Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of several acres of land which are a part of a platted subdivision in Orange Park, Florida. At an undisclosed date in 1979, Petitioner orally applied to the Clay County Health Department for septic tank permits for Lots 3, 4, 5N, and 5S. The only documentation submitted with his application was a site plan for Lot 5S. By letters of March 26 and 30, 1979, the Clay County Health Department advised the Petitioner that his application was denied because the lots were not in compliance with specified provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. By letter of May 3, 1979, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to contest the denial of his application. At the hearing, officials of the Clay County Health Department predicated the denial on the fact that the lots in question were not sufficiently large to permit the required setbacks imposed by law and regulation. (Testimony of Bray, Hickey, Exhibits 1-3) A stream runs in an easterly direction across the property in question to the St. Johns River which lies approximately 300 years to the east of the property. A curved extension of the stream located on Lot 4 has been filled at some time in the past. A pond is located at the center of Lots 5N and 5S. The size of the lots vary from over one-third to less than one-half acre. The City of Orange Park has a 20 foot wide easement on both sides of the stream bed for maintenance purposes. The easement precludes the construction of permanent structures but does not proscribe other uses of the land area. There is not a public water supply or sewage disposal system available at the present time, although an artesian well located on adjacent Lot 2 provides water for homes which have previously been constructed on that lot and adjacent Lot 1. It is adequate to supply water needs of the lots in question. However, local health officials informed Petitioner that the artesian well cannot be used as a central water supply for the additional lots. Petitioner proposes to install individual septic tanks and drainage fields on each of the lots. Service easements are also located on Lots 4,5, and 5S. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibits 1,4) By exclusion of the easement area on all four lots, together with the pond area of 4,000 square feet on Lot 5N and 3,000 square feet on Lot 5S, the remaining land area of Lots 3 and 4 is more than one-third but less than one- half acre each in size. Lot 5S is slightly less than one-quarter acre in size. Lot 5D is slightly less than one-quarter after exclusion of the pond and easement area. (Testimony of Bray, Exhibit 4) There is sufficient area in Lots 3 and 4 to provide for set back requirements for individual sewage disposal facilities, i.e., not within five feet of property line or within fifty feet of the high water line of lakes, streams, or other waters, as provided in Rules 10D-6.24(3) and (4), F.A.C., respectively. There is sufficient area in Lots 5N and 5S to meet the above setback requirements when consideration is given to the area necessary for septic drain fields. (Testimony of Bray, Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for septic tank permits be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Woolverton 3551 St. Johns Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire District IV Counsel Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's signs, located in Lafayette County, are illegal and should be removed. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE MATTERS At formal hearing, Petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), moved, ore tenus, for the consolidation of these two cases. The motion was granted and these two cases are consolidated. The DOT presented the testimony of Glenel Bowden and Tom Brown, together with 7 exhibits admitted in evidence. Respondent, Jim Hollis (Hollis) presented his own testimony and that of Rosa Falconer. The parties waived filing of a transcript and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Hollis is the owner of two signs in Lafayette County. One is located on U.S. 27, 3.3 miles north of State Road 349. The other is located on U.S. 27, 4.7 miles south of State Road 51. Both signs advertise Jim Hollis' River Rendezvous. Hollis has no permit for either sign. U.S. 27 is a federal-aid primary highway. Both signs are approximately 55 feet from U.S. 27 and are visible from U.S. 27. Signs may be permitted along a federal-aid primary highway only in commercial or industrial zoned areas or in commercial or industrial unzoned areas if there are three or more separate and distinct industrial or commercial uses within a 1600-foot radius of each other. Lafayette County has not enacted zoning, therefore the area where the signs are is unzoned. There are not three commercial or industrial uses within a 1600-foot radius of either sign, therefore the location of the signs is not an unzoned commercial or industrial area. Glenel Bowden, Outdoor Advertising Inspector for DOT, first discovered the signs in March, 1987. He verbally requested that the signs be removed. When the signs were not removed, DOT filed and served Notice to Show Cause on each sign, Notice Nos. 87-5-B and 87-5-A, respectively (resulting in Case No.'s 87-1737T and 87-1738T, respectively). Hollis does not believe he should be denied the right to leave his signs in place, but presented no evidence to respond to DOT's prima facie showing that the signs are not permitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding the two signs at issue to be illegal and ordering their removal. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 15th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire 511 North Ferncreek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mr. Jim Hollis 5107 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32807 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attention: Eleanor F. Turner
The Issue Did Respondent, Universal City Development Partners (Universal), discharge Petitioner, Kevin D. Fischer, because of his age? Did Respondent, Universal City Development Partners (Universal), discharge Petitioner, Kevin D. Fischer, because of a handicap or a perception that he had a handicap?
Findings Of Fact Universal operates a theme park in Orlando, Florida. Universal employed Mr. Fischer as an Industrial Automation Technician (Electrical) for approximately 20 years. From May 27, 2011, until June 15, 2011, Mr. Fischer was on approved medical leave. After that, he returned to work with no activity restrictions. Mr. Fischer's date of birth is July 2, 1960. Universal discharged Mr. Fischer on July 11, 2011. Universal discharged Mr. Fischer for failure to properly clean a bilge pump on June 26, 2011, and for falsely certifying that he had cleaned the pump. Cleaning the pump was a preventative maintenance procedure that Mr. Fischer had performed for most of his career with Universal. The pumps are in the bilge or bottom of the boats used in Universal's Jaws ride. Each boat carries approximately 48 passengers around an artificial island in a man-made lagoon. The ride simulates the experience passengers might have boating in the waters depicted in the movies "Jaws" while the shark swam the waters. The boats ride on rails and are moved about by hydraulic arms. The bilge pumps are important protection for the $8,500.00, engines in the boats. If the pumps fail, water accumulates in the bilge and can cause very costly damage to the engines. On June 26, 2011, Mr. Fischer worked from 6:00 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. His duties that day included cleaning and servicing three bilge pumps. Mr. Fischer completed Universal's standard preventive maintenance form confirming he had cleaned and serviced the pumps. Mr. Christopher Cole, a former supervisor, examined the pumps after Mr. Fischer's shift ended. They had not been properly cleaned. The float switches were caked with sludge. If properly cleaned, they would not have been. The float switch is critical to operation of the pump. It turns the pump on when water reaches an unacceptable level in the bilge. Ricky Stienker, Mr. Fischer's supervisor at the time, terminated Mr. Fischer on July 11, 2011, for failure to properly clean the pumps and falsely representing that he had cleaned them. In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Fischer's annual reviews rated him as less effective. Then in 2010, the review rated Mr. Fischer as highly valued. But during his career, Mr. Fischer had received eight different counselings for poor performance. Mr. Fischer used Universal's appeal process to contest his discharge. David Winslow, senior vice president of the Technical Services Division, denied his appeal. There is no credible evidence of offenses committed by other employees of any age or physical condition that were similar to Mr. Fischer's failure to properly clean the pumps and his misrepresentation that he had cleaned them. Universal's employee handbook includes a clear policy requiring employees to be honest and trustworthy in all of their business activities and relationships. It also, clearly states that acts of dishonesty are grounds for immediate discharge. Mr. Fischer received the employee handbook when he began employment with Universal. Mr. Fischer has diabetes. His previous supervisor, Mr. Cole, knew this because he had observed Mr. Fischer taking medication that Mr. Cole also took. Mr. Cole also has diabetes and has had it for approximately 25 years. Mr. Cole did not perceive having diabetes as a handicap. There is no evidence that Mr. Stienker, who made the decision to discharge Mr. Fischer, knew Mr. Fischer had diabetes. There is no persuasive, credible evidence that Mr. Fischer had a handicap or that his supervisors or any management employee of Universal perceived Mr. Fischer as having a handicap. Consequently, there is no persuasive, credible evidence that a handicap or perception of handicap was a factor in Universal's discharge of Mr. Fischer. There is no evidence establishing who filled Mr. Fischer's position or the age of that person. There is no persuasive, credible evidence that Mr. Fischer's age was a factor in Universal's decision to discharge him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny Mr. Fischer's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 2012.
