The Issue The issue in this case is whether a development order (Resolution No. 233- 1991) issued by Monroe County on June 26, 1991, to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., is inconsistent with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Regulations, and/or whether it violates a Joint Stipulation of Settlement previously executed by the Department of Community Affairs ("DCA"), Monroe County (the "County"), and Key Largo Associates, Ltd.'s predecessor in title.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: DCA is the State Land Planning Agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. The County issued the Development Order which is the subject of this proceeding. Most of Monroe County, including the subject property, is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical Concern as designated in Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. Development orders issued by a local government agency for an area of critical state concern are subject to review by DCA pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. On April 8, 1985, DCA, Monroe County, and I. D. Properties, the previous owner of the subject property, executed a Joint Stipulation of Settlement regarding DCA's challenge to a prior development order for the subject property. That Joint Stipulation of Settlement required the preservation of certain tropical hammock on the site including Paradise Tree hammock. After executing the Joint Stipulation of Settlement, I. D. Properties quitclaimed its interest in the site to Key Largo Associates, Ltd. Key Largo Associates, Ltd. proceeded to seek approval from Monroe County to develop the property inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. Those efforts resulted in the Development Order which is the subject of this case. The County Commission issued the Development Order granting a major conditional use permit for the Project to Key Largo Associates, Ltd., after being ordered to do so by the Circuit Court for Monroe County. The Development Order purports to authorize the complete elimination of existing tropical hammock on the site including the Paradise Tree hammock. The Development Order is inconsistent with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted thereunder. In addition, the Development Order is contrary to the terms of the Joint Stipulation of Settlement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which sustains the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs and which rescinds the issuance of Monroe County Resolution No. 233- 1991. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August 1993. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrell K. Arline Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Betty J. Steffens, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Blackwater Associates Partnership 7225 S.W. 108th Terrace Miami, Florida 33156 Ray Parker Parker Real Estate 2028 North Dixie Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33305 Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 G. Steven Pfeiffer General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David K. Coburn, Secretary FLWAC Exec. Office of the Governor 311 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about June 10, 1986 Petitioners submitted a conditional use application to Respondent for the package sale of beer and wine at 601 Bayway Boulevard, Bayside Subdivision No. 5, Lot 1, Black B, in Clearwater Beach, Florida. The property in question is zoned SC (beach commercial), and the alcoholic beverage designation being sought is 2 APS. Respondent has identified this conditional use application as C.U. 86-49. The Planning and Zoning Board denied Petitioners' application on August 5, 1986 by a vote of 4 to 2, and Petitioners timely filed this appeal. The subject property is the site of a convenience store which is surrounded by motels and commercial establishments such as a bank, restaurant and lounge, car rental agency and a miniature golf course. Another convenience store which sells alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption is located within three blocks of the property in question. Robert E. Davis operated the convenience store on the subject property from 1977 to July, 1986 at which time Petitioners acquired their interest in the property and the convenience store. While Davis was operating the convenience store the package sale of beer and wine was allowed under a previously approved conditional use. However in accordance with Section 136.024(b), City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Petitioners were required to reapply for conditional use approval upon the change of business ownership of the subject property. Under Davis' management, the convenience store regularly closed at 11:00 P.M., but beginning approximately one month prior to Petitioners acquiring their interest in the store and the property, Davis began to keep the convenience store open twenty four hours a day. Petitioners have operated the store twenty four hours a day since it has been under their management. Public testimony was offered in opposition to Petitioners' application due to concerns about increases in noise, lights, traffic, loitering, trash and debris, and consumption of alcohol on the premises since Petitioners have acquired their interest. Petitioners concede that there was a problem with rowdyism and trash when they initially took over the convenience store, but state that these problems have been corrected. By letter dated August 5, 1986, Chief of Police Sid Klein confirmed a problem with young people gathering on the premises and stated that he did not feel approval of this conditional use would be compatible with the need of the neighborhood. However, little weight can be given to this exhibit since it is clearly hearsay, and relates solely to conditions existing several months ago when Petitioners had just acquired their interest in the subject property and convenience store. Petitioners are seeking to continue the package sale of beer and wine on the subject premises during authorized hours, as had been allowed for previous owners. This activity will clearly be compatible with other commercial businesses in the neighborhood, and with prior business conducted at this specific location. Although there were problems with trash and rowdyism on the premises in July and August, 1986, Petitioners have taken corrective action, and have committed to continued management improvements. The use in question is compatible with surrounding uses and complies with Respondent's land use plan. Acceptable ingress and egress is provided, and noise from the site will not diminish the use, enjoyment or value of the surrounding property. Petitioners are taking steps to reduce the glare to surrounding properties from motor vehicle lights. Sufficient parking area is provided on site, and the evidence does not establish that the sale of beer and wine at this location increases traffic in the area. This is an existing use which was allowed when Petitioners acquired their interest in the subject property. There was no evidence that Petitioners have sold, or will sell, beer and wine at the store beyond the legal hours for such sale, or that they have or will sell to minors.