The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Findings Of Fact The Coral Reef Yacht Club is a non-profit Florida corporation with an active membership of over five hundred (500) families. The purpose of the club is to encourage water sports such as boating, fishing and skindiving. The club presently has a waiting list of approximately forty to fifty members wanting wet slips for their boats. Historically the boats berthed in Coral Reef's docks have been a fifty- fifty mixture of sail and power craft with a length between 22 to 45 feet. It is anticipated by the club that similar craft will use the new slips if constructed. Since the club's beginning 25 years ago it has leased submerged land for all of its docking facilities from the City of Miami, the fee simple owner. In June 1979, the lease agreement was renegotiated to add the submerged land over which the proposed project would be constructed. In consideration for that addition the club deeded an 18 foot strip of its property to Miami for a bicycle path parallel to South Bayshore Drive. The site of the proposed project is in that part of Biscayne Bay known colloquially as Dinner Key. Dinner Key is well suited to marina development. It had been a Pan American Clipper base in the 1930's. It is close to population centers and provides direct access to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through drawbridges. The Dinner Key area is delineated by a crescent of spoil banks which were created by dredging of channels out toward the deep water of Biscayne Bay, a navigable state water. These banks create a sheltered area for the mooring and berthing of small craft. Other marina facilities in the Dinner Key include Biscayne Yacht Club (56 slips), Dinner Key Marina (330 slips), Monty Trainer's (40 slips), Merrill-Stevens (56 slips), and the City of Miami Docks (50 slips). Coral Reef's dredge and fill application was filed with DER on July 10, 1979. It was denied on November 21, 1979 for the following reasons: The project would eliminate a productive and diverse seagrass bed in a 1.8 acre area. The removal of the seagrasses would result in a degradation of water quality contrary to Section 17-3.061 and 17-1.121, Florida Administrative Code. The project would interfere with the conservation of fish and wildlife contrary to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. The proposal would conflict with the intent of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act [Section 258.165(3), Florida Statutes] to preserve the bay in its natural condition. The project as proposed in Coral Reef's application is to expand its present marina facility of 72 slips by adding 4,290 square feet of docking to accommodate 27 additional wet slips. In order for there to be an adequate draft of 7 feet, 6,400 cubic yards of submerged bottom would be dredged from an area of approximately 1.8 acres (200 ft. by 400 ft.). The spoil resulting from the dredging would be piped to an existing spoil bank 600 feet to the southeast of the site. Coral Reef proposes to stabilize the spoil by planting salt resistant grasses and shrubs on it. At present the Club's docks extend 460 feet out into Biscayne Bay. The proposed addition would add another 213 feet. At the final hearing Coral Reef amended its application by proposing to add rip-rap in piles 3 feet high and 12 feet center-to-center to be placed only under the main walkway of the new proposed dock area. DER was given the opportunity to request a continuance of the final hearing to have time to evaluate the amendment, but no continuance was necessary. The site of the proposed dock expansion has two distinct biological regimes. Under tic existing dock where there has already been dredging there is little bottom life but a considerable population of fish. The number of marine organisms is limited. There are no larger plants and there is approximately 1 inch of silt on the bottom. In the area of the proposed dredging the bottom is covered by a great number of invertebrates--mollusks and crustaceans. There are thick seagrass beds giving approximately 55 percent coverage over a sandy bottom. Turtle grass (thalassia testudinum) and cuban shoal weed (halodule wrighti) predominate there. The sea grasses ace important to the environment because (a) they are the base of the detrital food chain; (b) they provide erosion and turbidity control; and (c) they serve as a nursery ground and refuge for numerous marine organisms and small fish. The spoil island on which Coral Reef proposes depositing the new spoil has a stand of Australian pines and a fringe of red, white, and black mangroves, primarily on the west side of the island. The fauna over the grass beds in the proposed dredging area consist of fish such as french grunts, snappers, great barracuda, and the commercially valuable pink shrimp. If the proposed dredging takes place, the grass beds will be destroyed. They will not re-establish themselves because at the new bottom depth of 7 feet there will be insufficient light for repropogation. To prevent damages to the sea grasses which surround the spoil island measures must be taken to prevent the new spoil from washing off the island and smothering the grass. Coral Reef proposes retaining the spoil on the island by a 1.5 foot high sand bag dike on the east side of the island where most of the 6,400 cubic yards of spoil will be deposited. At no point would the slope of the spoil exceed 1 to 20. Turbidity curtains are proposed to be used during the time the spoil is deposited. No significant environmental damage is expected to result from this placement of the spoil. It is possible that the placing of rip-rap under the newly constructed docks as proposed would create a habitat for the small and medium size fish in the Dinner Key area. The surface of the rip-rap would provide a suitable substrate for marine fouling organisms such as barnacles to grow on, and if the interstices of the rubble are large enough, fish could find shelter there. The rip-rap proposal is offered to mitigate the admitted environmental damage which would result from the dredging. There is however, no way to determine either qualitatively or quantitatively if the benefit of the rip-rap would compensate for the harm of dredging. The importance of the seagrasses is well established while the environmental benefits provided by the rip-rap is only speculative at this time. The Miami Area has an acute shortage of boat slips. It is estimated by the Comprehensive Marina Development Study (February 1979) prepared by the Greenleaf/Telesca firm for the City of Miami that by 1985 there will be a shortage of 3,350 wet and dry boat slips. The City of Miami supports the proposed expansion of Coral Reef facilities as an aid in ameliorating the slip shortage. If the Coral Reef Marina were expanded, it is likely that some of the Coral Reef members who presently have their craft in public marina facilities would move them to the new Coral Reef slips, but no reliable estimate of the number of public slips which would thus be vacated has been made.
Recommendation For the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation enter an order denying Coral Reef's application in File No. DF12-21762 to expand its marina facilities by dredging and filling in Biscayne Bay. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Paterno, Esquire TAYLOR BRION BUKER & GREEN 1451 Brickel Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in Case No. 89-1706 is whether the Stearns violated provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, in the construction of a dock on the Indian River. The issue in Case No. 89-1707 is whether Mr. Stearns is entitled to a dredge and fill permit for the construction of the above-described dock.