The Issue Whether the Appellant, Devoe L. Moore, has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that development rights in certain real property he owns have vested against the provisions of the Tallahassee-Leon County 2010 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property at Issue. On September 18, 1987, Devoe Moore acquired a tract of approximately 28 acres of real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), located on Lake Bradford Road just south of Gaines Street, in the City of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. The Property was the former location of the Elberta Crate and Box Company. The Property was at the time of purchase, and still is, zoned M-2, Industrial. Development of the Property. Mr. Moore intended to develop the Property consistent with the Property's M-2, Industrial zoning. Mr. Moore intended to build a service/commercial/mini-storage development similar to another such development of Mr. Moore in the City. In December, 1987, Mr. Moore had his engineer prepare grading and drainage plans for the Property. On January 29, 1988, Mr. Moore had an application for an amendment to a stormwater permit, Environmental Management Permit 87-1087, filed with the Leon County Department of Public Works. At that time, Leon County issued such permits for property in unincorporated areas and inside the City's limits. The grading and drainage plans for the Property were filed with the application. Leon County had not been delegated any responsibility or authority to make land-use decisions for the City. The requested amendment to Permit 87-1087 was based on an assumption of Mr. Moore that the Property would consist of 80% coverage with impervious surface. Therefore, the City was aware or should have been aware that Mr. Moore intended to construct a major development on the Property. Such a development was consistent with the zoning on the Property at the time. Neither Leon County nor the City, however, approved or in anyway addressed the issue of whether 80% coverage of the Property with impervious surface was acceptable. Nor did the City or Leon County make any representation to Mr. Moore different from that made by the City's zoning of the Property. Mr. Moore filed a site plan showing a development of 80% coverage with the application for amendment to Permit 87-1087. These plans showed a development consisting of thirteen rectangular buildings, driveways and parking area. The indicated development, however, was not reviewed or in anyway approved by Leon County or the City. On May 6, 1988, a Stormwater Permit, amending Permit 87-1087, was issued to Mr. Moore. This permit only approved the construction of a holding pond and filling on the Property. The issuance of the permit did not constitute approval of any proposed development of the Property. In 1988, Mr. Moore began clearing the Property of buildings on the Property which the City had condemned. Mr. Moore also began filling and grading the Property in 1988, and has continued to do so to varying degrees through July 16, 1991. From January 1989, through August, 1990, SANDCO placed 1,174 loads of fill on the Property. Jimmy Crowder Construction Company has also performed filling and grading work on the Property since 1988. As of the date the City's vesting ordnance was adopted and as of the date of the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings Mr. Moore has not completed filling on the Property. Mr. Moore also has not completed filtration improvements to the storm water hold pond to be constructed on the Property. Additional water treatment facilities on the Property must be constructed to handle runoff from the Property. No roadways, water services, sewer services or electric services have been constructed on the Property. Site preparation on the Property has not been completed so that construction of vertical improvements can begin. At the time that Mr. Moore acquired the Property, only building permits were required for the development of the Property. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Moore obtained the required building permits. The law was changed, however, to require approval of a site plan. Mr. Moore decided not to submit a site plan at least in part because of the City's work on the sewer main. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that Mr. Moore was prohibited by the City from obtaining site plan approval. The City has not approved or reviewed a site plan for the Property. At the time Mr. Moore purchased the Property, and continuing to the present, a City sewer main which runs along the southern border of the Property has been a problem. The sewer main is a health hazard because it is located in proximity to the surface of the ground and it has numerous leaks. The City indicated that it intended to build a new sewer main across the Property and Mr. Moore agreed to give the City an easement for the sewer main. After Mr. Moore purchased the Property and before February, 1989, Mr. Moore made a number of requests to the City that the City identify the easement it desired and prepare the easement grant so that the City could construct the new sewer main and Mr. Moore could proceed with his development. Requests were also made by some City employees of the City Attorney that the easement be prepared and executed because of the problem with the existing sewer main. In April, 1989, the easement grant was prepared and executed. On August 3, 1990, James S. Caldwell, Assistant Director of the City Water and Sewer Department, wrote the following letter to Mr. Moore: It has been brought to my attention that your are proceeding with construction of a stormwater holding pond on the referenced site [the Elberta Crate Site]. As discussed with you this date and as you are aware, the City has a sewer line on this property. The sewer line would be damaged by your construction activity. The City has designed a relocation and upgrade of the sewer line to be constructed on an easement previously acquired from you. Our schedule for the sewer line construction is completion by January 1, 1991. A review of your stormwater holding pond drawings and the proposed sewer line reveals a potential conflict between the proposed line and the holding pond. We shall have City staff stake out and flag the existing sewer line and the proposed sewer line. We are requesting that your construction activity stay away from the existing sewer line. After stakeout of the proposed sewer line, you may check your stormwater pond plans to assure that there is no conflict. [Emphasis added]. Mr. Moore was also told on other occasions to avoid interfering with the existing sewer line and the construction of the new sewer line. Construction of the new sewer main on the Property was not commenced until January, 1991. The construction had not been completed as of March, 1991. Part of the delay in completing the sewer main was caused by contemplated changes in the location of the sewer main and the possible need for a different easement. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Moore was told to cease all activity on the Property. Costs Incurred by Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore paid approximately $1,000,000.00 for the Property. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this cost was incurred in reliance upon any representation from the City as to the use the Property could be put other than the existing zoning of the Property. Mr. Moore spent approximately $247,541.22, for demolition of existing buildings, site clearing and grading, engineering costs, fill, permitting fees and partial construction of the stormwater management system for the Property. Mr. Moore also donated an easement to the City with a value of approximately $26,000.00. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that these expenditures were made in reliance upon any representation by the City as to the use to which the Property could be put other than the existing zoning of the Property and the stormwater management permit. Mr. Moore also incurred approximately $100,000.00 in expenditures similar to those addressed in the previous finding of fact for which Mr. Moore was unable to find documentation. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that these expenditures were made in reliance upon any representation by the City as to the use to which the Property could be put other than the zoning of the Property and the stormwater management permit. Development of the Property Under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moore's proposed development of the Property appears to meet the concurrency requirements of the Tallahassee-Leon County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moore's proposed development of the Property, however, appears to be inconsistent with the 2010 Plan because the Future Land Use Element district in which the Property is located does not permit industrial uses and the intended industrial use of the Property is incompatible with some of the uses to which adjacent property has been put. Procedure. Mr. Moore filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination prior to the filing of the application at issue in this proceeding. That application was denied by the City on October 16, 1991. In the first application Mr. Moore indicated that the Property was to be used for student housing. On or about November 13, 1991, Mr. Moore filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination (hereinafter referred to as the "Application") (Application VR0295T), with the City. "Devoe L. Moore" was listed as the owner/agent of the Property in the Application. It is indicated that the project at issue in the Application is "[i]ndustrial development of former Elberta Crate and Box Company site by Devoe L. Moore." "Progress . . . Toward Completion" is described as (1) Owner/contractor estimate; (2) Environmental Management Permit; (3) Site preparation from December, 1987, to the date the Application was filed; and (4) Construction of the stormwater system in 1990. In a letter dated February 6, 1991, Mr. Moore was informed that his Application was being denied. By letter dated February 18, 1991, Mr. Moore requested a hearing before a Staff Committee for review of the denial of his Application. On March 11, 1991, a hearing was held to consider the Application before the Staff Committee. The Staff Committee was comprised of Jim English, City Attorney, Mark Gumula, Director of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department and Buddy Holshouser, Director for the City's Growth Management Department. At the conclusion of this hearing the Staff Committee voted 2 to 1 to deny the Application. By letter dated March 19, 1991, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, informed Mr. Moore that the Application had been denied. By letter dated April 4, 1991, to Mr. Gumula, Mr. Moore appealed the decision to deny the Application. By letter dated July 3, 1991, the Division of Administrative Hearings was requested to provide a Hearing Officer to review this matter. By agreement of the parties, the undersigned allowed the parties to supplement the record in this matter on August 27, 1991. F. Other Projects Approved by the City. Mr. Moore submitted, without objection from the City, other vesting rights applications and final orders concerning such applications which were ultimately approved by the City. All of those cases are distinguishable from this matter. See the City's proposed finding of fact 30.