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1) (C) AND 9.110. . TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-278 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished by the manner indicated to each of the persons listed below on this 5 OM aay ° , 2009. Paula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail Honorable Donald R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Shannon K. Eller Deputy General Counsel City of Jacksonville 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, FL 32202 By Hand Delivery Lynette Norr Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs
The Issue Appellant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the Commission departed from the essential requirements of the law by determining that VOF's proposed swimming pool is not part of a "resort hotel"; (2) whether the Commission departed from the essential requirements of the law by determining that VOF's proposed swimming pool is an inappropriate use in the Destination Resort (DR) zoning district; and (3) whether the Commission denied VOF due process by allowing Intervenors to present evidence at the Commission hearing on July 13, 2011. For the reasons expressed below, the Commission did not depart from the essential requirements of the law when it rendered Resolution No. P29-11, and it did not deny VOF due process during its hearing.
The Issue The issues are whether the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) proposed agency action to issue a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit to Respondents, Daniel G. and Doris L. Wentz (Wentzes or applicants), affects the substantial interests of Petitioner, James Hasselback, and if so, whether he timely filed his request for a hearing.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Background This case is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute between adjacent property owners in Gulf County. In 1984, the Cape Haven Townhomes (Cape Haven), consisting of five two-story units on pilings, were constructed at 263 Haven Road on Cape San Blas just west of County Road 30E. Petitioner purchased his unit in 1985 and has owned it continuously since that time. The remaining units were purchased by several other individuals, including Barnett, Hosford, Steve Brady (Brady), and Alison Dohrman, the daughter of Thomas Dohrman (Dohrman). Ownership in the Barnett unit is shared with two other persons, John Beranek (Beranek) and Stephen Hanlon (Hanlon). There are, then, seven individuals having an ownership interest in the five units. Although the complex faced the Gulf of Mexico to the west, another lot, which at one time was approximately 350 feet deep and 65 feet wide, lay between Cape Haven and the Gulf of Mexico. Between 1985 and 1999, the lot lying between the Gulf of Mexico and Cape Haven remained vacant. In December 1999, the Wentzes purchased the lot, which is located at 193 Haven Lane. The lot is divided into Parcels A and B, which appear to be of equal size with both facing the Gulf of Mexico. See Wentz Exhibit 1. It can be inferred that they purchased the lot with the intention of constructing a single-family dwelling on the property. In February 2000, the Wentzes filed an application with the Department for a CCCL permit authorizing the construction of a home on Parcel B. On July 9, 2002, the Department issued proposed agency action approving the application and issuing Permit No. GU-305. A petition was filed by Barnett and Hanlon challenging this action, the matter was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 02-3252, an evidentiary hearing was conducted, and a Final Order was entered denying the application. Barnett, et al. v. Wentz, et al., DOAH Case No. 02-3252, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 232 (DOAH June 5, 2003), adopted, 2003 Fla. ENV LEXIS 231 (DEP Aug. 4, 2003). In that proceeding, Barnett and Hanlon were represented by the law firm then known as Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A., now known as Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A. (the law firm). In September 2000, the Wentzes also filed an application for a field permit to enhance the dune system on their property. After the Department proposed to grant Field Permit 014292 authorizing the dune enhancement project, a petition challenging that action was filed by the law firm on behalf of Barnett, Dohrman, Hosford, Brady, Hanlon, Beranek, and Hasselback. The matter was referred to DOAH and was assigned Case No. 00-4460. Before a final hearing was conducted, however, Petitioners filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. In 2004, the Wentzes filed another application with the Department for a CCCL permit, this time on Parcel A. On September 8, 2004, the Department issued its notice of intent to issue Permit GU-409. Notice of this action was not published. Therefore, actual or constructive notice was required in order to afford third parties, including Mr. Hasselback, a point of entry. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-110.106(2)(receipt of notice means "either receipt of written notice or publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county . . . in which the activity is to take place"). Besides the law firm, Barnett, Dohrman, and several others not relevant here received personal written notice of the Department's action. Thereafter, acting pro se Barnett timely requested at least six extensions of time to file a petition challenging the proposed agency action. The last extension lapsed on February 14, 2006, and neither Barnett nor any other Cape Haven owner requested a hearing by that date. In August 2005, the Wentzes filed an inverse condemnation suit against the Department. See Wentz v. State, Department of Environmental Protection, Case No. 05-270CA (14th Cir., Gulf Co. Fla.). On April 10, 2006, the Department issued a Final Order stating that it intended to revoke Permit GU-409 on the grounds the property was not platted prior to October 1, 1985, and shoreline changes had occurred after the proposed agency action had been issued. See DOAH Case No. 06-2381. Presumably, the latter reason was based on severe erosion of the shoreline due to several storms or hurricanes that struck the Florida Panhandle. According to testimony at hearing, due to erosion caused by storm events, the lot has receded from its original 350 feet in depth to around 175 feet at the present time. (In Case No. 02-2352, the administrative law judge noted that between 1993 and October 2002, around 47 percent of the property's total depth, or 170 feet, had eroded. Barnett at *11.) This in turn requires that any structure built on the Wentzes' lot be much closer to Petitioner's unit. One witness estimated that the Wentzes' septic tank, drain fields, and driveway would be no more than 30 feet from the front of the complex, while the pilings supporting the structure would be no more than 40 feet from the complex. The Wentzes challenged the proposed revocation of Permit GU-409 and simultaneously filed a rule challenge. See DOAH Case No. 06-2309RX. In August 2007, the Wentzes and Department reached a global settlement on all pending matters, and in return for the Wentzes' dismissing all pending court and administrative actions and executing a conservation easement in favor of the State as to one of the two parcels, the Department agreed to issue a Notice to Proceed (NTP) with the construction on Parcel A and to extend the expiration date on Permit GU-409 from September 8, 2007, to May 8, 2010. Except for the extension of the expiration date, no other changes to Permit GU- 409 were made. An extension was necessary because the permit would otherwise expire within a month, and no activity on the property had occurred due to Barnett's six requests for extension of time to file a petition and the passage of time required to resolve the revocation case and reach a global settlement. After the NTP was issued, concrete pilings were placed on the site and still remain as of this date. According to recent photographs, no other construction has occurred pending the outcome of this case. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. In response to the Department's action, on October 10, 2007, the law firm filed a Petition on behalf of Barnett and Hosford in which they claimed that they first learned of the Department's latest action by reading a real estate listing in early October 2007, which advertised the Wentzes' property for sale, including a three-bedroom, three-bath home then under construction. On October 19, 2007, the Wentzes filed with the Department a Motion to Dismiss the request for a hearing as being untimely. Barnett and Hosford were later dismissed from the case on the grounds a new point of entry was not required by the latest Department action, and they had waived their right to contest the issuance of Permit GU-409 by (a) Hosford's failing to timely file a petition after notice of the agency action was issued on September 8, 2004, and (b) Barnett's failing to file a petition after the last extension of time to do so expired in February 2006. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Jan. 25, 2008. On or about October 23, 2007, or just after the Motion to Dismiss had been filed by the Wentzes, Petitioner was contacted first by Hosford and then Barnett, who asked that he participate in the case to challenge Permit GU-409 since they believed that "apparently . . . [he was] not noticed by DEP on GU-409", and Petitioner was "the key for all of us maintaining our rights." See Wentz Exhibit 23. Petitioner agreed to file a petition since he thought it was in the best interests of all of the unit owners and did so within a matter of "two or three days." The Petition was prepared by the law firm and was filed with the Department on October 26, 2007. Substantial Interests At hearing, and in pre-hearing discovery, Petitioner testified that his substantial interests would be affected by the proposed agency action in three ways: (a) it would adversely affect his view of the Gulf of Mexico; (b) it would negatively impact the value of his townhome; and (c) he feared that wind or waterborne missiles from the structure during a storm event would cause damage to his townhome, which lies directly behind and to the east of the proposed construction site. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(4)(f)(an applicant must show that "[t]he construction will minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm").1 The latter concern is the subject of the Wentzes' Motion in Limine briefly discussed in the Background portion of this Recommended Order. In addition to his testimony, on page 2 of the parties' Stipulation, Petitioner identifies the following concerns with the proposed agency action: The project does not satisfy the requirements or purpose of the statutes and rules limiting coastal construction; will diminish his observation and enjoyment of flora and fauna including sea turtles; will damage his property[;] and will have a significant adverse impact to marine turtles and the coastal system. Finally, in paragraph 21 of the Petition, the following allegation is made regarding the substantial interests of Petitioner: Should the permit be permitted, the Petitioner will no longer be able to enjoy the flora and fauna of Cape San Blas, the proposed project will jeopardize the Petitioner's continued enjoyment of his property at this location as described above, and the Petitioner's rights will be swept aside. The Wentzes argue that in demonstrating how his substantial interests are affected, Petitioner is limited to the reasons he gave during his testimony, both before and during the final hearing, irrespective of any other issues identified in his Petition or the parties' Stipulation. On the other hand, through counsel, Petitioner argues that he is a lay person, he cannot be expected to give opinion testimony in support of technical allegations in the pleadings and Stipulation, and that expert testimony may be used to establish how his substantial interests may be affected. A common thread in the testimony of Mr. Hasselback and the Stipulation is a concern that the proposed activity "will damage his property." See Stip., p. 2. Therefore, assuming arguendo that the Wentzes' argument regarding the standing issues that may be raised is correct, Petitioner is still entitled to offer proof that his property may be damaged by the proposed activity. As to the