Findings Of Fact The Stearns reside at Sunrise Landing Condominium in Cocoa, Florida. The condominium complex lies on the western shore of the Indian River in north Brevard County. At this location, the Indian River is classified as a Class III water and is conditionally approved by the Department of Natural Resources for shellfish harvesting. By Purchase Agreement dated February 18, 1987, the Stearns agreed to purchase a unit at Sunrise Landings Condominiums from the developer. By subsequent Purchase Agreement Modification, the parties agreed that the Stearns had "permission to build a private boat dock providing buyer obtains all proper permits from the Army Corps of engineers and all other proper authorities." By Warranty Deed dated April 16, 1987, the developer conveyed the unit to the Stearns. The deed, which conveys a 1/72nd interest in the common elements, does not convey any right to build a dock. The deed states that the conveyance is subject to the Declaration of Condominium of Sunrise Landing II. The declaration, which was recorded prior to the deed to the Stearns, defines as Common Element the land lying adjacent and upland to the dock that the Stearns constructed. The declaration states that each unit owner owns an undivided share of the Common Element. Article III, Section 7 states: The Owner of a Unit . . . shall be entitled to use the Common Elements in accordance with the purposes for which they are intended, but no such use shall hinder or encroach upon the lawful rights of Owners of other Units. There shall be a joint use of the Common Elements . . . and a joint mutual easement for that purpose is hereby created. In February, 1987, prior to closing on their unit, the Stearns arranged with an individual named Kurt Ramseyer to construct the dock. Mr. Ramseyer completed construction of the dock on or about July 3, 1987. On or about February 22, 1987, Mr. Stearns executed an application for permit for activities in the waters of the State of Florida. The application warned the applicant that he must obtain all applicable authorizations before commencing work. The application, as well as all others completed by Mr. Stearns, was the joint Department of the Army/Department of Environmental Regulation form, effective November 30, 1982. The application describes the project as a dock consisting of two boat slips measuring 24 feet by 10 feet, a 24 foot by 4 foot pier, and a 12 foot by 12 foot deck. The application identifies as the adjacent property owners the individuals owning condominium units on either side of the Stearns' unit. Mr. Stearns did not complete the affidavit of ownership or control, in which the applicant attests that he is the record owner or, if not, will have "the requisite interest . . .before undertaking the proposed work." The Department of the Army received the application on May 11, 1987. At this time, a copy of the application was forwarded to the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") without the required application fee. By letter dated May 18, 1987, DER notified Mr. Ramseyer that the application fee had not been received and, until received, the application had not been officially received. DER received the application fee on May 28, 1987. By letter dated June 25, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns, through his designated agent, Mr. Ramseyer, that the proposed project would require a permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and that his application was incomplete. Among other items requested were descriptions of water depths within a 300-foot radius of the proposed structure, shoreline structures within 100 feet of the proposed dock, and the boats intended to be moored at the facility. By letter dated July 10, 1987, Mr. Stearns provided DER with additional information. Submitting a new application, Mr. Stearns represented this time that the proposed use was private single dwelling, rather than private multi- dwelling, as previously indicated. He also stated that the adjoining landowners were Sunrise Landings Condominium. Again, he failed to complete the affidavit of ownership or control. A partial site plan of the condominium complex shows the dock as five feet north and 45 feet south of the next nearest docks at the complex. As he had on the February 22 application, Mr. Stearns certified as true that he knew that he had to obtain all required authorization prior to commencing construction, although construction had already been completed at this time. In fact, Mr. Stearns indicated on the application, as he did on the October 27 application described below, that construction was "proposed to commence" on June 22, 1987, and was "to be completed" on July 3, 1987. The application explains a four foot increase in the length of the dock as necessitated by "water depth." Elsewhere, the application states that the river had receded four inches since March, 1987. In justifying the construction of the dock in two sections, Mr. Stearns explained that the "shallow depth of the water . . . could result in possible environmental damage to the river bottom, if power boats were allowed to be moored in close proximatity [sic] to the area of the bulkhead line." Mr. Stearns described the boats that he proposed to moor at the dock. At maximum capacity, one boat has a draft of 10 inches, and the other has a draft of 14 inches. Attached to the application is a diagram showing maximum/minimum water depths. The depths are 13"/9" at the bulkhead, 19"/15" at 10', 21"/17" at 20', 23"/19" at 30 `, 25"/21" at 40', and 26"/22" at 50'. Mr. Stearns explained: In order to minimumize [sic] the possible environmental damage to the river bottom aquatic growth, it was necessary to place the power boat mooring section of the dock a minimum of 20 feet away from the bulkhead line. Another diagram shows water depths of 22" to 26" from 50 feet to 300 feet from the bulkhead to the north and south of the dock. 15. By letter dated June 17, 1987, which Mr. Stearns attached to the July 10 application, the Department of the Army issued him a general permit for the proposed project. The letter warns that "it appears that a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation may be required." The attached diagram shows a structure with a total length of 36 feet. By letter dated July 30, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns that, among other things, the affidavit of ownership or control was incomplete; discrepancies existed between the original application and the most recent application, such as with respect to the names of different adjoining landowners and different proposed uses from private multi-dwelling to private single dwelling; it was unclear whether all permits were received prior to dock construction; and it was unclear what portion of the deed entitled the applicant to place the dock in its proposed location. By letter dated October 27, 1987, Mr. Stearns provided DER with additional information and submitted a partial new application. He attested to the fact that he was the record owner of the property, although he failed to provide the required legal description. As to the question involving different adjoining property owners, Mr. Stearns indicated that he believed that because the dock was located more than 25 feet from the nearest living unit, the approval of other property owners was not required. He explained that the private single dwelling unit was a condominium unit in an eight-unit building. He advised that construction of the dock was completed on July 3, 1987. As to water depths, he showed a depth of 9 inches at the bulkhead and 26 inches at 500 feet. Additionally, he showed mean low water of 12 inches at 10 feet, 16 inches at 20 feet, 23 inches at 30 feet, and 26 inches at 40 feet. By letter dated December 8, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns that his application was deemed complete as of October 29, 1987. By Intent to Deny dated January 8, 1988, DER notified Mr. Stearns of its intent to deny his application for a permit. The notice states that the project is not exempt from permitting procedures. The notice acknowledges the presence of about 40 piers installed at the condominium complex without the appropriate permits. The notice states that water depths within visual distance of the shoreline are relatively shallow with scattered marine grass/algae clumps in the vicinity due to the shallow water. In this regard, the notice concludes: Installation of a pier in such shallow water, less than 24 inches deep, for permanent mooring of a small watercraft will probably cause localized disturbance of the benthic community by prop wash. This situation is already evident at several of the nonpermitted piers. Additionally, the Notice of Intent raised the issue of ownership or control. Citing an earlier final order, the notice states that "`the Department will not knowingly issue a permit for dredging and filling or other activities which would constitute a trespass on private property."' By Petition for Administrative Hearing filed January 19, 1988, Mr. Stearns requested an administrative hearing on the Intent to Deny his application for a permit. By letter dated January 27, 1988, assistant general counsel for DER confirmed a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Stearns and stated that, pursuant to that conversation I will hold your petition pending further action by the Department towards resolution of the situation. If it appears that an amicable resolution cannot be reached, I will forward the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer. By Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated December 19, 1988, DER notified Mr. and Mrs. Stearns and 101 other persons owning or having owned units at Sunrise Landing Condominiums that an investigation of the property on June 2, 1987, had disclosed that 43 docks had been installed and placed less than 65 feet apart with 75 boat slips. These docks had been constructed without permits. A meeting with unit owners on March 15, 1988, had not produced a resolution of the dispute. The Notice of Violation alleges that the docks extended