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether a certain development order (permit) issued by Monroe County to George and Judy Sands, as owners, and PG Construction, Inc., as contractor, for the construction of a single family dwelling unit is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact The parties Respondents, George and Judy Sands (Sands), are the owners of Lot 15, Tropical Coral Reef Estates, Plantation Key, Monroe County, Florida; a property located within that part of Monroe County designated as an area of critical state concern, and upon which they have received a development order (permit) from Monroe County to construct a single family dwelling unit. Respondent, PG Construction, Inc., is the contractor that applied for the permit on behalf of the Sands. Respondent, 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 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 there-under. Sections 380.031(18) and 380.032(1), Florida Statutes. Here, the Department has filed a timely appeal to the issuance of the subject permit, and contends that construction of the dwelling unit is inconsistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations since it would exceed allowable density limitations. Background The subject property is approximately .45 acres, and was purchased by the Sands in January 1990. At the time of purchase, the property supported a concrete block residence, two bedrooms and one bath, of approximately 900 square feet and a wood-frame residence, two bedrooms and one bath, of approximately 625 square feet. Both buildings were constructed in 1948 and were, pertinent to this case, used by the Sands' predecessor in title as a principal residence prior to and as of the effective date of the Monroe County land development regulations (September 15, 1986). Following their acquisition of the property, the Sands undertook to upgrade both structures with the intention of offering use of the residences to employees of their business, which was located across the street from the property. 2/ Ultimately, however, the Sands decided to replace, rather than remodel, the wood-frame residence, and employed David de Haas-Grosseck (de Haas), a consultant and designer of residential properties, who was of the opinion that such replacement was permissible under the provisions of Section 9.5-268, Monroe County land development regulations (MCLDR), discussed infra, to attend the necessary details. 3/ On February 5, 1991, de Haas, on behalf of the Sands, filed an application with Monroe County for a building permit to construct a modular single family residence upon the property. Thereafter, the County advised de Haas that since the wood-frame structure was to be removed a demolition permit would also be required. Accordingly, on February 11, 1991, de Haas applied for a demolition permit to remove such structure. The demolition permit (permit number 9130002904) was issued by the County on February 11, 1991, and rendered to the Department on February 13, 1991. The building permit (permit number 9130002861) was issued by the County on February 25, 1991, and rendered to the Department on February 27, 1991. Under existing law, such permits were not effective until expiration of the time within which the Department was authorized to appeal their issuance, to-wit: 45 days after they were rendered to the Department. The Sands, having been expressly so advised by de Haas, were acutely aware of the limitations on their building permit. Consequently, the Sands requested a waiver of the Department's appeal period. By letter of March 21, 1991, the Department denied such request and stated: Dear Mr. Sands: Monroe County issued you permit number 913-2861 on February 25, 1991. The DCA received the permit on February 27, 1991. Therefore, the Department's 45-day appeal period expires on April 13, 1991. Subsequent to the issuance of the permit by the County, you requested a waiver of the DCA's appeal period. At this time, the Department declines to issue you the waiver. Changes or additional information may be needed to meet County Code requirements. Our concerns include that the proposed development exceeds the allowable density in a SS zoning district. DCA staff will continue to review your plans and the permit, which may warrant action by the Department . . . . Notwithstanding the Sands' express knowledge that their building permit was not effective, as well as express advice from the Department that it had concerns regarding the propriety of such development, the Sands, following the expiration of the Department's appeal period on their demolition permit, demolished the wood-frame structure on or about April 4, 1991. Thereafter, by petition filed with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission on April 12, 1991, the Department timely challenged the propriety of Monroe County's decision to issue the building permit. 4/ The Sands, notwithstanding express knowledge that their building permit was not effective pending the Department's appeal, proceeded to construct the modular unit on the property. Such unit is approximately 650 square feet in size, excluding the two enclosed screen porches which measure 10' X 20' each, and complies with current building code requirements. The Sands' decision to construct such unit pending appeal was voluntary, and they proceeded with such construction at their own risk considering the nature of this proceeding. Consistency of the building permit with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations The Sands property is located within what the Monroe County land development regulations (MCLDR) define as a sparsely settled residential land use district. The purpose of such district is stated in Section 9.5-209, MCLDR, to be as follows: . . . to establish areas of low density residential development where the predominate character is native or open space lands. Consistent with the purpose of such land use district, the Monroe County land development regulations permit, as of right, only the following uses: Detached residential dwellings; Beekeeping; Home occupations -- Special use permit requiring a public hearing; Accessory uses. Section 9.5-238(a), MCLDR. Moreover, consistent with the purpose of the district, the density or intensity of development is limited by Section 9.5-261, MCLDR. Pertinent to this case, 9.5-261, MCLDR, addresses the issue of land use intensity or density, and provides: No structure or land in Monroe County shall hereafter be developed, used or occupied at an intensity or density greater than the standards set out in this division. . . . And, Section 9.5-262, MCLDR, establishes the maximum residential density in a sparsely settled residential land use district at .5 dwelling units per acre. Accordingly, a minimum of two acres is required under the Monroe County land development regulations to permit, as of right, one detached residential dwelling. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.5-262, MCLDR, the Monroe County land development regulations provide an exception to the density limitations otherwise imposed by such section for certain dwelling units existent on the effective date of the regulations. Pertinent to this case, Section 9.5-268, MCLDR, provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9.5-262 . . . the owners of land upon which a dwelling unit . . . used as a principal residence prior to the effective date of the plan was lawful on the effective date of this chapter shall be entitled to a density allocation of one (1) dwelling unit for each such unit in existence on the effective date of this chapter. Here, the Department and Monroe County disagree as to the proper interpretation of the foregoing provision. The Department interprets such provision to apply only to the owner of such residence on the effective date of the plan. Under such interpretation, the density benefits offered by Section 9.5-268, MCLDR, would be lost where, as here, such owner sold the property. In contrast, Monroe County interprets such provision to essentially establish an allowable density on the effective date of the plan, and to accord subsequent owners the benefit of such increased density allocation. 5/ Such interpretation, while not the only possible interpretation, is not inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or clearly erroneous, and therefore permissible. 6/ Accordingly, the subject permit is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. 7/
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 affirming Monroe County's decision to issue building permit number 9130002861, and dismissing the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of June 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 the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June 1992.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are made upon the stipulation of the parties in the Prehearing Stipulation and in the course of the hearing: Respondents are developers of a condominium as defined by Section 718.103(14), Florida Statutes. Respondents are developers of The Somerset, a condominium located in Naples, Florida. The declaration of condominium for The Somerset was recorded in the public records of Collier County on or about August 27, 1979. No turnover review as prescribed by Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), was provided by the developer to the association within 60 days after the date of transfer of control of the association to non-developer unit owners, or has yet been provided to the association. On or about January 29, 1985, unit owners other than the developer had elected a majority of the members of the board of administration for The Somerset condominium. Letters of annual financial reports of actual receipts and expenditures were not furnished to unit owners following the end of the calendar years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984. No vote of the unit owners was taken to waive reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance for each of the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. The following findings of fact are made upon the evidence adduced at hearing. The turnover review and report mandated by Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes, must be prepared by a certified public accountant. Respondents sought the necessary review from the firm of Rogers, Hill and Moon, which had done the association's accounting prior to the turnover. However, Rogers- Hill was unable to perform the review in the required time. Respondents consulted with two other accounting firms, but neither could provide the