulgated thereunder. Section 380.031(18) and 380.032(1), Florida Statutes. Here, the Department has filed a timely appeal to the issuance of the subject permits, and contends that construction of the fences authorized by such permits is inconsistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. The Moorman permit The Moormans are the owners of Lots 15, 16 and half of Lot 17, Block D, Pine Heights Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property is located within, and surrounded by, native pine lands; natural habitat for the Key Deer. On March 20, 1991, Monroe County issued to the Moormans, as owners, and Your Local Fence, as contractor, building permit No. 9110002231 to construct a fence on the foregoing property. As permitted, the fence would be constructed of wood to a height of 6 feet and, except for a front setback of 25 feet, would completely enclose the Moormans' property. So constructed, the fence would measure 125 feet along the front and rear of the property and 75 feet along the side property lines for a total of 400 linear feet. The Hornbacher permit The Hornbachers are the owners of Lot 23, Block 3, Eden Pine Colony Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property is located on a cul-de-sac, at the terminus of a dead end street, and is bordered on the north and west by a canal and on the east by a neighbor's fence. On May 20, 1991, Monroe County issued to the Hornbachers, as owners, and your Local Fence, as contractor, building permit No. 9110002807 to construct a fence along the south side of their property. As permitted, the fence would be chainlink construction, 4 feet high, and would extend from their neighbor's fence on the east, around that portion of their property that abuts the cul-de- sac, and then along their southern boundary to the canal. So constructed, the fence would run a total of 90 linear feet. The Daniels permit The Daniels are the owners of Lots 1 and 2, Block 72, Port Pine Heights Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property, when acquired by the Daniels, was bounded on three sides by a 4-foot high chainlink fence and along the rear by a canal. On July 17, 1991, Monroe County issued to the Daniels, as owners, and Your Local Fence, as contractor, building permit No. 9110003165 to construct a fence along the rear portion of their property that abuts the canal. As permitted, the fence would be of chainlink construction, 4 feet high, and run a total of 158 linear feet. The McRae permit The McRaes are the owners of Lot 6, Block 17, Port Pine Heights Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property is bordered on the north and south by vacant lots, and on the west by a canal. On June 12, 1991, Monroe County issued to the McRaes, as owners and contractors, building permit No. 9110002853 to construct a fence along the front, as well as the north and south sides of their property. As permitted, the fence would be of chainlink construction, 4 feet high, and, except for a set back of 29.5 feet, would enclose the front and side property lines of the property. So constructed, the fence would run a total of 157 linear feet. Consistency of the permits with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations Big Pine Key is the primary habitat of the Key Deer, an endangered species, and Monroe County has designated most of Big Pine Key, including the properties at issue in these proceedings, as an area of critical county concern. Pertinent to this case, Section 9.5-479, Monroe County Land Development Regulations (MCLDR), provides: Purpose: he purpose of the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern is to establish a focal point planning effort directed at reconciling the conflict between reasonable investment backed expectations and the habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer which is listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Focal Point Planning Program: Monroe County shall initiate a focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern that considers the following: The reasonable investment backed expectations of the owners of land within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical Concern; The habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer; The conflicts between human habita-tion and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; The role and importance of fresh-water wetlands in the survival of the Florida Key Deer; Management approaches to reconciling the conflict between development and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; and Specific implementation programs for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. The focal point planning program shall be carried out by the director of plan-ning, in cooperation with the officer in charge of the National Key Deer Refuge. The planning program shall include a public participation element, and shall provide for notice by publi-cation of all public workshops or hearings to the owners of land within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern The focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern shall be completed with-in twelve (12) months of the adoption of this chapter, and the director of planning shall submit a report together with recommended amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and this chapter within thirty (30) days after the completion of the focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern Interim Regulations: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no development shall be carried out on the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern prior to the completion of the focal point planning program required by subsection