other two concerns stated in Petitioner's testimony, neither loss of view nor loss of economic value is a relevant consideration. See, e.g., Schoonover Children's Trust v. Village at Blue Mountain Beach, LLC, et al., Case No. 01- 0765, Recommended Order of Dismissal, April 20, 2001 (dismissing challenge to CCCL permit based upon allegations of loss of view and economic injury because "neither . . . is a protected interest in a proceeding under Section 161.053, Florida Statutes"). See also Young, et al. v. Department of Environmental Protection, et al., Case No. 04-3426, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 155 at *30 (DOAH Aug. 15, 2005), adopted, 2005 Fla. ENV LEXIS 154 (DEP Sept. 26, 2005). Therefore, only the contention that the issuance of a permit may cause wind or waterborne missiles to strike or cause damage to his property need be decided to resolve the standing issue. Rule 62B-33.005(4)(f) requires that an applicant for a CCCL permit demonstrate that "[t]he construction will minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm." Mr. Hasselback is concerned that if a dwelling is constructed in front of his unit as proposed and no more than 40 feet away, during a severe storm event parts of that structure may be carried by wind or water into his unit. Although any dwelling constructed on the coastline must be designed to withstand the impact of a 100-year storm, a coastal engineer established that even if the home is built to those standards, "substantial structural elements" (such as sections of roofing material, siding, stairways, and the like) may still be carried by water, or blown by the wind, into Cape Haven, which lies directly behind, and less than 40 feet from, the proposed structure. The expert also pointed out that both the Department and Federal Emergency Management Agency require that all frangible structural components (those that tend to break up into fragments) below the first living floor remain unattached to the home. In this respect, the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Hasselback could reasonably expect to be adversely impacted in this manner should a permit be approved.2 Petitioner's expert also established that the existence of the pilings on the Wentz structure could accelerate beach erosion and cause damage to the beach dune system on Petitioner's property. Because of the extremely high rate of erosion on Cape San Blas, he opined that such impact could occur soon after the Wentz structure was completed. In this additional respect, Petitioner's substantial interests could reasonably be expected to be affected by the issuance of a permit. Was the Petition Timely Filed? Mr. Hasselback is the Mary Ball Washington Eminent Scholar in the College of Business, University of West Florida, in Pensacola, but maintains a residence in Tallahassee. As such, he must commute between the two cities each week during the academic year. He also travels much of the other time. Because of his schedule, he stated that he visits his unit only "an average of once a year." The record shows that he occasionally communicates by email or telephone with other unit owners, particularly Barnett, who is considered the "leader" of the unit owners in opposing any development on the Wentz property. It is fair to infer that since the property was purchased by the Wentzes in late 1999, most, if not all, of the information derived by Petitioner (and other unit owners) about the Wentz property, including any proposed activities they have undertaken, has come from Barnett, rather than other sources. Throughout this case, Mr. Hasselback has consistently maintained that he was unaware that the Department proposed to issue Permit GU-409 until he spoke by telephone with Barnett and Hosford in late October 2007 after the Wentzes had filed a Motion to Dismiss the Barnett/Hosford Petition. After the Department denied the application for Permit GU-305 in August 2003, he says he assumed that the issue was closed and that no further development would occur on the Wentzes' property. There is no direct evidence to dispute these assertions. Notwithstanding Mr. Hasselback's testimony, the Wentzes and Department contend that the law firm has represented the unit owners as a group since 2000, when the first two applications were filed, and that this relationship was still in effect in September 2004 when the law firm received notice of the Department's proposed agency action regarding Permit GU-409. They go on to contend that an agency relationship between the unit owners and the law firm existed, that it is presumed to continue in the absence of anything to show its revocation or termination, that the law firm's receipt of separate written notice concerning Permit GU-409 constituted constructive notice on Petitioner, and a petition should have been filed within 21 days after receipt of notice. Conversely, Petitioner contends that the attorney-client relationship between him and the law firm ended when the litigation in Case No. 02-2352 was concluded in August 2003, that the law firm did not represent him in September 2004, and that any notice to the law firm regarding the issuance of Permit GU-409 cannot be imputed to him. For the following reasons, on two different bases, including one not addressed by the parties, it is found that Petitioner received constructive notice of the proposed issuance of Permit GU-409 on or about September 15, 2004. To resolve the contentions of the parties, a factual review of the relationship between the law firm and Cape Haven owners is necessary. As discussed in greater detail below, this task is a difficult one because of the large number of unit owners (seven), some of whom participated as parties in one case, but not the others, and who are referred to by the law firm in correspondence or other papers generically as "a group of property owners, "adjacent property owners," or "other Cape Haven Townhome owners," and in other papers by their specific names. Although the law firm normally required that its clients execute a letter of engagement before agreeing to represent them, this policy was not strictly followed, and some unit owners who had not signed a letter of engagement were named as parties in a Wentz proceeding, while others who had signed a letter were not. Finally, the record supports a finding that throughout the nine-year controversy between the parties, Barnett has been the individual who acted as liason between the other unit owners and the law firm. After the Wentzes filed their application for a CCCL permit in February 2000, on August 4, 