turnover report. Respondents suggested to the President of the association that they would pay $1,000 to the association in lieu of the turnover report. The association accepted the offer. Respondents paid $1,000 to the association and gave the association all of Respondents' books, ledgers and receipts. Respondents did not promulgate and mail to unit owners proposed budgets of common expenses for the fiscal years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondents guaranteed that the assessments for common expenses imposed upon each unit owner would not exceed $75.00 per month from the date of recording the declaration of condominium until the date of turnover of control of the association. There were no meetings of unit owners of The Somerset condominium until time of the turnover. According to the original proposed budget, the items designated as reserve items were roof replacement, resurfacing, and painting. While Respondents maintain that they properly waived the funding of the reserve account for 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984, the only evidence offered to support their testimony is the minutes of the annual meeting for each year. However, the credibility of these documents is suspect. The minutes were admittedly all prepared by Respondents in 1985, well after the supposed annual meetings. For the years 1982, 1983 and 1984, David Davis II was a director. His name appears on the minutes as offered by Respondents. Yet, Davis says he did not attend an annual director's meeting in those 3 years. Davis also says that he never attended a director's meeting at which the funding of reserves was waived. In fact, Davis never attended a director's meeting at which a proposed budget was adopted. The minutes are inherently unreliable because they were created much later in time and appear to directly conflict with the testimony of Davis. The minutes are also self-serving. Accordingly, it is found that Respondents did not properly waive the funding of the reserve account for the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984. Respondents never disclosed to the unit owners that reserves were not funded. The reserve liability is $8,890.00, calculated at $8.75 per month per unit in Phase I (eight units) from August 31, 1979, and in Phase II (12 units) from November 13, 1981, plus all twenty units for the first quarter of 1985. The original budget allocates $8.75 of the assessments to reserves and the original documents (Section 8.2) specify that assessments are to be paid quarterly on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. Since the turnover occurred on January 29, 1985, the assessments for the first quarter had already been paid to Respondents. Respondents expended money for reserve-type expenses. Their Exhibit 5 shows reserve-type expenditures totalling $8,164.78. However, certain of these expenditures do not qualify as reserve-type expenses and must be excluded. Specifically, payments of $485.00 to David Chalfant for repairs to leaking windows, of $560.00 to Roy Hutchinson for repairs to doors which rotted out from the rain, and of $470 Bayside Sandblasting to repair steel doors and to sandblast stains on the sidewalk, are not reserve items (roof replacement, resurfacing and painting). Therefore, Respondents established that they paid $6,649.78 for reserve-type expenses. Petitioner argues that other items should be eliminated because they are not reserve-type expenses or because they were paid after turnover. These arguments are rejected and it is found that $6,649.78 for reserve-type expenses is accurate and should be offset against the reserve liability. Respondents owe the Association $2,240.22 in reserve funds. Paragraph 8.3 of the declaration of condominium for The Somerset provides: The Board shall, in accordance with Bylaws of the Association, establish an annual budget in advance for each fiscal year, which shall correspond to the calendar year, which shall estimate all expenses for the forthcoming year required for the proper operation, management and maintenance of the condominium. . . . Upon adoption of each annual budget by the Board, copies thereof shall be delivered to each unit owner, and the assessment for each year shall be based upon such budget. . . The unit owners were not notified of any Board of Directors meeting at which a proposed annual budget would be considered or adopted. Further no unit owner received copies of proposed annual budgets, except for the budget set forth in the prospectus with the original condominium documents. In fact, no formal meeting of the Board was held to adopt an annual budget.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominium and Mobile Homes, enter a Final Order and therein order Respondents to take the following actions: Obtain and furnish to the Association a turnover review as required by Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). Pay to the Association the sum of $2,240.22 for Respondents' liability for reserves. Pay to the Petitioner a civil penalty of $5,000.00, pursuant to Section 718.501(1)(d)4, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 10th day of December, 1986.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Sarasota Housing Authority (the Housing Authority), discriminated against Petitioner, Patricia Myers (Ms. Myers), based on her medical disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (the Act), and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Myers testified she began her participation in the Sarasota community with the Sarasota Office of Housing and Community Development (development program) approximately 14 and one-half years ago, because she was unable to join the Housing Authority, when she was living in Venice. Further she testified she has multiple health issues. Based on an October 1, 2010, merger of the development program and the Housing Authority, Ms. Myers's participation in the Section 8 program came under the authority of the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is a public housing authority that administers the Section 8 program, within Sarasota County, Florida. The Section 8 program is to assist low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford safe and sanitary housing in the private market. The Housing Authority is a municipal public housing authority, operated pursuant to chapter 421, Florida Statutes. Under the Section 8 program, the Housing Authority uses funds, supplied by HUD, to pay a percentage of the monthly expenses for its participants, within guidelines that have been established. Mr. Howard, a former director within HUD for the disabled community, testified that, when he was employed at HUD, and his office was contacted by Ms. Myers, he simply picked up the telephone and communicated with the appropriate housing authority, and the problems were resolved. However, Mr. Howard retired from HUD in 2007. Further he testified that he had not reviewed Ms. Myers's file with the Housing Authority, nor had he reviewed the Section 8 program guidebook or the Housing Authority's administrative plan. Mr. Howard did testify that the Housing Authority granted Ms. Myers's reasonable accommodation with respect to her annual or recertification housing inspection, in that the housing authority allowed Ms. Myers to have a telephone inspection of her rental unit.3/ Although Mr. Howard testified that he thought the Housing Authority failed when it did not allow all of Ms. Myers's medical expenses, he acknowledged that he lacked specific knowledge regarding Ms. Myers's case and the Housing Authority's programs and procedures. As such, Mr. Howard's testimony is not credible with respect to the specifics of Ms. Myers's case presentation. Mr. Howard further testified that he did not know how the Housing Authority arrived at the disallowance of Ms. Myers's medical deduction, yet he professed a superior judgment to the Housing Authority or the current Miami HUD field office. This position makes his testimony less than forthright. With the merger of the two programs (development program and the Housing Authority) on October 1, 2010, Ms. Myers was one of approximately 425 family units affected by the merger. Additionally, she was one of eight family units who were found to actually live in another county, yet be serviced by the Housing Authority. Since the Housing Authority took over, participation requirements are different from the development program, and all the participants were notified that their benefits would be reviewed at their recertification time. Ms. Myers testified that she received a letter from the Housing Authority stating why there was a change in her assistance payments. Ms. Myers testified that she has been paid approximately $2,000 of her requested $5,000 medical expenses. She believes she should be reimbursed for it all because she has medical sensitivities which are a lot different than other people's issues. Ms. Myers did testify she was not totally denied her medical reimbursement. Ms. Hoffman, the director of the Section 8 program, confirmed that the development program and the Housing Authority merged on October 1, 2010. At the time of the merger, the Housing Authority had created an operational document that related to how it would determine payments or benefits to all its clients, including the 425 new families. Ms. Hoffman confirmed that the development program participants were allowed to maintain those program benefits until they reached their individual recertification cycle. She testified that, when each participant came up for renewal, the Housing Authority had to review their benefits, including a review of all their income, assets, medical expenses, bank statements and related expenses. The Housing Authority has an administrative plan, a guidebook as to how it handles participants. This administrative plan is approved by the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Hoffman was involved in Ms. Myers’s recertification, in that she reviewed the documentation and determined what was approvable and what was not approvable. At first, there were several items that were not approved, such as non-VOC paints and an air purifier. However, after discussions with the Miami HUD field office, the Housing Authority agreed to give Ms. Myers the non-VOC paints and an air purifier with filters as a one-time expense. The Housing Authority utilized the approved calculation method to determine what prescriptions or non- prescription items could be paid. Although the Housing Authority initially denied all of Ms. Myers's requested supplemental assistance purchases, upon additional review, it determined to provide her a 25 percent credit for those purchases. The Housing Authority determined that all people on the program must have food; however, because she does pay more for organic foods, an allowance