C of this section and the adoption of amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and this chapter except in accordance with the following No development shall be carried out in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern except for single-family detached dwellings on lots in the Improved Subdivision District or on lots having an area of one (1) acre of more. And, Section 9.5-309, MCLDR, provides: It is the purpose of this section to regulate fences and freestanding walls in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare * * Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern: No fences shall be erected here until such time as this chapter is created to provide for the regulation of fences within this ACCC. The foregoing land development regulations were adopted by Monroe County to further and implement the standards, objectives and policies of the Monroe County comprehensive plan. Here, such regulations further the plan's "Generic Designations and Management Policies," contained within the plan's "Criteria for Designating Areas of Particular Concern," to maintain the functional integrity of habitat and, more particularly, the requirement that: Development within areas identified as Key Deer habitat shall insure that the continuity of habitat is maintained to allow deer to roam freely without impediment from fences or other development. Rule 28-20.020(8), Generic Designations, subparagraph 4, Florida Administrative Code. Over the course of the past five years, Monroe County has discussed design criteria for fences on Big Pine Key but has not yet adopted a regulation that would provide for fences within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, as mandated by Section 9.5-309, MCLDR, nor has Monroe County amended Section 9.5-479, MCLDR, to permit, pertinent to this case, any development except single-family detached dwellings on lots in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. Under such circumstances, it must be concluded that the subject permits issued by Monroe County for the construction of fences in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern are not consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Extra legal action and the applicants voiced rationale for fencing their properties Notwithstanding express knowledge by the Moormans, Hornbachers, Daniels and Your Local Fence, that the subject permits were not effective until expiration of the time within the Department was authorized to appeal their issuance, the Moorman, Hornbacher and Daniels fences were erected by Your Local Fence. However, the McRaes, likewise knowledgeable about the time delay in the effectiveness of their permits, abided by existent law, and deferred erecting their fence pending resolution of this dispute. At hearing, proof was offered by the applicants to explain why they desired to fence their property. Proof was also offered to explain why the Hornbachers and Daniels felt a sense of exigency to erect their fences, and why they prevailed on Your Local Fence to erect such fences in the face of express notice from Mr. Moorman (the principal of Your Local Fence) that the permits were not effective and subject to appeal by the Department. According to the Hornbachers, the purpose for their fence was to keep stray dogs and their "leavings" from the yard, to keep the Key Deer that populate the area from eating their vegetation, and to keep uninvited persons and vehicles from entering their property. The later reason was of particular import to the Hornbachers since they were about to leave for their annual vacation in Michigan, and strangers had entered onto their property during their prior absences. Therefore, to provide their residence with a degree of security, they insisted the fence be installed before they left, and before their permit was effective. According to the Daniels, the purpose for their fence was primarily to provide a secure environment for their children.2 In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the Daniels are both police officers with the City of Key West and work the same shift; that they have three children, ages, 7, 4, and 2, that reside at the home and are cared for by an elderly woman in their absence; and that the canal that abuts their backyard, as well as an existent boatramp, represents a potential hazard to the children's safety. Cognizant of such hazard, which was magnified by one child having already slipped down the boat ramp, the Daniels insisted that the fence be installed, and Your Local Fence acquiesced, before their permit was effective. The Moormans offered no compelling reason for having erected their fence prior to the effective date of their permit, but did espouse its purpose. According to Mr. Moorman, the purpose for their fence was to keep the neighbors' two children from playing under his house where he had installed a hot tub, and to keep the Key Deer that populate the area from entering his property and eating any vegetation he might choose to cultivate. According to the McRaes, who have not yet erected their fence, they desire a fence to prevent neighbors' dogs from leaving "droppings" in their yard, and to keep the Key Deer from eating their plants. While each of the applicants have articulated logical reasons to fence their yards, such reasons are not relevant where, as here, the permits were issued as of right. Rather, with regard to the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, the erection of fences is strictly prohibited until such time as the plan and regulations are amended to allow such use.3 Other considerations At hearing, Mr. Moorman offered proof that the Department had failed to appeal every