up to 20 feet waterward of the bulkhead through water depths of 8-24 inches. The docks allegedly were constructed within an area conditionally approved by the Department of Natural Resources for shellfish harvesting, but without a Department variance. The docks allegedly resulted in damage to state waters and pollution through localized disturbance of the benthic community by associated boat traffic prop wash in shallow water. The adversely impacted submerged bottom allegedly is highly productive with scattered seagrasses providing valuable fishery resources for the Indian River. Lastly, DER alleges that it had incurred investigatory expenses of at least $1500. After reciting the statutes allegedly violated by the construction of the docks, the Notice of Violation demands, among other things, the removal of all of the docks. By Petition for Formal Proceeding filed January 12, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Stearns requested a formal administrative hearing on the Notice of Violation. Pursuant to notice, DER held an informal conference with numerous owners of docks, including Mr. and Mrs. Stearns, on February 9, 1989. At the conclusion of the meeting, DER agreed to hold open the informal conference period for an additional 30 days to allow settlement negotiations to be concluded. By Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated March 23, 1989, DER issued another notice of violation against the ten remaining dock owners, including Mr. and Mrs. Stearns, who had not yet removed or agreed to remove their docks. The allegations are substantially identical to those of the original Notice of Violation. Because of the failure of settlement negotiations, DER transmitted both files involving the Stearns to the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 31, 1989. In several prior cases, DER had previously informed other unit owners seeking to build a dock off of the bulkhead adjoining the Common Element that no permit was required because the project was exempt under Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In March or April, 1987, DER changed its position on this point. The docks 45 feet north and 5 feet south of the Stearns' dock were constructed without a dredge and fill permit, apparently in reliance upon the same exemption to which the Stearns claim to be entitled in the subject cases. The operation of boats in the vicinity of the dock constructed by Mr. and Mrs. Stearns would stir up the submerged bottom and result in prop dredging of critical vegetation. In sum, the intended use of the dock would disrupt the benthic community. At times, the Stearns have been unable to reach their dock with their boats due to the shallowness of the water. The waters of the Indian River surrounding the Stearns' dock are Class III waters that the Department of Natural Resources has conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting. The Department of Natural Resources has not granted the Stearns a variance for the construction of the dock. The dock is less than 500 square feet of total coverage. The moorings from the dock five feet to the south of the subject dock remained in place following the removal of the remainder of the structure. At the time of the application, the Stearns dock, whose construction had begun no later than June 22, 1987, and been completed on July 3, 1987, was 45 feet south of the nearest dock to the north and 5 feet north of the nearest dock to the south. Both of these docks had been built under claims of exemption. The Stearns dock was maintained for the exclusive use of the Stearns and was not available to other unit owners. DER has failed to prove any investigatory expenses directly attributable to the Stearns, as opposed to the 103 unit owners in general. Moreover, given the pending applications, which disclosed most of the specifics of the subject dock, including inadequate water depths, no portion of the investigation could properly be attributed to the Stearns, especially when the sole witness for DER could not testify to any specific damage to submerged bottom and vegetation caused by boats using the Stearns' dock. Additionally, actual damage and the investigatory expenses attributable thereto are divisible and could have been attributed to a particular violator, but were not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the subject permit and ordering Mr. and Mrs. Stearns to remove their dock, upon such conditions as are necessary to avoid damage to the environment, but not imposing any administrative fine. ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DER 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12: adopted as to general shallowness and excessive shallowness with respect to the passage of boats. 13-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16: rejected as irrelevant. 17-24: adopted. 25: rejected as recitation of testimony, unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of the Stearns 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance, except that last sentence of Paragraph 3 is rejected as subordinate. 4: adopted. 5: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Placing a dock in water too shallow for safe boating may arguably constitute a navigational hazard. 6: adopted. 7: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. In the first place, the facts at the time of the application should control whether the project was, at the time of its actual construction, exempt from the permitting requirements. In addition, the evidence showed that the pilings of at least the closer dock remained in the water following the removal of the decking. 8: first two sentences adopted. Second sentence rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 9: [omitted.] 10: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. It is clear from the operative documents--namely, the warranty deed and declaration of condominium--that Mr. and Mrs. Stearns lack the legal right to use the Common Element in the manner that they have used it. A clause in an unrecorded contract, which probably does not survive closing, cannot diminish the rights of other Unit Owners in their undivided shares of the Common Element, which, in part, the Stearns have seized for their private use. 11: first paragraph adopted. Second paragraph rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Steven A. Medina Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Frank J Griffith, Jr. Cianfronga, Telfer & Reda 815 South Washington Avenue Titusville, FL 32780
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Sunrise is entitled to the permit for the construction of the proposed marina.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On or about February 3, 1988, Sunrise submitted an application to the Department for permission to construct a 33 slip marina to be located at 2701 D. Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The dock facilities to be built include four sections designed to accommodate yachts 70 feet or longer in length. The proposed marina would be located in a body of water known as Coral Bay. The bay opens onto the Intracoastal Waterway at the Sunrise Boulevard bridge. This marina is subject to the Department's permitting requirements under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-12, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed marina does not require dredging. The only filling would be incidental to the placement of the pilings (supporting the dock system) and the rip rap (recommended by the Department to enhance fish habitation). Coral Bay is a Class III water which currently meets water quality standards for such classification. The water body east of the proposed marina is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On or about October 12, 1988, the Department issued an Intent to Issue the permit requested by Sunrise. The notice of the Intent to Issue was published on October 24, 1988. Thereafter, petitioners timely filed challenges to the proposed project. As specific conditions of the permit, the Department required the following provisions which are pertinent to the Kaye challenge: The required 300 cubic yards of natural limestone 1-3' diameter rip rap shall be placed at the toe of the bulkhead before the construction of the marginal pier. No sewage shall be discharged into the marina basin or other waters of the State. Sewage pump out facilities shall be provided, used and at all times maintained and operable. A permit is required from Broward County and shall be acquired to validate this permit. An effective means of turbidity control, such as, but not limited to, turbidity curtains shall be employed during all operations that may create turbidity so that it shall not exceed 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units above natural background value. Turbidity control devices shall remain in place until all turbidity has subsided. * * * 8. Manatee Construction Conditions (copy enclosed) shall be implemented and in effect and Manatee Caution Signs and Educational Displays, per enclosed directive, shall be implemented. The proposed marina will occupy the southern half of Coral Bay. The Kaye property is north of the proposed site. Further north are a cooperative of townhome units and a yacht club. Access to the bay and to the Intracoastal Waterway is afforded these properties via a channel 75 feet in width which divides the bay waters. The proposed marina would not intrude into the access channel. There is an existing concrete seawall which extends vertically along the shoreline of the subject property. The parking and structures to be built incidental to the marina have been designed to require run off or drainage landward and not into Coral Bay. The water depth in the proposed marina is approximately 8 to 9 feet except along the shoreline where the depth is approximately 5 feet. It is not anticipated that the operation of the yachts will cause a significant disturbance of the marina basin floor. 