was made. The Housing Authority simply applied the approved financial formula to Ms. Myers's submitted financial documents to reach the 25 percent credit for her items. The Housing Authority did not engage in any discriminatory practice to reach this determination. On March 24, 2011, the Housing Authority notified Ms. Myers of its determination to grant her the reasonable accommodation with respect to the annual recertification of her rental unit inspection as well as the basis for the 25 percent allowance for items such as food, water, clothing, and bedding. Ms. Hoffman credibly testified that the HUD field office was fully aware of the Housing Authority's decision and direction with this matter. Although not listed in her July 1, 2011, Petition filed with the FCHR, Ms. Myers was reasonably accommodated by the Housing Authority with respect to her housing recertification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Patricia Myers in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 18th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the land development regulation adopted by Respondent, Town of Medley (Town), by Ordinance No. C-306 on September 6, 2005, is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record presented by the parties, the following undisputed findings of fact are determined: The Town appears on a map to be located in the northern part of Dade County, south of U.S. Highway 27 and east of the Florida Turnpike, and just south of the City of Hialeah Gardens and southwest of the City of Hialeah. Besides a Plan originally adopted in December 1988, and amended from time to time, the Town also has a Code containing its land development regulations. Waste Management owns and operates a landfill in the Town known as the Medley Landfill & Recycling Center located at 9350 Northwest 89th Avenue.4 Because the landfill has been in operation since 1952, or long before the Plan was adopted, the landfill is considered a nonconforming use under Section 62-61 of the Town's Code. On September 6, 2005, the Town adopted Ordinance C- 306 which amended Section 62-61 of the Code to create a new procedure for allowing the expansion of qualifying facilities operating as nonconforming uses. (Except for Section 62-61, which is found in the Town's land development regulations, there are no provisions in the Plan itself relating to nonconforming uses.) Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, Subsection 62-61(b) provided the following limitation on the expansion of nonconforming uses: (b) The lawful use of land existing at the time of the passage of this chapter, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this chapter may be continued; provided, however, that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased, nor shall any nonconforming use be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the passage of this chapter. Ordinance C-306 amended Subsection 62-61(b) as follows to allow for an exception to the rule against enlargement or expansion of nonconforming uses: (b) The lawful use of land existing at the time of the passage of this chapter, although such use does not conform to the provisions of this chapter, may be continued; provided, however, that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged or increased except as provided in subsection (d) hereof, nor shall any nonconforming use be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the passage of this chapter. To implement the exception against enlargement or expansion of nonconforming uses, the Ordinance further amended Section 62-61 by adding a new Subsection (d) to read as follows: (d) Any nonconforming use which serves as a Public Facility may be enlarged up to fifteen percent of the current building and/or land area of such use after formal approval by the Town Council via resolution according to the Municipal Code of Medley, Florida. Before approving such enlargement or increase the Town Council shall conduct at least two public hearings. The basis for calculation of such enlargement or increase shall exclude buildings and/or land areas not currently operating as a Public facility, though contiguous thereto. The new provision allows any nonconforming use which serves as a Public Facility to be enlarged or increased up to fifteen percent of its current building or land areas after formal approval by the Town Council by resolution. Because the Code did not define the term "Public Facilities," Ordinance C-306 amended Section 62-1 (the definitions portion of the Code) by adding a new Subsection (a), which reads as follows: "Public facilities" means major capital improvements, including, but not limited to, transportation, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, educational, parks and recreational, and health systems and facilities. As is evident from a reading of the definition, the term "public facilities" is not limited to solid waste facilities, but it also includes seven other types of public facilities. Gateway is the owner of real property commonly known as Medley Commerce Center, which is located in the Town immediately adjacent to and north of Waste Management's landfill. On October 6, 2005, Gateway filed a Petition with the Town alleging that the Ordinance was not consistent with the Plan in various respects. The Town did not respond to Gateway's Petition within thirty days after receipt of the Petition. Because no response was made by the Town, on November 7, 2005, Gateway filed a Petition with the Department requesting that the Department declare the Ordinance inconsistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan (Plan). See § 163.3213(3), Fla. Stat. The Petition referred to a Complaint filed in a circuit court case, Town of Medley v. Waste Management Inc. of Florida, Case No. 03-25832 CA 13, as stating the reasons for inconsistency. Although a copy of the Complaint was not attached to its Petition, Gateway later supplied the Department with a copy. After conducting an informal hearing on December 7, 2005, on February 21, 2006, the Department issued its Determination. In general terms, the Determination concluded that the concerns in Gateway's Petition should more appropriately be raised in a circuit court action under a different provision in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, through a challenge to any development order or approval that authorizes the expansion of a nonconforming public facility. See Determination, paragraph 17. On March 15, 2006, Gateway filed its Request with DOAH contending generally that the Ordinance was inconsistent with the Plan and that the Department had used the wrong legal standard in determining that the Ordinance was consistent with the Plan. The City, which appears on a map to lie directly south of the Town, shares a border with the Town in the area of Waste Management's landfill property. On February 9, 2006, the City filed a Petition with the Town seeking to have the Town declare that the Ordinance was inconsistent with its Plan. The Petition raised the same issues as did Gateway. On March 2, 2006, the Town provided a response to the Petition by asserting that the claim was barred by collateral estoppel due to the Department's Determination issued on February 21, 2006. The City then waived its right to have the Department conduct informal proceedings under Section 163.3213(4), Florida Statutes, and filed a Motion to Intervene and Incorporated Petition with DOAH on April 27, 2006. Although the City sought to intervene in Case No. 06-0918GM, the filing was treated as a new filing under Section 163.3213(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was assigned Case No. 06- 1548GM, and was consolidated with Gateway's case. Except for one additional consistency claim, discussed below, the filing raises the same issues as did Gateway. The purpose of Ordinance C-306, as expressed in Section 2 thereof, is as follows: PURPOSE: The limited increase or enlargement of nonconforming uses allowed by this ordinance is intended to further the goals, objectives and policies of the Town's Comprehensive Plan found in the Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element as well as the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. The Plan's Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element (Element) in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) identifies as its primary (and only) goal the "[p]rovision of needed public facilities in a manner that protects public and private investments in existing facilities and promotes compact urban growth." (Vol. IV, Record, page 603). Objective 1 of the same Element provides that an aim of the Plan is the "[p]rovision of sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage and potable water facilities and services to meet existing and projected demands identified in this Plan." Id. Policy 1.2 also indicates that the Town is to "[i]mplement procedures to ensure that adequate facility capacity is available or will be available at the time a new development permit is issued." Id.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners in this proceeding challenge the validity of Rule 10D- 6.23(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code, ("the rule"). The rule was included in a repromulgation of Chapter 10D-6, proposed readoption of which was noticed in the June 26, 1979, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly. A public hearing on the proposed adoption of new Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, was held on July 19, 1979. The proposed rule package which was noticed on June 26, 1979, in the Florida Administrative Weekly contained proposed Rule 10D-6.22(30), which provided as follows: Net usable acre--Shall mean lots having designated minimum area and dimensions contiguous to open lands, such as golf courses, parks and other open unused areas that are not subject to development, may be reduced by not more than ten (10) percent from those requirements in the chapter. This, however, excludes paved areas, rights of way [sic] consolidated building, foundation drainage, underground water drainage, streams, lakes, ditches, coastal waters, marshes [sic] from deriving this net usable acre. Respondent, in accordance with Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, listed Section 381.031(1)(g)(3), Florida Statutes, as "specific authority" for adoption of the rule. Proposed Chapter 10D-6 also contained Rule 10D-6.23(5)(g) which provided as follows: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, residential subdivisions with a public water system may utilize individual sewage disposal facilities provided that there are no more than two lots per net usable acre and that all distance and setback, soil condition, water table elevation and other related requirements, which are generally applicable to