fence permit issued by Monroe County in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, and contended, as a consequence of such failure, that the Department should be precluded from contesting the issuance of the subject permits. Mr. Moorman's contention is not, however, persuasive. Here, the proof demonstrates that the Department's Key West Field Office, to which Monroe County renders its permits, was established in 1983, and that from January 1, 1984 to September 15, 1986, the Monroe County land development regulations did not regulate fences on Big Pine Key and the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern (BPKACCC) did not exist. Effective September 15, 1986, the Monroe County land development regulations were adopted in their current form and, among other things, created the BPKACCC and prohibited fencing within such area. Accordingly, prior to September 15, 1986, there was no prohibition against erecting fences in the BPKACCC, and no reason for the Department to question the propriety of such develop-ments.4 Since the effective date of the current regulations, the Department has, as contended by Mr. Moorman, failed to appeal some permits for fencing in the BPKACCC. Such failure was, however, persuasively shown to have occurred as a consequence of severe understaffing, which inhibited the Department's ability to review all permits issued by Monroe County in a timely fashion (i.e., before the appeal period expired), and the breach of a memorandum of understanding entered into between the Department and Monroe County, and not as a consequence of any position adopted by the Department that fencing in the BPKACCC was permissible. Accordingly, the Department's appeal of the subject permits is not inconsistent with any position it has previously taken with regard to the propriety of fencing in such area.5 Moreover, neither the applicants nor Your Local Fence made any inquiry of the Department as to why some permits were appealed and others were not, or requested that the Department waive its appeal period, prior to erecting their fences. Under such circumstances, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the Department misled any applicant so as to bar it from contesting the propriety of the subject permits, and those who chose to erect their fences knowing their permits were not yet effective acted at their peril.6
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order reversing Monroe County's decision to issue building permit Nos. 9110002231, 9110002807, 9110002853, and 9110003165, and deny the applications of the Moormans, Hornbachers, McRaes, and Daniels, as owners, as well as your Local Fence, as contractor, where pertinent, for such permits. It is further recommended that such final order specify that there are no changes in the subject proposals that would make them eligible to receive the permits as requested. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of April 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of Division of Administrative Hearings this 30 day of April 1992.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County (Monroe County), is a local government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern designated by Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for implementation of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations, as approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Between January 6, 1988, and January 12, 1988, Monroe County cleared, graded and filled a .6 mile stretch of road between Key Deer Boulevard and Ixora Road on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. As sited, the project was within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern and the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge, and altered the character of the road from a private access road, which provided a right of ingress and egress for the landowners within Pine Key Acres Section 1 (Pine Key Acres), to a public collector road, which was capable of carrying traffic from local roads outside Pine Key Acres to major thoroughfares. On January 29, 1988, the Department issued a notice of violation to Monroe County which, among other things, directed Monroe County to cease work on the road project and to conform its activities to the land development regulations approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Monroe County filed a timely request for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and contended that the road work constituted routine maintenance or improvement of an existing road and, therefore, did not constitute development as defined by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. The Project at Issue The road work at issue in this case was constructed along the easterly .6 mile portion of the proposed right-of-way for the Cross Big Pine Key Arterial Access Road (Arterial Road). That Arterial Road would run east and west approximately 1.2 miles, through a corridor located approximately one-half mile north of and parallel to US 1, and would provide the developed residential areas of Big Pine Key, located at the extreme east and west ends of the proposed road, with an alternate to travel on US 1 to reach the central shopping area located immediately north of US 1 on Key Deer Boulevard. As proposed, the right-of-way follows a corridor along a 50-foot wide private easement, within which existed poorly maintained private access roads. The property north and south of these dirt roads, with the exception of a prison located at the southwest corner of the right-of-way and Key Deer Boulevard, is sparsely developed with single family residences, is natural habitat for the Key Deer, and is