10 The tidal flushing in Coral Bay is sufficient to remove incidental levels of pollutants which may be discharged. Therefore, the proposed marina will not have a significant impact on water quality. The incidental pollutants which may be expected are such items as paint leaching or minor fuel spills. Since the marina will not have fueling facilities and since sewage pump out facilities are mandated, it is not anticipated that these forms of waste will be significant to this project. The proposed marina will not have an adverse effect on the flow of water in the basin nor should it cause erosion or sedimentation. Further, it is not anticipated that the marina will adversely affect the water quality in the Outstanding Florida Water near the site. Although no water testing was performed at this site, the biota appears healthy. A number of fishes actively forage in the waters and algae can be observed down to a depth of 6 feet. Consequently, the water is clear enough to support growth to that depth. A number of birds feed and rest in the subject area. The docks are likely to displace the birds' direct access to feeding areas but it is anticipated that the rip rap will increase the surface areas available for organism development and thereby enhance the environment for fishes. While the docks will result in an estimated 16,700 square feet of shadowing of open water, given the benefits of the required rip rap, the overall impact should not be negative. Construction began on the Sunrise Boulevard bridge approximately three years ago. Manatees have not been observed at the proposed site since the work began. However, because it is known that manatees frequented this area before the construction and may again, manatee construction conditions and manatee signage provisions have been required by this permit. The construction provisions will require Sunrise to cease all construction upon the sighting of a manatee until such time as the animal vacates the area. Further, the signage provisions will require Sunrise to display warnings and to inform all marina users of the possibility of manatees in the area. Immediate notification to the appropriate authorities is required in the event a manatee is injured. It is anticipated that the proposed marina will displace transient use of Coral Bay. This loss when weighed against the benefits of having a docking facility available to yachts (with the amenities of power and fresh water) does not establish a negative recreational impact on the proposed site. The 75 foot channel is sufficient for safe passage to and from the Intracoastal Waterway and the properties owned by Sunrise and the Kayes. The proposed marina will not adversely affect recreational use of the properties. The project is intended to be of a permanent nature. The project will have no effect on significant historical and archaeological resources. There are no outstanding permits which, when reviewed in connection with this project, would establish that the water quality will be adversely affected by the proposed marina. It is not anticipated that the proposed marina, subject to the general and specific conditions of the permit, will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. The negative affect to the property of others is minimal given the overall enhancement to the recreational and biological environments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order approving the permit for Sunrise Bay Harbour, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER KAYE: To the extent that paragraph 1 concludes the Department did not consider the Canrael permit in evaluating the Sunrise permit, such fact is accepted. However, under the facts of this case, the Department was not required to consider such permit since it was not contemplated that both projects could or would be built. The Canrael permit had expired prior to October 26, 1988, and Canrael formally abandoned its interest, if any, in the permit at the hearing in this cause. Paragraph 2 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or immaterial to the issues of this case. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The first two sentences of paragraph 6 are accepted but are irrelevant. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument and is either contrary to the weight of the evidence presented or unsupported by evidence in this cause. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 23 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "both lawful and unlawful," paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 29 are accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues in this case. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY SUNRISE: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted as stipulated by the parties at the outset of this case. Paragraph 3 is accepted. The parties did not oppose the tender of Mr. Nero in the categories listed. Paragraphs 4 through 7 are accepted. To the extent that paragraph 8 states this proposed project is within Class III waters, such paragraph is accepted. However, to the east of Coral Bay is a body listed as Outstanding Florida Water. Consequently any suggestion otherwise is rejected as contrary to the facts of this case. Paragraphs 9 through 22 are accepted. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as not supported by the evidence presented in this cause. Paragraph 25 is accepted but is unnecessary irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 26 is accepted. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the resolution of issues in this case. Paragraph 28 is accepted but is irrelevant immaterial, or unnecessary to the resolution of issues in this case. Paragraph 29 is rejected as contrary to the weigh of the evidence. Manatees have not been seen since the bridge construction began approximately three years ago. Exactly when, prior to that, a manatee was within Coral Bay is not disclosed by this record. Paragraph 30 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: For Petitioner Canrael: Mary F. Smallwood Ruden, Barnett, McClosy, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street Monroe-Park Tower, Suite 1010 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Petitioners Kaye: Brion L. Blackwelder JACOBSON AND FINKEL 3363 Sheridan Street, Suite 204 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Jack and Harriet Kaye 1100-1120 Seminole Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 For Sunrise Bay: William Robert Leonard Leonard & Morrison P.O. Box 11025 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 For DER: Wayne L. Schiefelbein Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner must forfeit his vested benefits in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), pursuant to section 112.3173(3), Florida Statutes, due to Respondent's commission of an act of extortion, as defined in section 836.05, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has lived for much of his life in West Palm Beach. Petitioner's family owned a Pepsi-Cola bottling company in West Palm Beach until selling it five or six years ago. Petitioner started with the company as a truck driver and eventually served as a vice-president. Petitioner served as a locally elected official in West Palm Beach for nearly 20 years. Petitioner was elected commissioner of the Board of Commissioners of the City of West Palm Beach and served for 12 years. Subsequently, he was elected and reelected commissioner of the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County. Petitioner was prevented by term limits from serving beyond his second four-year term, which was due to end in December 2010. However, Petitioner resigned from the county commission five months earlier after he pleaded guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, the extortion that is described below. Petitioner had planned to retire from