the use of individual sewage disposal systems, are met. (Emphasis added). Prior to both publication of notice and the holding of the public hearing on proposed Chapter 10D-6, the 1979 Florida Legislature passed Chapter 79-45, Laws of Florida, amending Section 381.272(7), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, residential subdivisions with a public water system may utilize individual sewage disposal facilities, provided there are no more than four lots per acre and that all distance and setback, soil condition, water table elevation, and other related requirements which are generally applicable to the use of individual sewage disposal systems are met. (Emphasis added). This amendment, which became law May 11, 1979, had the effect of increasing the number of permissible lots per acre from 2 to 4 in subdivisions electing to utilize public water systems and septic tanks, provided that other applicable criteria could be met. As indicated earlier, a public rule hearing on the proposed repromulgation of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, was held on July 19, 1979 on the rules noticed for hearing in the June 29, 1979, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. After the public hearing, without additional notice, Respondent renumbered various rules in Chapter 10D-6, reworded others, and filed with the Secretary of State on September 27, 1979, new chapter 10D-6 which included Rule 10D-6.23(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code, challenged herein, which provided as follows: Whenever individual sewage disposal systems are used under provisions of Section 10D-6.23(3)(f), an acre, as defined elsewhere in this Chapter, shall not include the following: paved areas, paved and unpaved rights of ways [sic], paved roadways, consolidated buildings, foundation drainage, underground water drainage, streams, lakes, ditches, coastal waters and marshes. Within any given acre where lots abut open land, such as golf courses, parks and other open unused areas that are not subject to development, the requirements of Section 10D-6.23(3)(f) may be diminished by not more than ten (10) percent for those lots abutting the open lands, provided that said open lands are not developed, provided further that all distance and set back, soil condition, water table elevation and other related requirements of Chapter 10D-6 are met. Proposed Chapter 10D-6 which had been noticed for public hearing by Respondent had contained no rule numbered 10D-6.23(3)(g), nor did it contain any rule with the language set forth in the rule ultimately filed by Respondent with the Secretary of State. Instead, Rule 10D-6.23(3)(g) challenged here, appears to be a combination of language that had been contained in proposed Rules 10D- 6.22(30), and 10D-6.23(5)(g). Respondent did not furnish notice of the afore-mentioned changes in Chapter 10D-6 to any of the Petitioners in this proceeding or, so far as can be determined from the record in this proceeding, any other members of the general public or the Administrative Procedures Committee. Rule 10D-6.23(3)(g) became effective on October 17, 1979. On September 27, 1979, Respondent also filed with the office of the Secretary of State a statement detailing the anticipated economic impact of the repromulgation of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent's economic impact statement provided in pertinent part, as follows: Cost of [sic] Benefit to Persons Directly Affected: The proposed changes clarifying land usage for individual sewage disposal systems will enable developers to increase the number of home sites available for development in specific tracts of undeveloped land. This will result in a net reduction in the average cost of developing a home site which is estimated at $1,000 per site. Approximately 50,000 individual sewage disposal facilities will be installed this fiscal year and the resulting savings are estimated as follows: 10 percent of sites = 5,000 x $1,000 per site = $5,000,000. Estimate of Effect on Competition and Open Market: We foresee no impact on competition and open market. Data and Method Used in Making Above Estimates: The figures on the number of individual sewage facilities to be installed were obtained from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' reporting system. The cost figures were derived by arithmetic calculations. The economic impact statement, by its terms, does not purport to analyze the potential economic impact of any individual rule contained in the repromulgation of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. Instead, the economic impact statement apparently attempts to analyze in some fashion not readily apparent from the document itself or testimony offered in its support, the economic impact of the repromulgation of the entire chapter. Contrary to the conclusion reached in Respondent's economic impact statement, the record in this proceeding clearly establishes that challenged Rule 10D-6.23(3)(d) Florida Administrative Code, will make the development of land more costly by requiring a deduction from the statutorily permissible four lots per acre those portions of property consisting of ". . . paved areas, paved and unpaved rights of ways [sic], paved roadways, consolidated building, foundation drainage, underground water drainage, streams, lakes, ditches, coastal waters and marshes . . . " In fact, testimony that the proposed rule would increase the cost of developing land is the only competent evidence of record in this proceeding concerning the potential economic impact of the proposed rule. The economic impact statement was prepared by an employee of Respondent who was qualified at the hearing as an expert in the areas of environmental health and sanitary science. In testifying concerning the methodology employed by him in preparation of the economic impact statement, the following exchange occurred: Q. In preparing the economic impact statement, did you consider the effect of Rule 10D-6.23(3)(g), the net acre rule? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you prepare the economic impact statement? A. Yes. Q. And you did not consider the net acre rule in promulgating that particular economic impact statement? A. No, I did not. Q. When you promulgated the economic impact statement, was it applied to the two per acre requirement or to the four per acre requirement? A. It applied to the two acre, because four was not passed yet. Q. You mention in the economic impact statement that you used as the method, data and method, the reporting system of HRS. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Does the reporting system of HRS indicate the lots that are contiguous to open space? A. No. Q. Does it tell you the size of the lot? A. No. Q. Does it tell you whether or not a roadway is paved or unpaved in front of the lot? A. No. Q. Does it tell you if a curb or gutter is front [sic] of the lot? A. No. Q. Does it tell you the size of the roadway? A. No. Q. Does it tell you whether or not there is a drainage easement in front of the lot? A. No. Q. How did you derive in the economic impact statement the average cost of developing a homesite at $1,000? A. I don't remember. Q. You don't remember where that came from? A. No. In short, the record in this proceeding is singularly lacking any substantiation, or even a comprehensible explanation of the method used or the data employed by the agency in assessing the potential economic impact of the challenged rule. Framat Realty, Inc. ("Framat") is the developer of Plantation Lake Estates ("the Subdivision"), an unrecorded subdivision of single family lots located in Monroe County, Florida, Framat seeks to have the subdivision permitted for septic tank usage. Framat has not built and has no plans to build a package treatment plant for the subdivision, which plant, if constructed, would cost approximately $130,000. Framat has conveyed 46 of the 50 lots located in the subdivision, and homes are built or under construction on 18 to 20 of those lots. All of the developed lots have been permitted for septic tank usage. Monroe County ceased permitting septic tanks in the subdivision during the summer of 1980. Petitioner Arthur M. Elliott owns Lot No. 50 in the subdivision which is not developed or permitted for septic tank usage. Mr. Elliott wishes to build a home on his lot and to install a septic tank for use with that home. The total land area of the subdivision is 12.791 acres, which, with 50 lots, results in a "gross" density of 3.93 lots per acre for the 50 lots in the subdivision. Lot Number 50, owned by Mr. Elliott, is 80' x 100', and is the smallest lot in area in the subdivision. A septic tank and drain field has been designed which meets all the requirements of Rule 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, for a three bedroom home on Mr. Elliott's lot, with the exception of those requirements imposed by the challenged rule. The subdivision receives its water from Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, a public water system. The soil profile in the subdivision to a depth of eight feet shows tan, sandy lime rock. The tested percolation rate, or the time in which a drop of water moves one inch through the soil, was approximately one inch for each one minute and ten seconds at the three sites tested within the subdivision. Soil tests also indicate that the depth from surface to ground water at each of the three sites tested ranged from 7.7 feet to 6 feet to 3.6 feet. The soil tests, including water table measurements, were made on November 12, 1980, at the end of the rainy season, when the water table is at its highest annual point. Additionally, topographic studies of the roadways throughout the subdivision show a minimum lot elevation of 4.35 feet mean sea level. All lots in the subdivision are graded approximately the same level as existing roadways. Petitioner, Florida Home Builders Association, is a non-profit trade association representing all aspects of the building industry, including septic tank installers and many developers who utilize septic tanks in construction. Membership in the Florida Home Builders Association also includes builders, developers, architects, realtors, and contractors. The parties to this proceeding each submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been included in this order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues involved in this proceeding, or as not having been supported by evidence of record.