located immediately south of the main reservation of the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge. The Arterial Road was conceived in 1985, following a six-month study by a Tripartisan Road Committee formed at the suggestion of County Commissioner Ed Swift to study alternate routes to move traffic across the island that would avoid the congestion experienced on US 1. The committee, composed of three members each from the Lower Keys Chamber of Commerce, Big Pine Civic Association, and Big Pine Concerned Citizens, ultimately recommended the proposed route to Monroe County in July 1985. This recommendation was made without benefit of a professional traffic study or environmental study to assess the need for or impact of the road. Monroe County approved the recommended route in July 1985, and authorized the committee to contact the landowners who held title to the land underlying the proposed right-of-way and to see if they could be persuaded to deed such property to the county for construction of the road. As previously noted, the proposed right-of-way followed a 50-foot wide private easement, and the landowners to the north and south of the proposed right-of-way owned, respectively, 25 feet of such lands, subject to the private access easement for adjacent land owners. In 1986, as the committee was endeavoring to acquire title to the right-of-way on behalf of Monroe County, Monroe County was developing its comprehensive plan and land development regulations for submittal to the Department as required by Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, the plan and regulations contained no reference to the Arterial Road and permitted only one single family residence per gross acre in suburban residential areas, and excluded public rights-of-way from that calculation. Accordingly, since the lots along the proposed right-of-way were largely one- acre lots, including the 25 foot easement, the lot owners were at peril of rendering their lots unbuildable if they deeded such portions of their lands to the county. To alleviate this impediment, Monroe County, at some time prior to February 23, 1986, "assured" the committee that credit for the square footage deeded to the county would be included in calculating the size of the lot for building purposes. On February 28, 1986, Monroe County adopted its comprehensive plan and land development regulations (Land Use Plan), and forwarded them to the Department for review. On September 15, 1986, the County's Land Use Plan was approved by the Administrative Commission by rule and became effective. The Land Use Plan adopted by Monroe County and approved by the Administration Commission contained no reference or description of the proposed Arterial Road. It further permitted only one single family residence per gross acre in suburban residential areas, and still excluded public right-of-way from that calculation. On June 6, 1986, while its Land Use Plan was pending Department and Commission approval, Monroe County, in apparent recognition of the adverse impact its Land Use Plan would have on lot owners along the proposed road, adopted Ordinance No. 019-1986. Pertinent to this case, the ordinance provided: Section 1. Where a dedication is made for a county road and accepted by the county, the property so dedicated shall be taken into account by the proper county authorities and credited to the dedicating property owner for the purpose of computing density and/or area when and if the property owner applies for an improvement permit for the property. This ordinance was never submitted to the Department for approval, and was not a part of the Land Use Plan approved by the Administration Commission on September 15, 1986. Despite the fact that the Arterial Road was not included in the transportation element or any other element of its comprehensive plan, Monroe County engaged the services of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan to prepare the proposed right-of-way map for the proposed road. This map was prepared and filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Monroe County, on March 26, 1987. On February 2, 1988, Monroe County adopted Resolution No. 059-1988 to "address" its failure to include the Arterial Road in its Land Use Plan. Pertinent to this case, that resolution provided: WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County adopted a Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations on February 28, 1986, and said Plan and Regulations became effective on September 15, 1986, and WHEREAS, Section 13-101(E) of the Land Development Regulations provides that the Board of County Commissioners may correct typographical and drafting errors in the Regulations at any regular meeting without posted notice or public hearing provided that notice of such corrections is transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs within thirty days of the adoption of such corrections: now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1. The proposed "Cross Big Pine Key Arterial Access Road" is consistent with the transportation element of the Monroe County Comprehensive Master Land Use Plan, and by prior vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, was identified as a proposed road to be incorporated in the Monroe County Comprehensive Master Land Use Plan as a secondary collector road. Section 2. This Resolution correcting scrivener's errors and omissions described in section one shall be construed nunc pro tunc to February 28, 1986. Section 3. That the Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to provide notice of the adoption of this Resolution to the Department of Community Affairs within thirty days of adoption and the correct (sic) be appropriately noted in the permanent records of Monroe County relating to the Land Use Plan and Maps. This resolution was never submitted to the Department, and consequently never approved by it. By January 6, 1988, Monroe County had received quit claim deeds to the land underlying the 50-foot right-of-way from all the land owners along that portion of the proposed route lying east of Key Deer Boulevard to the intersection of Ixora and Hibiscus Roads, except the Trustees of the internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) which owned the land underlying the area immediately prior to and at the intersection of the proposed road and Key Deer Boulevard. 