public office after finishing his term in December 2010. In his early 60s and evidently secure financially, Petitioner looked forward to retirement, during which he planned to volunteer in the community and play with his grandchildren. In the final year of his final term in public office, Petitioner busied himself with--or, perhaps more aptly, obsessed over--one major piece of unfinished business: the South Cove Restoration Project. The South Cove Restoration Project is an ecological restoration project in the Lake Worth Lagoon in downtown West Palm Beach. The Lake Worth Lagoon is a 20-mile long body of water in central Palm Beach County. Located just east of Flagler Drive and north of the Royal Park Bridge, the South Cove Restoration Project's primary sponsor is Palm Beach County, although the state has provided funds and the City of West Palm Beach and the Florida Inland Navigation District are also identified as project "partners." The project consists of the creation of two acres of mangrove/spartina habitat, 3.5 acres of potential seagrass habitat, and one acre of rock revetment/oyster reef. The project also includes a 565-foot elevated boardwalk running from the sidewalk along Flagler Drive to the largest mangrove island and a 16-foot square observation deck. Lastly, the project includes the capping of an old dredge hole with clean sand. This will reduce turbidity in the adjacent water column by preventing the continual resuspension of fine-grained particles that tend to collect in the dredge hole. For many years, water-quality issues in the Lake Worth Lagoon have received the attention of state, regional, and local officials, including Petitioner. For a couple of years, Petitioner had served as the county representative to, and chair of, a consortium of governmental entities that had formed the Lake Worth Lagoon Initiative (Initiative). Members of the Initiative have been drawn from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the South Florida Water Management District, the Palm Beach County chapter of the League of Cities, and Palm Beach County. The mission of the Initiative is to restore water quality in the lagoon by obtaining and providing funding from various sources for projects to address such issues as water quality, habitat, and pollution-control. The Initiative has supported the South Cove Restoration Project, which is located to the south of a larger project recently undertaken by the City of West Palm Beach to dredge the Intracoastal Waterway adjacent to Flagler Drive as part of extensive renovations of an old city marina. The dredge spoil from the city marina project will provide the fill for the dredge hole in the South Cove Restoration Project. The South Cove Restoration Project was first identified in 1997 as a Surface Water Improvement and Management project. In August 2008, the Department of Environmental Protection proposed to issue the permits necessary for the project's construction and operation. Trump Plaza challenged the proposed permits in DOAH Case No. 08-4752, and Flagler Center Properties, LLP, intervened on the side of Trump Plaza. Trump Plaza is the owner- association of two 30-story condominium buildings, and Flagler Center Properties is the owner of two eight- or nine-story office buildings. Due to the proximity of their buildings to the South Cove Restoration Project, both parties challenged the project on the grounds of, among other things, the potential obstruction of their view and the unreasonable infringement on their qualified rights to a dock. These properties and the uplands adjoining the South Cove Restoration Project are all entirely within the city limits of the City of West Palm Beach. This litigation delayed the issuance of the permits by 15 months. However, in September 2009, an Administrative Law Judge issued a recommended order approving the permits, and, in November 2009, the Department of Environmental Protection issued the final order issuing the permits. Members of the Johnson family own Flagler Center Properties. Like the Koonses, the Johnsons have lived in West Palm Beach for many years. The eldest Johnson is of the age of Petitioner's parents, and Petitioner knew the next generation of Johnsons, as they grew up together in West Palm Beach. The third generation of Johnsons and Koonses even attend the same school. But all of these relationships notwithstanding, at least certain members of the Johnson family with ownership interests in Flagler Center Properties have opposed at least certain aspects of the South Cove Restoration Project. The extortion occurred late in the approval process for the South Cove Restoration Project. The two acts of extortion took place in the six weeks before a vote by city commissioners to allow a fourth wheelchair-ramp access to be constructed from the existing sidewalk, over the seawall, and onto the boardwalk. The city commission vote took place on June 17 or 19, 2010. As expected, the city commissioners unanimously approved the fourth wheelchair ramp. Within a few days after the city vote, the last project sponsor to commit funds--the board of the Florida Inland Navigation District--approved its $1.5 million contribution. Evidently, the District vote was even more of a certainty that the city vote because--to the extent that Petitioner's extortion was designed to ensure final passage of the South Cove Restoration Project--Petitioner's concern, at the time of the extortion, was the city vote, not the District vote. In anticipation of the city vote, on May 6, 2010, at 9:14 a.m., Petitioner called the Johnson family attorney to discuss the Johnson family's continued objection to the project, especially the boardwalk. Petitioner failed to reach the attorney, so he left a voicemail. After a brief greeting, Petitioner demanded that the attorney send Petitioner immediately a memo outlining the remaining objections of the Johnson family to the South Cove Restoration Project. And if you don't--then I'm going to do a Public Records Request to the City of West Palm Beach on this. Dean, just for the heads up, good friend of mine, I'm going to work as hard as I've ever worked in twenty years of public service to take the Johnsons through the ringer on this if they don't support the City of West Palm Beach. I'll have kids picketing at the building and what I'm going to say is they want [a] marina instead of an island. I told you, this is very personal for me. Okay. This is something I really, really want. After twenty years I want the Johnsons to step away and congratulate me personally on all the work I've done. Okay? I have no idea why they're trying to fuck me on the deal but this is very personal. I'm going to work five [sic] hours a day for the next six weeks. I'm going to leverage every possible person, program--I have to get a five-oh vote out of the City Commission. It's very personal, Dean. So, I can't understand why they want to do it ultimately, I want them to say we've [sic] love to have this project. I'm going to door to door at every tenant in the building and throw them under the fucking bus. I'm going to say they want a marina out here versus a public island. I'm going to the FBI--I'm going to the Foundation. I'm going to every tenant in the building. I'm going to see if I have a banking relationship with anybody in there. I want this done and it's a personal thing for me. Shortly after this voicemail, Petitioner instructed a county employee to visit the Flagler Center Properties' site and photograph dead trees and the property's stormwater outfall. The record is not reliably developed on these points, except to the extent that these two issues are mentioned in Petitioner's next voicemail to the Johnson family attorney, which took place after the photographs were taken. To dispel any doubt of his seriousness, Petitioner called the Johnson family attorney again on June 9, 2010, at 6:18 pm: Hey, it's Koons. Just wondering, are the Johnsons still fighting that island on the maintenance issue? I was just wondering because I don't know if you noticed the dead trees that they have in their building in downtown West Palm Beach. Can't even take care of their own property with the dead trees. I don't know why they're worrying about maintenance on something else [the South Cove Restoration Project]. Anyway, also, do you have a map of where their stormwater goes? I was just trying to think if they were ever under a pre- treatment of their stormwater that goes off, I think, right where that island is going to be. Anyway, just let me know. Let me know if you want me to call Code Enforcement or what you want me to do. Thanks. By Information dated August 3, 2010, the State of Florida alleged that Petitioner "on or between May 6, 2010, and June 17, 2010, . . . did either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threaten an injury to the reputation of [the Johnson family] with intent to compel the persons so threatened . . . to do any act or