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the petition to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District meets the applicable criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking the adoption of a rule by the Commission to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District. The proposed District consists of approximately 1,015 acres located within unincorporated St. Johns County, Florida. There are two out-parcels, totaling 3.7 acres, within the areas to be included in the District. No adverse impact on these out parcels is expected from the establishment of the district. The estimated cost of the infrastructure facilities and services which are presently expected to be provided to the lands within the District was included in the Petition. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 was identified for the record as a copy of the Petition and its exhibits as filed with the Commission. Witnesses Maier, Walters, Boring, and Fishkind each stated that he had reviewed portions of the contents of the petition and its attachments and affirmed the petitions findings. Witness Maier testified that the Petitioner has written consent to establish the District from the owners of one hundred percent of the real property located within the lands to be included in the District. Witness Maier also presented deeds for parcels of land within the boundaries of the proposed District which have been acquired by the Petitioner or its subsidiaries, as well as consent forms from the Petitioner's subsidiaries. The Petition and its attached exhibits are true and correct, with the addition of the deeds showing land ownership and owners' consent as specified above. Witnesses Walters and Fishkind reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187, Florida Statutes. Witness Walters also reviewed the proposed District in light of the requirements of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan. From a planning and economic perspective, four subjects, subject 16, 18, 21, and 26, of the State Comprehensive Plan apply directly to the establishment of the proposed District as do the policies supporting those subjects. Subject 16, titled Land Use, of the State Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of locating development in areas with the fiscal ability and service capacity to accommodate growth. The proposed District will: have the fiscal capability to provide a wide range of services and facilities to the population in the designated growth area; help provide infrastructure to development the County, thereby helping limit unintended, unplanned sprawl; facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and services to assist in fulfilling the community plan. Subject 18, titled Public Facilities of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that the state shall protect substantial investments in public facilities and plan for and finance new facilities to serve residents in a timely, orderly and efficient manner. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the District will: plan and finance the infrastructure systems and facilities needed for the development of lands within the District in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner; provide the infrastructure systems and facilities within the District with the landowners and residents benefiting from the new public facilities bearing the costs associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities; act in a type of 'infrastructure partnership' with St. Johns County; have financial self-sufficiency through the use of special assessments, as well as user charges or fees, to provide public facilities; provide a consistent, innovative and fiscally sound alternative for financing public facilities by bringing the cost of managing and financing public facilities down to a level of government closest to its beneficiaries and connecting those who pay for facilities with those who directly benefit from those facilities and services; and be structured to assure secure revenue sources capable of meeting District responsibilities. Subject 21, titled Governmental Efficiency of the State Comprehensive Plan provides that governments shall economically and efficiently provide the amount and quality of services required by the public. The proposed District will be consistent with this element because the proposed District will: cooperate with other levels of Florida government, such as through entering into interlocal agreement to address maintenance issues for certain roads; be established under uniform general law standards as specified in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes; be professionally managed, financed, and governed by those whose property directly receives the benefits; not burden the general taxpayer with costs for services or facilities inside the District; and plan and implement cost efficient solutions for the required public infrastructure and assure delivery of selected services to residents. Subject 26, titled Plan Implementation of the State Comprehensive Plan, provides that systematic planning shall be integrated into all levels of government, with emphasis on intergovernmental coordination and citizen involvement. The proposed District is consistent with this element of the State Comprehensive Plan because: the proposed District will systematically plan for the construction, operation and maintenance of the public improvements and the community facilities authorized under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, subject to and not inconsistent with the local government comprehensive plan and land development regulations; the District meetings are publicly advertised and are open to the public so that all District property owners and residents can be involved in planning for improvements; Section 189.415, Florida Statutes, requires the District to file and update public facilities reports with the County, which it may rely upon in any revisions to the local comprehensive plan. Based on the testimony and exhibits in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan. Witness Walters testified that since St. Johns County has already found the development within the proposed District to be not inconsistent with the St. Johns County local comprehensive plan, the establishment of a community development district would not cause any inconsistency and would be in furtherance of four of the plan's policies, goals and objectives: Policy H.1.3.4 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that 'DRI's planned unit subdivisions, and other large developments shall provide for the dedication of parks and open space to be generated by the development according to the level of service standards.' The proposed District will finance the construction of, and ultimately own and maintain, a community recreational facility. Goal J.1 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that St. Johns County is to ensure the orderly and efficient provision of infrastructure facilities and services such as roads, utilities, recreation, and drainage. The proposed District will serve as an alternative provider of these infrastructure systems and services to meet the needs of the lands within its boundaries; Objective J.1.7 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall manage fiscal resources to ensure the provision of needed infrastructure. The proposed District will provide the infrastructure facilities and services needed for its lands without burdening the fiscal resources of the County or impacting the bonding limits contained in Policy J.1.7.; Objective K.1.6 of the St. Johns County Comprehensive Plan calls for St. Johns County to work cooperatively with other units of government to address issues and concerns. The proposed District may be expected to enter into interlocal agreements with the County to provide certain enhanced maintenance. Additionally, over the long term, the establishment of the proposed District will provide another unit of local government in place and able to cooperate with the County on future issues and concerns. The State of Florida Department of Community Affairs also reviewed the petition to establish the proposed District and concluded that the petition was consistent with the local comprehensive plan. Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed District will not be inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the local comprehensive plan, and will in fact further the goals provided. Most of the land in the proposed District is part of a planned community included in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval issued by St. Johns County. The PUD was approved on February 10, 1998. The PUD is found in St. Johns County Ordinance No. 98-7. Section 6 of the PUD Application, which is incorporated into Ordinance 98-7 by reference, explicitly states that a community development district will be established and requires the establishment of the District prior to the sale of the first lot within the development. Petitioner is developing all of the lands within the District as a single master-planned community. Witness Walters testified that functional interrelation means that each community purpose has a mutual reinforcing relationship with each of the community's other purposes. Each function requires a management capability, funding source and an understanding of the size of the community's needs, so as to handle the growth and development of the community. Each function must be designed to contribute to the development or the maintenance of the community. The size of the District as proposed is approximately 1,105 acres. From a planning perspective, this is a sufficient size to accommodate the basic infrastructure facilities and services typical of a functionally interrelated community. Compactness relates to the location in distance between the lands and land uses within a community. The community is sufficiently compact to be developed as a functionally inter-related community. The compact configuration of the lands will allow the District to provide for the installation and maintenance of its infrastructure facilities in a long-term cost efficient manner. The property is sufficiently contiguous when all parts of a project are either in actual contact or are close enough to allow the efficient design and use of infrastructure. The proposed District is sufficiently contiguous for planning purposes and for the purpose of district governance. The size of the proposed community within the District provides a sufficient economic base to absorb the debt costs and annual operating costs for the proposed District. There will be no economic disincentives to the provision of the infrastructure facilities contemplated. From planning, economics, engineering, and management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a single functionally interrelated community. It is presently intended that the District will participate in the construction or provision of certain infrastructure improvements as outlined in the petition. Installation and maintenance of infrastructure systems and services by the District is expected to be financed by bonds