2000, Mr. Hasselback and three other unit owners, Dohrman, Barnett, and Hosford, each signed a letter of engagement with the law firm, also known as a New Matter Report (Report), authorizing the firm to represent them in the Wentz matter. See Wentz Exhibit 13. Petitioner says he "most likely" learned about the proposed issuance of Permit GU-305 through Barnett, who urged all of the unit owners "to come together" in opposing the permit. Petitioner agrees that all of the unit owners acted as a group "to fight the field permit and the GU-305." Even though Hasselback, Dohrman, and Hosford each signed a Report, the Reports identified only Barnett, Hanlon, and Beranek, who share ownership in unit 5, as the clients in the matter; Barnett was listed as the contact person. However, there is no evidence that Hanlon and Beranek ever signed a Report. Presumably, as co-owners with Barnett of unit 5, they had informally agreed with Barnett to be named as clients and to reimburse him for their pro rata share of the costs. The subject of the Reports was the "potential challenge of coastal control permit" and contained no information as to when the firm's services would cease. On September 25, 2000, the Department proposed to issue a field permit to the Wentzes for dune enhancement. See Case No. 00-4460. On October 11, 2000, the law firm filed a petition challenging the issuance of that permit. The petition was filed on behalf of all seven unit owners, even though three had never signed a Report. Although he probably discussed the substance of the petition before it was filed, Mr. Hasselback admits that he did not know the difference between a field permit and a CCCL permit and said he signed his Report so that the law firm could take "action against [the Wentzes] being able to build on [their] property." On October 20, 2000, the law firm also sent a letter to Department counsel requesting Department counsel to remind the Wentzes that a petition had been filed on behalf of its clients, that Permit 014292 was only proposed action, and that the Wentzes should not proceed with any work on the site. See Wentz Exhibit 3. The letter reflects that all of the Cape Haven owners, including Petitioner, were copied with that correspondence. The law firm's representation of the unit owners as a group at that time was confirmed by a letter sent to the Department on October 1, 2001, stating that the firm represented all of the Cape Haven owners, including Barnett, Dohrman, both Hosford and his wife, Brady, Hanlon, Beranek, and Petitioner, in their challenge to the Permit GU-305 application. It also requested notice of any decisions regarding the permit and a point of entry. See Wentz Exhibit 17. A copy of the letter was sent to all unit owners, including Petitioner. When the Department issued its formal proposed agency action regarding Permit GU-305 on July 9, 2002, it sent separate written notice to a member of the law firm on the same date. See Wentz Composite Exhibit 8. A petition was then timely filed by the law firm challenging that action. Notwithstanding the firm's letter of October 1, 2001, which indicated that all of the unit owners were opposing the issuance of a CCCL permit, only Barnett and Hanlon (who had not signed a Report) were identified as petitioners in the GU-305 case. Petitioner acknowledged, however, that he and the owners of three other units, but not Brady, agreed to share in the expenses of that case even though they were not named as parties. In all, he paid more than $35,000.00 in legal fees.3 (Brady, who owns unit 3, did not sign a Report, and according to Petitioner, he would not agree to share legal expenses in opposing the Wentzes' applications; even so, his name was on the petition filed in Case No. 00-4460.) Before Case No. 02-3252 was concluded, by letter dated January 15, 2003, the law firm, through a former member, Patricia A. Renovitch, Esquire, made the following request to Michael W. Sole, then Bureau Chief of the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources: Please consider this a request on behalf of adjacent property owners for notices about points of entry prior to the issuance of any permits to, and notices of any applications filed by, Doris and/or Daniel Wentz regarding the coastal lots they own on Cape San Blas that are described in File Numbers GU-375 and GU-305 (DOAH Case No. 02-3252 and OGC Case No. 02-1127). This would include notices of any applications for coastal construction control line permits or "dune enhancement" permits for these lots. (Emphasis added) In this instance, the law firm identified the unit owners as "adjacent property owners" without any further specificity. It can be inferred, however, that the law firm was still representing the entire group. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that because Case No. 02-3252 was not yet concluded, the law firm was still representing him when the letter was sent. He also agreed that the letter authorized the law firm to receive notices of "any applications" on behalf of him and the other unit owners the Wentzes might file in the future. Petitioner says his relationship with the law firm ended on August 4, 2003, when the Department issued a Final Order denying the application for Permit GU-305. He acknowledges that he never notified the Department or the law firm that the relationship ended on that day, and he did not instruct the law firm to revoke his prior authorization to receive notices of "any applications" that might be filed by the Wentzes in the future. Lacking any contrary information, the law firm did not advise the Department that it no longer was his agent for purposes of receiving notices. In response to Ms. Renovitch's letter sent to the Department in January 2003, on June 4, 2004, the Department sent a letter to the law firm (and Barnett individually) advising that the Wentzes had just filed another application for a CCCL permit, that it was being assigned File Number GU-409, and that any comments should be filed within ten days. See Department Exhibit 4o. In response to the Department's letter, on June 15, 2004, Ms. Renovitch filed a letter with the Department indicating in part as follows: Please consider the following comments made in behalf of our clients, Richard Barnett and other Cape Haven townhome owners of adjacent and/or upland property to the property described in the above styled application. (Emphasis added) The letter went on to state that "Mr. Barnett and other similarly-situated upland/adjacent property owners of Cape Haven townhomes submit their carefully considered objections