refrain from doing any act against their will, contrary to Florida Statute 836.05 (2 DEG FEL)". The Information also alleges two misdemeanors that are irrelevant to this case. After three interviews with the authorities, Petitioner resigned from the county commission on August 3, 2010. The next day, Petitioner pleaded guilty to extortion and the two misdemeanors, and the court adjudicated Petitioner guilty of all three offenses and sentenced him to five years' county probation for the extortion and fined him $10,000 for the extortion. There is no evidence whatsoever that Petitioner extorted the Johnson family for personal financial gain. He had already declined to run for another elected office, so the record does not support a finding that he engaged in this extortion for his personal political gain. There is no evidence whatsoever that Petitioner engaged in this extortion for any other personal purposes, including obtaining wheelchair access for a family member or obtaining improper sexual advantage. It is difficult to find that Petitioner engaged in this extortion to cement some sort of personal legacy. The South Cove Restoration Project is not an exceptionally large project, in terms of water quality impacts. It appears to have already been named, so general naming rights--to paraphrase a theater critic, the graffiti of the political/philanthropic class--do not seem to be involved. (Charles Isherwood, "The Graffiti of the Philanthropic Class," N.Y. Times, December 2, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/theater/02ishe.html). As noted above, the sole practical concern of Petitioner, at the time of the acts of extortion, was the city vote on the fourth wheelchair ramp. But this vote was a near certainty and concerned an inconsequential matter--a fourth wheelchair ramp--that would not have prevented the project from going forward. Some proponents of the project even believed that the city vote was unnecessary, and a fourth ramp could have been located nearby at a location not within the jurisdiction of the city. Almost all that is left to explain the extortion is Petitioner's characterization of his acts, which he admitted were driven by anger, frustration, and stupidity. The narcissistic demands in the first voicemail that the Johnson family pay public homage to Petitioner and the eerie passive- aggressive nature of the second suggest pride to the point of hubris. But nothing else--except, of course, anger and stupidity. At all material times, Petitioner was in FRS-covered employment, owned vested FRS benefits, and had not filed for FRS retirement benefits. By letter dated November 8, 2010, Respondent advised Petitioner that he had forfeited his FRS benefits when he entered a guilty plea to the felony of extortion. He timely requested a hearing.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement Services enter a final order determining that Petitioner's acts of extortion, described above, do not constitute grounds for forfeiture of his FRS pension. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Jason Dimitris, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Geoffrey M. Christian, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Mark A. Emanuele, Esquire Panza, Maurer and Maynard, P.A. Bank of America Building, Third Floor 3600 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Findings Of Fact At the time of final hearing the Respondent, Myron Lewis, was the holder of State Certified General Contractor's Licenses as follows: Myron Lewis d/b/a Interior Concepts of Palm Beach, Number CG C005282; Myron Lewis d/b/a Whitten Corporation South, Number CG CA05282; and Myron Lewis d/b/a Custom Pools of the Palm Beaches, Inc. Number CG CB05282. Respondent was engaged in the business of building swimming pools in the Palm Beach area. In connection with that business the Respondent entered into contracts for the construction of pools with several individuals, including the following: James Riley; Michael Belmonti; Walter Beasley; Jose Dorribo; Gerald Gottner; James Overton; and Ronald Malcolm. With regard to the first six names listed above, Respondent had failed to complete the pool and perform according to the contract and, apparently, abandoned the project after accepting a major portion of the contract price agreed upon. With regard to the seventh name listed above, Respondent accepted an initial deposit of $680.00 for construction of a swimming pool but never performed any work and did not return the deposit. Some efforts were made by the Respondent to settle each of the claims against him and to that end there was submitted into evidence general releases from Malcolm, Riley and Belmonti each reciting that the general release was a settlement and compromise of disputed claims and that the payments are not to be construed as admission of liability on the part of Custom Pools of the Palm Beaches, Inc. and/or Myron Lewis. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3) With regard to the projects set forth in Paragraph 2 above, Respondent apparently terminated because of financial difficulties he and his company were in, none of which was the fault or responsibility of the persons for whom Respondent had contracted to build pools. More than ninety days had elapsed from the time of termination of the project by Respondent and this final hearing. All of these projects occurred prior to 1978. The Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, by action taken on January 23, 1978, suspended Respondent's license until further notice. That suspension was the result of the termination of the projects set forth above. The evidence presented indicates that an unspecified amount of money paid Respondent for the construction of specific pools was actually used for other obligations of Respondent and such funds were not used for the prosecution or completion of the project for which they were paid.
Findings Of Fact Sunset Company of Wilton, Incorporated, is the record title owner of a parcel of real property in Government Lot 1, Section 5, Township 66 South, Range 33 East, on Crawl Key No. 3 also known as Fat Deer Key, Monroe County, Florida. A portion of that parcel has been conveyed by Sunset Company to Whaler's Plaza, Incorporated, although that deed may not have been recorded. Petitioner Fred Roth owns and controls both corporations and exerts ownership and control over the entire parcel. The submerged lands in Tarpon Creek which are waterward of the line of mean high water contiguous to the parcel are sovereignty submerged lands. Roth received "major development" approval from Monroe County to develop the parcel by constructing a commercial/retail development known as "Whaler's Plaza.' The major development plan submitted to and approved by Monroe County includes a docking facility. In 1979 Roth filed an application with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for a private dock facility at Whaler's Plaza. The Department of Environmental Regulation approved that application and issued to Roth Permit/Certification No. 44-18542-5E. Roth never constructed that docking facility, and the permit expired on August 1, 1980. One of the agencies involved in reviewing that permit application was the Respondent. On June 26, 1979, Respondent notified Roth that upon review of the application in DER File No. 44-18542-5E, it had determined that the submerged lands were state-owned but that no lease agreement with Respondent would be required. After Permit No. 44-18542-5E expired on August 1, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation directed a letter to Petitioner advising him that the permit had expired and further advising him that if he wished to pursue the project he would have to obtain a new permit. in October 1983 Roth sought new authorization from the Department of Environmental Regulation and Respondent to construct a docking facility at Whaler's Plaza. His application was assigned DER File No. 440774875. On December 29, 1983, Respondent notified Roth that a lease would be required for the use of state-owned lands contiguous to Whaler's Plaza, relative to DER File No. 440774875. Respondent's rules changed in 1982 so that Roth's docking facility would be required to meet new criteria. The docking facility proposed by Roth in 1983 was similar to the docking facility proposed in 1979. The 1983 proposed modified docking facility was still represented to the Department of Environmental Regulation to be a private boat dock. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued an intent to deny the 1983 application under its then-existing rules, and Roth requested a formal hearing on that preliminary denial. Before a final hearing could be conducted, Roth again modified the proposed docking facility so that he qualified for a dredge and fill permit exemption from DER, so that no DER permit was needed for his project. A final order was entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation on August 27, 1985. While Roth's 1983 application was pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation, Roth was processing his application with Respondent for a submerged land lease for the docking facility. The documents he filed with Respondent, however, indicated that the docking facility was not intended to be a private dock but rather was a dock related to the commercial development at Whaler's Plaza. Roth represented to Respondent that the proposed docking facility would be for the convenience of patrons of the stores and restaurant at Whaler's Plaza and for his own personal use. Specifically, on June 3, 1985, Roth directed a letter to Respondent pursuant to Respondent's request for additional information. He described the Whaler's Plaza docking facility as follows: The wood dock will be used for arriving and departing customers of the restaurant and stores and my own personal use. The upland land use and activities of the property--will be developed into a shopping center. At the present time, the first phase is completed which is a one-story building containing four units, housing six retail stores, plus offices. The next phase will consist of three more buildings having five units each, 1,0000 [sic] sq. ft. each unit which will be for retail stores and offices, and the final phase will be a 200 seat restaurant, a miniature [sic] petting zoo and possibly a miniature golf course. ... 70 percent of the slips will be open to the general public for their convenience In patronizing the restaurant and stores; the remaining 30 percent of the slips will be for my own personal use. Roth never completed the lease application he filed with Respondent, and he failed to obtain approval for the use of the sovereignty submerged lands preempted by the docking facility proposed in DER File No. 440774875. Eventually, his pending application with Respondent was deactivated, and the file was closed. In late 1986, Roth initiated construction of his docking facility on sovereignty submerged lands, and he caused 30 pilings with cross-bracing to be placed into the submerged lands. On September 1, 1986, Grant Gelhardt, one of Respondent's enforcement officers, discovered the dock being constructed and verbally instructed Roth, through Mrs. Roth, to immediately cease construction activity. No further construction has taken place. Despite the verbal notification, a subsequent warning notice sent by certified mail, and Respondent's Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action, Roth has failed to remove the pilings and/or to take corrective measures regarding the partially completed docking facility. Roth has allowed vessels to be moored at the partially completed docking facility, has moored his own vessels at the partially completed docking facility, and has failed to prevent other persons from mooring at the partially completed docking facility. Roth's actions have resulted in damage to a benthic seagrass community on the adjacent sovereignty submerged lands over which Roth's partially completed docking facility is located, and over which vessels using the facility have been and would be moored. Those submerged lands constitute a benthic community of seagrass which supports various fauna and which would be adversely affected by completion and operation of the docking facility. The water depths in the area are shallow, with areas of less than -4 feet mean low water. The width of Tarpon Creek in the project area is approximately 100 feet. The length of the partially completed docking facility is approximately 150 feet. Although the dock extends parallel to the shore, the distance the dock extends into Tarpon Creek, as measured from the shoreline, is approximately 35 feet. Roth knowingly trespassed on sovereignty submerged lands by initiating construction of the docking facility, and he has willfully damaged those lands by drilling holes and placing pilings, and by allowing moored vessels to shade the seagrass. Although Roth ceased construction of the docking facility when told to stop, he has failed to attempt to resolve the violation, to remove the pilings, to seek an after-the-fact approval, or to cease all mooring of vessels on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the uplands, even subsequent to receiving the Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action. Respondent's June 26, 1979 letter to Roth authorized the activities described in DER Permit No. 44-18542-5E, for the period authorized by that permit. Roth knew that the DEP permit, and therefore Respondent's approval to engage in the activity authorized by that permit, had expired. Roth further knew that his new application filed in 1983, DER File No. 440774875, which was approved by DER after Roth further modified it in order to qualify for an exemption, did not exempt him from obtaining authorization from Respondent to use sovereignty submerged lands for the project and further knew that when he commenced construction of the docking facility in 1986 that he had not obtained approval from Respondent to use state-owned submerged lands. Roth offered no evidence to demonstrate any detrimental reliance upon the June 26, 1979, DNR letter, and the letter did not create a vested right for Roth to construct a different docking facility at a later time without authorization from Respondent. The uplands at the Whaler's Plaza commercial/retail development are owned by for-profit corporations which Roth controls and which derive income from the business and commercial activities at Whaler's Plaza. The docking facility intended primarily for the use of customers of Whaler's Plaza would therefore constitute a revenue generating/income related activity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring petitioner to: Remove the unauthorized structure within 20 days from the date on which the Final Order is entered and in accordance with Respondent's supervision of that removal; Immediately cease all mooring of vessels on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the uplands of the parcel known as Whaler's Plaza until authorized to use state-owned lands; and Pay a fine of $2500 within 15 days of receipt of a certified letter from the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources demanding payment to the internal improvement Trust Fund. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Manz, Esquire Post Office Box 177 Marathon Florida 33050 Ross S. Burnaman, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Hawaiian Inn Beach Resort, COA (the “Resort”), discriminated against Petitioner, Hanan Aysheh, on the basis of her national origin and/or handicap, in contravention of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Hanan Aysheh (also known as Nikki) is a woman of Palestinian descent who is a United States citizen, having been born in California. She also claims a disability, post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but did not provide any documentary proof for that assertion at final hearing. The Commission’s Determination of No Cause report includes reference to a medical document submitted to the Commission by Ms. Aysheh, but neither the medical document nor any other supporting evidence was introduced at final hearing. Based upon the ultimate finding herein, Ms. Aysheh will be presumed to have a disability for purposes of this Recommended Order. No persuasive evidence was presented that the Resort had any knowledge of Ms. Aysheh’s alleged PTSD. The Resort is a Florida condominium owners’ association that operates and maintains the common areas of the property known as the Hawaiian Inn. The Hawaiian Inn is located at 2301 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Florida. It consists of a five-story building containing 208 condominium units of different sizes, a large swimming pool and deck, and a parking lot. The units are privately owned by individuals rather than by the Resort. An overseer, John Witherow, loosely manages the property and maintains communications with a hired company which provides safety and security around the premises. The Resort provides a rental office on the ground floor where some 80 of the privately owned units are rented out to interested individuals on a short-term basis, much like a hotel. The other units are leased out by their owners directly to third-party lessees; the Resort does not get involved in the lease arrangements. Unit 323 at the Resort is owned by the Owners, who reside in Jensen Beach, Florida. Unit 323 is a small, efficiency apartment-style residence. Mrs. Caroline Dunn is employed as a housekeeper by several people who own units at the Hawaiian Inn, including the Owners. She will sometimes agree to act as an informal agent for the owners of units who want to lease them to third parties. She is not a licensed real estate agent and does not receive remuneration for her “agent” services. Mrs. Dunn and her husband are paid $50 each time