1/ No proof was offered at hearing that the County had received any deeds for the right-of-way of the proposed road from its intersection with Key Deer Boulevard west to its terminus at Ships Way, and no construction has been undertaken along that .6 mile stretch of roadway. The right-of-way acquired by Monroe County had been in existence since it was created in 1973 as a private easement and dedicated to the landowners in Pine Key Acres for use as a road for ingress and egress. 2/ The road the developer constructed at that time was of limited stature, and consisted of a 30-foot wide simple fill road through the pine woods that characterize the area. Over the years, the landowners did not maintain the road, and it sank into a severe state of disrepair. Consequently, when the road was acquired by Monroe County it was severely potholed and rutted, partly overgrown with vegetation, and of insufficient width to allow the passage of cars in some areas. At the extreme easterly end of the road, where it now connects with the intersection of Ixora and Hibiscus Roads in the Whispering Pines Subdivision, a dump existed which contained tree stumps from the original creation of the road, and discarded refrigerators, air conditioners, cars and construction debris. This debris severely restricted the access to the road at its eastern terminus, and few ventured through it from the developed easterly part of Big Pine Key. Because of the limited access to the road at its eastern terminus, its severe state of disrepair, and the few residences that existed along its length, the easement running from Key Deer Boulevard to Wilder Road and from Wilder Road to Ixora Road received little traffic. What traffic it did receive was, because of the road's character, required to travel at an exceedingly limited speed. On January 6, 1988, Monroe County commenced construction on the subject road between Key Deer Boulevard and Ixora Road. While such construction did not conform to the design or construction standards for the Arterial Road evidenced by the proposed right-of-way map filed by the County, the compelling proof demonstrates that it does conform to and is in furtherance of the County's announced desire to construct an alternative access road at the subject location. Accordingly, while not the Arterial Road evidenced by the proposed right-of-way map filed by the County, the subject road is in furtherance of the County's plan to create such a road, albeit of a different design and construction standard than evidenced by the proposed right-of-way map. 3/ Between January 6 and 12, 1988, Monroe County's surveyor staked the centerline of the road right-of-way, and within 15 feet on either side of the centerline the County's work crews laid down a new bed of fill from Key Deer Boulevard to Ixora Road, rolled it, and would have applied a paving material but for the Department's cease and desist order. In the process, the County cleared vegetation from the right-of-way. At the eastern terminus of the road, the County also removed the debris from the dump area, and connected the road to the residentially developed areas of eastern Big Pine Key. In so doing, the county "straightened out the edges of the road" (created a road where it no longer existed because of lack of maintenance), and created a public access road from Ixora Road to Key Deer Boulevard capable of handling traffic at significant speeds. Notably, a portion of that roadway was created over the lands of the Trustees, to which Monroe County held no title and, overall, upon lands dedicated as a private access way. Monroe County undertook the aforementioned work without benefit of a building permit or certificate of compliance, and, accordingly, never rendered such a permit or certificate to the Department. 4/ Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern Section 11-109, Monroe County Land Development Regulations, establishes the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern (Area of Critical Concern), and provides: Purpose. The purpose of the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern is to establish a focal point planning effort directed at reconciling the conflict between reasonable investment backed expectations and the habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer which is listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Focal Point Planning Program. 