to the issuance . . . of GU-409." See Department Exhibit 4o. Based on this correspondence, it can be inferred that in June 2004, at least for purposes of receiving "notices of any applications" filed by the Wentzes and submitting comments on behalf of the unit owners, an apparent principal-agent relationship still existed between the "other Cape Haven townhome owners" and the law firm, and that Petitioner was one of the unit owners being represented for those purposes. A copy of the letter was provided to Barnett, who presumably approved its content. On September 13, 2004, or five days after the Department issued its proposed agency action to issue Permit GU- 409, the Department sent separate written notice of this action to the law firm, Dohrman, Barnett, Erik J. Olsen (Olsen), a coastal engineer in Jacksonville, Florida, who testified as a consultant for Petitioner in this case, and several other individuals not relevant here. See Wentz Composite Exhibit 8. The notice was received by Barnett on September 15, 2004, and presumably by the law firm on or about the same date. See Department Exhibit 4n. (Besides the law firm, Barnett, Dohrman, and Olsen were also given separate written notice since they had each filed additional written objections in response to the Department's letter of June 4, 2004.) Although Barnett promptly contacted the law firm after receiving the notice to discuss the case, there is no evidence that the law firm contacted or spoke with any of the other unit owners regarding the proposed agency action. More likely than not, this was because it assumed that, based on the prior conduct of the parties, Barnett was the leader or "contact" person for the group and would convey any pertinent information to the other unit owners. While the law firm had not yet agreed to represent any of the unit owners on the merits of the GU-409 case since new Reports had not yet been sent out, see Finding 32, infra, the law firm was still Petitioner's agent for purposes of receiving notice of "any applications," and its receipt of the Department's notice on or about September 15, 2004, constituted constructive notice on Petitioner. On September 27, 2004, Ms. Renovitch emailed Kenneth Oertel, Esquire, the senior partner in the law firm, regarding the proposed agency action to issue Permit GU-409 and advised him as follows: Rick [Barnett] called a couple of times last week about the GU-409 case. He and John Beranek are in charge of overseeing the case (assuming we take it). They have approved the content of the Petition (per the memo I sent early last week.) I spoke to Rick Barnett several times about the balance (approx. $10K) on the bill in GU-305 (first Wentz CCCL permit). He said it's owed by Tom Dohrman and he will try to get a letter confirming when and how Tom will pay the balance. In the new case, the clients would be Rick, John Beranek, Jim Hasselback, Laurie Hosford, and Tom Dohrman. They will be paying equal shares. We have the NMRs [New Matter Reports] ready to send out, but have not sent them due to the unpaid balance in the first case. Rick wants to meet with DEP counsel Mark Miller and Tony McNeal about the GU-409 case this week . . . . Tony is very busy with hurricane impact emergencies . . . [and] Mark suggested Rick file a request for an extension to file the Petition. (Emphasis added) See Wentz Exhibit 9. Mr. Hasselback is not listed as a recipient of the email and he never spoke with Barnett or Ms. Renovitch about the case. He attributes the mentioning of his name in the email and being named as a party in the proposed petition to an assumption on the part of Barnett that "we may still have a group." However, given the prior conduct of the parties, it is reasonable to infer at a minimum that Barnett had Petitioner's implied authority to instruct the law firm to include his name on the proposed petition and to represent that Petitioner would share in the costs of the action. In response to that email, Mr. Oertel replied by email the same date that "we can't take a case where the client already owes us a substantial sum and has a hard time paying it. It will mean at best we will get paid only 80% of our bill." Id. At the suggestion of Mark Miller (Department counsel), Barnett requested that the Department grant him an extension of time to file a petition in order not to waive the 21-day filing requirement, which expired on October 6, 2004. The first request for an extension of time was filed on September 27, 2004, and stated in part that "I request a two week extension to October 20, 2004, for the homeowners of Cape Haven to consider all issues that could be raised in filing a potential challenge to this permit." (Emphasis added) See Department Exhibit 4n. The "homeowners" are not otherwise identified, although it is fair to infer that they were the five unit owners identified in the proposed petition whose content was approved by Barnett and Beranek. According to Ms. Renovitch's email of September 27, 2004, by requesting an extension of time, this would also "give [Barnett] more time to try to get Tom Dohrman to set up a payment plan." The last request for an extension of time was filed on November 14, 2005, and expired on February 14, 2006. Barnett says that he "lost track of the time and didn't submit [a seventh request] in time, but [he] clearly intended to submit [one]". The end result was that the law firm did not accept the case in September 2004, no petition was filed, and a new Report was not executed by any unit owner. After reading an advertisement regarding the potential sale of the Wentz property in October 2007, Barnett and Hosford engaged the services of the law firm to file a petition challenging the action taken by the Department in August 2007. There is no evidence that they signed a new Report authorizing the law firm to represent them. As noted above, their petition was later dismissed as being untimely. The law firm then filed a petition on behalf of Petitioner, who agrees that it was filed "to maintain the rights" of the group. However, he has not signed a new Report for this case, he has not been billed for any legal fees, he believes that Barnett is paying "some of the cost," but he expects he will probably end up paying a part of the legal fees incurred in this action. Based upon the facts of this case, and the conduct of the parties, the record also supports a finding that a principal-agent relationship existed between Petitioner and Barnett. As noted above, Barnett has always been the leader of the group of unit owners in opposing any development on the Wentz