and repaid through the imposition of special assessments on benefited property within the District. Use of such assessments will ensure that the real property benefiting from District services is the same property which pays for them. Two types of alternatives to the use of the proposed District were identified. First, the County might provide facilities and services from its general fund or through a MSTU. Second, facilities and services might be provided by some private means, without public bidding, with maintenance delegated to a homeowners association (HOA). The District exceeds the available alternatives at focusing attention to when and where and how the next system of infrastructure will be required. This results in a full utilization of existing facilities before new facilities are constructed and reduces the delivered cost to the citizens being served. Only a community development district allows for the independent financing, administration, operations, and maintenance of the land within such a district. Only a community development district allows district residents to completely control the district. All of the other alternatives do not have these characteristics. From an engineering perspective, the proposed District is the best alternative to provide the proposed community development services and facilities because it is a long-term stable, perpetual entity capable of maintaining the facilities over their expected life. From planning, economic, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the proposed District is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the are that will be served by the District. The services and facilities proposed to be provided by the District are not incompatible with uses and existing local and regional facilities and services. The District's facilities and services within the proposed boundaries will not duplicate any existing regional services or facilities which are provided to the lands within the District by another entity. None of the proposed services or facilities are presently being provided by another entity for the lands to be included within the District. Therefore, the community development services and facilities of the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. As cited previously, from planning, economics, engineering, and special district management perspectives, the area of land to be included in the proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed and become a functionally interrelated community. The lands to be included within the proposed District have a need for the basic infrastructure being provided. From an engineering perspective, the area within the proposed District is also large enough to support a staff necessary to operate and maintain the proposed infrastructure systems and facilities. Based upon these characteristics, the proposed District is expected to be financially viable. From planning, engineering, economic, and management perspectives, the area that will be served by the intended District is amenable to separate special-district government. Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, impose specific requirements regarding the petition and other information to be submitted to the Commission. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain a metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains such a description. Section 190.005(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes, also requires a description of any real property within the external boundaries which is to be excluded from the District and the last known address of the owners of such properties. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains the required information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the petition contain the proposed timetable for the construction of any district services and the estimated construction costs for those services as well as the designation of the future general distribution, location, and extent of public and private land uses proposed for the area by the future land use element of the adopted local government comprehensive plan. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information. Section 190.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to contain written consent to establishment of the District by the owners of one-hundred percent of the real property to be included within the proposed District. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 contains this information which was supplemented by Petitioner at hearing, as it or its subsidiaries acquired title to the lands proposed to be included within the District. Sections 190.005 and 190.006, Florida Statutes, require that each member of a board of supervisors be a resident of Florida and a citizen of the United States. The proposed board members meet these criteria. Section 109.005(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the petition to include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC), which meets the requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The petition contains a SERC. It meets all requirements of Section 120.541, Florida Statutes. The SERC contains an estimate of the costs and benefits to all persons directly affected by the proposed rule to establish the District -- the State of Florida and its citizens, the country and its citizens, Petitioner, and consumers. Beyond administrative costs related to rule adoption, the State and its citizens will only incur minimal costs from establishing the District. These costs are related to the incremental costs to various agencies of reviewing one additional local government report. The proposed District will require no subsidies from the State. Benefits will include improved planning and coordination of development, which is difficult to quantify but is nonetheless substantial. Administrative costs incurred by the County related to rule adoption should be minimal. Benefits to the County will include improved planning and coordination of development, without incurring any administrative or maintenance burden for facilities and services within the proposed District except for those it chooses to accept. Consumers will pay non-ad valorem or special assessments for certain facilities. Location within the District is voluntary. Generally, District financing will be less expensive than maintenance through a property owners' association or capital improvements financed through developer loans. Benefits to consumers in the area within the community development district will include a higher level of public services and amenities than might otherwise be available, completion of District-sponsored improvements to the area on a timely basis, and a larger share of direct control over community development services and facilities within the area. Petitioner has complied with the provisions of Section 190.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that St. Johns County was paid the requisite filing fees. Section 190.005(1)(d), Florida Statutes, requires the Petitioner to publish notice of the local public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in St. Johns County for four consecutive weeks prior to the hearing. The notice was published in a newspaper of general paid circulation in St. Johns County (the St. Augustine Record) for four consecutive weeks on March 13, 2000, March 20, 2000, March 27, 2000, and April 3, 2000. All publications were prior to the hearing. Mr. Stephenson, on behalf of the County's community development district processing group formed in accordance with Section 5.06.00 of the St. Johns County Land Development Code, presented the following proposed findings regarding the approval of the development within the proposed District: On October 28, 1999, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners entered into an Impact Fee Agreement with St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc., and A & S Land Development Company to widen a portion of CR 210 in order to meet concurrency requirements for two projects. St. Joe Residential Acquisitions, Inc. is the developer of the property contained within the Sampson Creek CDD Petition. The project is approved with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and contains 799 single family residential dwelling units and associated roadways, retention areas, common areas, sales and recreation complex, and an 18-hole golf course. St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners approved the PUB on February 10, 1998. The PUD provides that a CDD will be established and will be in place prior to the sale of the first lot so that purchasers will be aware of their participation and membership in the CDD and of their obligation to pay any taxes that may be levied by the CDD. The PUD and Impact Fee Agreement are separate County approved documents and the creation and operation of a CDD does not in any way affect these documents or their approval without further review by the St. Johns County Board of Commissioners. Impact fee credits shall be awarded in accordance with approved Impact Fee Agreement which ensures that the credits are awarded to the appropriate entity. The CDD processing group finds no inconsistencies with the six factors as described in Section 190.005(6), Florida Statutes. With these findings, Mr. Stephenson testified that St. Johns County has no objection to the establishment of the proposed District.
Conclusions On Monday April 10, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., the local public hearing for the Petition to Establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District was held before Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger, at the St. Johns County Public Library, 950 Davis Pond Boulevard, in St. Johns County, Florida. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of taking testimony, public comment, and receiving exhibits on the petition of the St. Joe/Arvida Company, L.P. (Petitioner) to establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District (District) in northern St. Johns County, Florida. This report is prepared and submitted to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission) pursuant to Section 190.005, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, pursuant to Chapters 120, and 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, establish the Sampson Creek Community Development District as requested by Petitioner by formal adoption of the proposed rule, after inclusion of the legal description, in substantially the form attached to this Report of Findings and Conclusions as Attachment 3. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan T. Johnson, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Daniel Woodring, Esquire Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