1. Monroe County shall initiate a focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern that considers the following: The reasonable investment backed expectations of the owners of land within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical Concern; The habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer; The conflicts between human habitation and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; The role and importance of freshwater wetlands in the survival of the Florida Key Deer; Management approaches to reconciling the conflict between development and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; and Specific implementation programs for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. Interim Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these land development regulations, no development shall be carried out on the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern prior to the completion of the focal point planning program required by Section C of this designation and the adoption of amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and these land development regulations except in accordance with the following: 1. No development shall be carried out in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern except for single family detached dwellings on lots in the Improved Subdivision District or on lots having an area of one (1) acre of more. To date, the focal point planning program has not been completed by Monroe County, and that portion of the subject road running between Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road is within the Area of Critical Concern. The Florida Key Deer is a unique species of deer listed as endangered by both the state and federal government. The official estimate of the total population of these deer is 250-300, most of which live on Big Pine Key. The federal government has designated most of Big Pine Key as the National Key Deer Refuge, including the area through which the subject road runs. The area surrounding this road is prime habitat for the Key Deer because of the large number of endemic plants that are necessary elements of the Key Deer's diet. The primary threat to the continued existence of the Key Deer is the destruction of habitat and road kills (the killing of the animal by a motor vehicle). Construction of the subject road will adversely impact the Key Deer's chance of survival since it bisects the deer's natural foraging area, and will permit high speed travel and increased traffic across a road that previously accommodated limited local traffic at moderate speeds. Maintenance or development? Pertinent to this case, Sections 6-101 and 6-102, Monroe County Land Development Regulations (MCLDR) provide that no "development" may occur within the county except pursuant to a building permit and upon the issuance of a certificate of compliance with existing development regulations. "Developer" and "development" are defined by Section 3.101, MCLDR, as follows: DEVELOPER means any person, including a governmental agency, undertaking any development as defined in this Plan. DEVELOPMENT means the carrying out of any building activity, the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land or water.... * * * (c) For the purpose of these regulations the following operations or uses shall not be taken to involve "development": * * * (4) A change in the ownership or form of ownership of any parcel.... * * * (6) ... the maintenance of public rights of way and private accessways existing on the effective date of these Land Development Regulations or approved private rights of way. At hearing, Monroe County contended that the work it undertook on the subject road was not "development", as defined by the MCLDR because it constituted "maintenance" of a private accessway existent when its Land Use Plans became effective. Based on the findings which follow, Monroe County's contention is rejected. The 50 strips of land that Monroe County took title to was burdened with "an easement for the purpose of use as a road for ingress and egress into and from Pine Key Acres Section 1, Page 1," and dedicated to all the lot owners in Pine Key Acres. The simple fill road established in 1973, and still existent, through in disrepair, when the County's Land Use Plan became effective, was a private accessway designed and maintained, if at all, to provide access to Pine Key Acres property, of relatively low average traffic volume, of limited continuity and not for through traffic. As such, although a private accessway, the road meets the definition of "local road," as defined by 16-21(5), Monroe County Code. By the work already performed by the County on the subject road, it has changed the character and function of the roadway from a local road, primarily used by residents who lived along its length, to a "collector road." As such, the road now gathers an increased traffic volume from local roads within the eastern subdivisions of Big Pine Key, and moves it at increased speeds to arterial roads, which are, like Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road, main traffic arteries carrying relatively heavy volumes of traffic for long distances. Had the County not been halted from paving the road, the change in character and function would have been intensified. Because the County's construction activities were not designed to maintain, and did not maintain, the character and function of the road as a private accessway, they cannot be considered as "maintenance" of a private accessway, but were "development" as that term is defined by the County's Land Use Plans. 5/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered requiring the following corrective actions: Monroe County cease any and all construction on the subject road and refrain from commencing any further construction to create an arterial access road on Big Pine Key until it has complied with the provisions of its Land Use Plan and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. That until such time as Monroe County has complied with its Land Use Plans and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, that it erect such barriers, signs or other impediments, or take such other action as may be necessary, to limit the volume and speed of traffic on the road it has developed to those conditions which existed prior to its development. Monroe County carry out the Big Pine Key focal point planning program as required by Section 11-109, MCLDR, and strictly adhere to and enforce section 11-109D, MCLDR, which prohibits development in the area of Critical County Concern, except for single family detached dwellings, until its land use regulations are amended in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of May 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1989.