property. He communicated in writing and by telephone with Department personnel on numerous occasions over the years regarding the status of the activities on the property and periodically relayed this information to other unit owners by telephone or emails. Even though the law firm was given notice on behalf of the unit owners, Barnett also requested separate written notice from the Department for any applications filed after the GU-305 case, including the GU-409 permit. Barnett was initially identified by the law firm as the contact person for the group and has regularly met or communicated with the law firm regarding the various permits being challenged. It is fair to infer that the law firm assumed that Barnett had the authority to act on behalf of the other unit owners in coordinating their opposition to any permit challenges. This is evidenced by one of its emails indicating that Barnett was "in charge of overseeing the [GU-409] case" and that he approved the content of the proposed petition in which Mr. Hasselback was named as one of the parties. Although no longer a party in this case, he continues to discuss strategy of the case with counsel and other unit owners, including Petitioner. Finally, since the inception of these disputes, the record supports a finding that the law firm has invoiced Barnett for its legal fees, and Barnett then seeks reimbursement from the other owners, including Petitioner. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer from the evidence that because of his work schedule and travel, and infrequent visits to his townhome, since 2000 Petitioner has, at a minimum, impliedly authorized Barnett to serve as his agent to advise him about any activities by the Wentzes that might potentially impact the value of his townhome. The fact that Barnett did not always timely convey the information, as was the case here, does not negate this relationship. Because notice was received by Petitioner's agent on September 15, 2004, the time for filing a challenge to the issuance of Permit GU-409 expired 21 days after receipt of that written notice, or on October 6, 2004. Assuming that Mr. Hasselback was one of the "homeowners of Cape Haven" referred to in Barnett's first request for an extension of time to file a petition on September 27, 2004, and the subsequent five requests, the time for filing a petition expired no later than February 14, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing, with prejudice, the Petition of James Hasselback as being untimely. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether appellant's application for a conditional use permit should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: Appellant, Nostimo, Inc. (appellant, applicant or Nostimo), is the owner of Lots 8, 9, 10 and 11, Block 8, Revised Plat of Clearwater Beach Subdivision, located at 32 Bay Esplanade, Clearwater Beach, Florida. The property is subject to the land use requirements codified in the City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances (code or city code). By application filed on April 25, 1989 appellant sought the issuance of a conditional use permit from appellee, City of Clearwater (City or appellee). If approved, the permit would authorize the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption by a Pick Kwik Food Store to be constructed on the property under a lease agreement between appellant and Pick Kwik, Inc. Appellant's property is properly zoned for a retail establishment (CB or Beach Commerical), and it needs no further zoning permits from the City in order to convert the existing structures on the property to a convenience store. Indeed, appellant has already received approval for the construction and operation of the store. However, under subsection 137.024(b) of the city code, appellant is required to obtain a conditional use permit because it intends to engage in the sale of packaged beer and wine for off-premises consumption. In order to obtain such a permit the applicant must satisfy a number of criteria embodied in the code. The parties have stipulated that, with the exception of one standard, all other relevant criteria have been met. The disputed standard requires that "the use shall be compatible with the surrounding area and not impose an excessive burden or have a substantial negative impact on surrounding or adjacent uses or on community facilities or services." It is noted that appellant must secure the necessary land use permit from the City before it can obtain the alcoholic beverage license from the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The application was considered by the Clearwater Planning and Zoning Board (Board) on June 13, 1989 and denied by a 5-0 vote with one member abstaining. As a basis for the denial, the Board adopted a staff report that concluded that "due to the beach area being saturated with this use (sale of alcoholic beverages), public nuisances requiring police action are taxing community services." It further concluded that the proliferation of this activity "has a substantial negative impact on surrounding or adjacent uses or on community facilities and services, specifically police services in handling nuisances related to alcoholic beverage establishments." Members of the public who testified in opposition to the application expressed concern over increased traffic in the area, the glare of lights from a 24 hours per day establishment, and potential problems arising from customers who will consume the beer and wine during the evening hours. In addition, two letters in opposition to the application were considered by the Board. Finally, besides a presentation by applicant's attorney, two witnesses appeared on behalf of the applicant and established that Pick Wick, Inc. provides security services at its stores, if needed, and training for employees to prevent the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. The subject property is located on the western side of the intersection of Bay Esplanade and Mandalay Avenue in Clearwater Beach, an elongated strip of land to the west of the mainland portion of the City and separated from the mainland by Clearwater Harbor. Mandalay Avenue runs north and south through the heart of Clearwater Beach and is a principal traffic artery in that part of the community. The avenue narrows from four to two lanes just south of where the store is to be located. Bay Esplanade is a much shorter street and runs in an east-west direction between the Gulf of Mexico and Clearwater Harbor. In general terms, the property is surrounded by mixed uses and include