they clean one of the units, but receive no other compensation related to the units. In August 2015, Ms. Aysheh approached Mrs. Dunn about the possibility of leasing a unit at the Resort. Mrs. Dunn checked with the Owners, who said they would rent Unit 323 for $1000 a month, with a term of August 15 through November 15 (or, possibly, December 15), 2015. No security deposit or other security was requested by the Owners. Ms. Aysheh, who had just lost her previous living arrangements, was excited to find the unit and was ready to move in immediately. Neither party prepared or offered a written contract or lease to express the agreed terms for rental of the unit. Ms. Aysheh testified that after negotiating this arrangement with Mrs. Dunn, Mrs. Dunn inquired about Ms. Aysheh’s nationality. (Ms. Aysheh has dark hair, olive skin, and Middle Eastern features.) When she replied that she was Middle Eastern, Mrs. Dunn allegedly responded, “Well, you’re not going to start blowing shit up are you?” Ms. Aysheh said she was so shocked by the comment that she did not immediately respond, but then just said, “No.” Mrs. Dunn laughed and left, presumably with an agreed oral rental agreement in place. About 20 minutes later, Ms. Aysheh says that Mrs. Dunn sent her a text message saying that the Owners now wanted $2000 per month for the unit and required a $500 deposit before she could move in. Mrs. Dunn denies ever saying such a thing and the evidence does not support the accusation; after all, Ms. Aysheh moved into the apartment as planned, with a rental amount of $1000 per month. Mrs. Dunn and/or the Owners allowed Ms. Aysheh to move in on the thirteenth of August rather than the fifteenth, the first two days free of charge. When Ms. Aysheh came to move in on the thirteenth, she told Mrs. Dunn she only had $500 and so she could pay for only half of the month. Mrs. Dunn contacted the Owners to report this fact. There is some, but not sufficient, evidence that the Owners at that point said the lease price would be raised to $2000 per month. Even if so, Ms. Aysheh was ultimately allowed to move in and pay $500 for the remainder of August, with $1000 due on September 1 for the next month’s rent. Ms. Aysheh moved into the unit under those conditions. When she moved in, Ms. Aysheh was given one or two “long term” parking permits, issued to persons who rented units at the Hawaiian Inn from private owners. Mrs. Dunn remembered Ms. Aysheh asking for several more parking permits, but no competent evidence was presented to prove how many permits Ms. Aysheh was given (and it is totally irrelevant to the issues herein anyway). As the rent for September was coming due, Mrs. Dunn contacted Ms. Aysheh via text on August 28, 2015, to remind her. Mrs. Dunn suggested Ms. Aysheh make the rent payment on August 31, 2015, but Ms. Aysheh replied that she would be out of town that day. Mrs. Dunn said that it would be okay to deliver payment on September 1, but Ms. Aysheh remembered telling Mrs. Dunn that September 1, 2015, was a holiday (although the Labor Day holiday in 2015 was actually celebrated on September 7, the first Monday of the month that year). Ultimately, Mrs. Dunn’s husband, Mr. Dunn, told Ms. Aysheh he would come by the unit to pick up the check on the fourth, a Thursday. Mr. Dunn also agreed to bring a receipt of some kind to acknowledge the payment. Ms. Aysheh maintains that the rent check was always due on the fourth anyway because her Social Security disability check arrived in her checking account on the third day of each month. She remembered clearing that date (the fourth) with Mrs. Dunn and/or the Owners during the initial conversation regarding the unit. Mrs. Dunn does not remember that being discussed; the Owners did not testify at final hearing. Prior to September 4, 2015, Mr. Dunn advised the Owners that a plumber was coming to do work on the unit. Because the plumbing work was a cost to the Owners, they instructed Mr. Dunn to use the proceeds from Ms. Aysheh’s payment to cover the plumbing cost. Mr. Dunn told the Owners that Ms. Aysheh was planning to make her payment on September fourth, so the money might not be available when the plumber arrived. The Owners told Mr. Dunn that Ms. Aysheh needed to pay her rent immediately so the money would be available to pay the plumber. On September 3, Mr. Dunn contacted Ms. Aysheh to tell her she must pay her rent immediately after all. Ms. Aysheh said Mr. Dunn refused her offer of payment that same day at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Dunn said that Ms. Aysheh told him at that time that she had put the rent money into an escrow account. But inasmuch as Ms. Aysheh said that her money was not deposited into her account until midnight on the third day of each month, it is unlikely she was able to offer payment to Mr. Dunn or that she placed the money in an escrow account on that day. In fact, Ms. Aysheh’s own exhibit shows that $1000 was placed in a Wells Fargo Bank account on September 4, 2015. The assertion by Ms. Aysheh concerning escrow of the rent payment led Mr. Dunn to believe she was trying to avoid paying the rent. When Mr. Dunn advised the Owners of this fact, they directed him to tell Ms. Aysheh to vacate the premises immediately. So Mr. Dunn planned to show up on September 4, 2015, as planned, but for the purpose of telling Ms. Aysheh to leave the unit rather than to pick up her rent check. Mr. Dunn asked Ms. Sheriffe, a contracted on-site security guard, to accompany him to the unit and “observe” while he talked to Ms. Aysheh. Ms. Sheriffe did not know what Mr. Dunn was going to tell Ms. Aysheh, only that he wanted a witness to the conversation because Ms. Aysheh was a single woman and he did not want anything misconstrued. Ms. Sheriffe went with Mr. Dunn but did not get involved in the discussion; she simply heard Mr. Dunn tell Ms. Aysheh she had to move out of the unit. Ms. Aysheh did not object nor did she ask to pay the rent at that time so that she could stay in the unit. She did not mention the escrowed funds at that time. Ms. Aysheh did ask if she could have until 3:00, about four hours, to remove her belongings and Mr. Dunn agreed. Ms. Aysheh then began moving her property out of the unit. Ms. Sheriffe went about her duties, but came back later to see that Ms. Aysheh was indeed moving out of the unit. The process took almost the entire four hours. Later, Ms. Sheriffe spoke with the building manager, Mr. Witherow, about what had happened at Unit 323. She had no previous discussions with Mr. Witherow about the situation. Ms. Aysheh vacated Unit 323 and had no further direct contact with the Owners, the Resort, or the Dunns. There was no competent evidence presented that the Resort was in any fashion aware of the arrangement between Ms. Aysheh and the Owners nor that the Resort was involved in the process at all. The only contact by Ms. Aysheh with the Resort was a short telephone conversation with Mr. Witherow after she had been told to vacate the unit. Mr. Witherow told Ms. Aysheh there was nothing the Resort could do; the dispute was between her and the Owners. Upon hearing that, Ms. Aysheh became upset and terminated the phone call. Ms. Aysheh’s exhibits must be addressed: Exhibit 1 purports to be screen shots of alleged texts between Ms. Aysheh and Caroline and/or Richard Dunn. The alleged dates and times of the texts are handwritten on the copied screen shots, but there is no persuasive evidence that the dates and times are correct. The individual texts are disjointed and there is no way to verify whether they were modified or are complete. Nor do the texts support either party’s position in this matter in any substantive way. Exhibit 2, the banking account summary, shows only that Ms. Aysheh put $1000 into a Wells Fargo Bank checking account on September 4, 2015, and removed the funds on September 9, 2015. While that fact may somewhat support Ms. Aysheh’s contention that she put her rent payment into escrow, it does not explain why that money was not offered to pay rent on September 4 as she had agreed to do. The exhibit does not indicate the time of day the money was deposited. Exhibit 3 is a hearsay document, i.e., the Commission’s No Cause Determination, which supports the Resort’s position more than it supports Ms. Aysheh. The short-term lease between Ms. Aysheh and the Owners was an oral agreement. The Resort was not a party to the agreement and had no prior knowledge of its terms and conditions.
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 Hanan Aysheh in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Hanan Aysheh Unit 1411 2800 North Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 D. Michael Clower, Esquire Suite 204 224 South Beach Street Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 (eServed) David B. Russell, Esquire Law Offices of Pappas, Russell and Rawnsley 213 Silver Beach Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