Findings Of Fact On March 30, 1978, Lee County applied to the Department for permits pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, to improve the existing Daniels Road in Lee County, Florida, from a two lane unimproved facility to a two lane paved road. The project site is located in southeastern Lee County, Florida, and crosses Six Mile Cypress Swamp. The proposed improvement would require excavation of material from submerged lands of waters of the state to remove a part of the existing dirt roadbed, placing of fill material onto submerged lands of waters of the state to widen the existing roadbed, and construction of two concrete bridges and two variable crest weirs. After receipt of the application, the Department reviewed the application, and, after consultation with Lee County officials, recommended issuance of the requested permit subject to the following conditions: Elimination of a proposed bicycle path; Deletion of a proposed spreader ditch and the dredging necessary for that ditch; Formulation and submission to the Depart- ment by Lee County of an acceptable management plan and schedule for maintaining water levels and indigenous swamp communities within the swamp; Organization of a Melaleuca Control Committee, together with preparation and implementation of a program to eradicate melaleuca within the right- of-way; and Revegetation of willows in the construction area. In their Amended Petition, Petitioners contest the proposed issuance of the requested permit on grounds that the permit condition requiring development of an acceptable water management plan should be accomplished prior to issuance of the permit; that the long range environmental impact of the proposed project has not been assessed; that the application does not contain information sufficient to give reasonable assurances that it will no result in deterioration of water quality; that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the project will not have an adverse long-range impact on the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife, or other natural resources; that the aquifer recharge area adjacent to the proposed project will be substantially reduced; that sheet flow of overland water will be irretrievably altered; that land uses surrounding the Six Mile Cypress Swamp will contribute to deteriorating water quality; that elimination of the proposed bicycle path would deny Petitioners the right to utilize pedestrian, energy conserving and/or non-polluting transportation; and that the health and welfare of the Florida panther will be threatened by construction in the Six Mile Cypress Swamp which serves as habitat for this endangered species. Petitioners allege in their Amended Petition that their substantial interests would be affected ". . . in that Petitioner Joseph H. Burgess, a resident of Daniels Road, may suffer from downstream flooding as a result of issuing this permit." The Amended Petition alleged that Petitioner, Sierra Club - Calusa Group would be substantially affected by the proposed agency action in that they would ". . . be deprived of an area utilized for nature study . . .," in that the project would ". . . seriously impair the group's ability to study bird life and enjoy the natural scenic beauty of a presently relatively undisturbed area. . . ." The Amended Petition also alleged that Petitioners, Mary Ann Wallace and Joseph H. Burgess, would be substantially affected ". . . as nearby residents, who will be denied the right to enjoy a proposed regional park on the south side of Daniels Road in the Six Mile Cypress Swamp as a direct result of issuing this permit." Neither Joseph H. Burgess, Ellen Peterson, nor any representative testifying on behalf of Sierra Club - Calusa Group appeared or testified at the final hearing in this cause. The only named petitioners appearing and testifying at the final hearing were Mary Ann Wallace and Thomas Geary. Neither of these petitioners offered any testimony to establish that they owned property in Lee County, Florida, that they used any of the waters or other natural resources in the area of the Six Mile Cypress Swamp for nature study, recreation or other purpose, or that they would personally be injured or otherwise affected by issuance of the requested permit or the alleged environmental impacts arising therefrom. At the conclusion of Petitioners' case, the Department and Lee County moved to dismiss the Amended petition on grounds that Petitioners had failed to establish that their substantial interests would be affected by the proposed agency action as required by Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, which motions were granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, dismissing the Amended Petition in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Isaac Anderson, Esquire 2115 Main Street Suites A and B Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Brondstetter, Esquire Assistant Lee County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ELLEN PETERSON, et al., Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 78-1467 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and LEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondents. /