a 7-11 convenience store immediately across the street to the east, motels and rental apartments, a restaurant, retail businesses and resort facilities, residences, public areas and a city fire station. Maps received in evidence more definitively depict the nature of the uses surrounding Nostimo's property. In addition to a number of commercial establishments within the immediate area, there are also tennis courts, a parking area, community boat ramp, soccer field, playground and public park. Finally, the area is replete with apartments, rental units and condominiums, including some directly behind the proposed establishment. Although there are presently no active businesses located on the subject property, the premises were once occupied by a hotel, apartments, hot dog shop and a small lounge that offered both on and off premises consumption of alcohol. The applicant contends that the proposed use is compatible with both the property's former use and the present surrounding area, particularly since a 7-11 convenience store directly across the street has been in business selling beer and wine for the last twenty-five years, and there are several restaurants or motels within a block that sell alcoholic beverages. The applicant added that, in all, there are approximately fifty-three active alcoholic beverage licenses within two miles of the proposed convenience store. At both the Board hearing and final hearing in this cause, the City Police Department offered testimony in opposition to the issuance of the requested permit. According to the uncontradicted testimony of Lt. Frank Palumbo, who is the Clearwater Beach police department district commander, additional noise, vandalism, traffic congestion and congregation of younger people are expected if the permit is issued. This opinion was based upon his law enforcement experience with other convenience stores on the Beach side that sell beer and wine, including another Pick Wick convenience store. Further, Mandalay Avenue is an important north-south traffic artery in Clearwater Beach, and there are no alternative streets for residents and visitors to use to avoid the traffic build-up that will occur around the store. Lieutenant Palumbo disputed the assertion that the lounge that once occupied a portion of the subject property generated substantial numbers of customers and associated traffic and that the new enterprise is actually a downgrade in use. He pointed out that the former lounge was very small, and a congregation of four or five customers at any one time was a "large crowd." In contrast, the police officer distinguished that situation from the proposed store where the sale of beer and wine around the clock is expected to generate larger volumes of traffic and customers, particularly during the evening hours. Finally, it has been Lt. Palumbo's experience that convenience stores that sell beer and wine attract the younger crowd, including minors, during the late hours of the night, and they create noise and sanitation problems for the adjacent property owners. The witness concluded that all of these factors collectively would have a negative impact on "community services" by placing a greater demand on police resources. This testimony was echoed by a city planner who gave deposition testimony in this cause. The nexus between the sale of alcoholic beverages and increased traffic and noise was corroborated by Daniel Baker, the manager of another Pick Wick store and a former employee of the 7-11 store across the street, who recalled that when beer sales stopped at that store at midnight, the noise and traffic also came to a halt. In this regard, it is noted the proposed store will operate twenty-four hours per day. To the above extent, then, the proposed use is incompatible with the requirements of section 137.011(d)(6). Two other witnesses testified at final hearing in opposition to the application. One, who is a member of a church that lies a block from the proposed store, pointed out without contradiction that a playground sits next to the church and is used by area young people, many of whom use bicycles as their means of transportation. She was concerned that if more traffic is generated by the store, it would make access to the playground more hazardous and discourage the children from using the facility. The second member of the public is concerned that the store will be incompatible with the surrounding area. This is because much of the neighboring area is made up of public areas, apartments, rental units or condominiums, and he contended an establishment selling alcoholic beverages would be inconsistent with those uses.
The Issue The appellant contends that the Planning Commission "did not base its decision on specific standards or criteria [set forth in the zoning regulation] as required. Nor was there any competent substantial evidence presented that would support the Planning Commission's findings."
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence of record submitted with this appeal, the findings of fact of the Planning Commission are rejected and the following substituted: The proposed use constitutes a marina pursuant to section 9.5-4(M-5) of the Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations, and it must, therefore, be reviewed as a major conditional use. The proposed development complies with all applicable Monroe County land development regulations. The proposed development is limited to two fueling docks, one 9' x 16'4" and the other 13' x 12'8", and one fueling pump. The proposed development does not include provisions for boat storage, boat ramps, or liveaboard docking. The proposed development is not expected to generate additional vehicular traffic nor, as a result, demand additional on-site vehicular parking due to its exclusively water-oriented nature. The proposed development does not include provisions for additional outdoor lighting. The proposed development includes provisions for a five-year water quality monitoring program which contains adequate recommendations for spill containment, including provision of a containment kit and use of absorbent carpeting on the dock surface, as well as corrective measures to be undertaken by the applicant in the event of water quality deterioration. Coordination with the United States Environmental Protection Agency is necessary to insure that the proposed water quality monitoring program follows the guidelines of this agency. The proposed development is located in the vicinity of a designated critical habitat of the American crocodile, and the presence of the West Indian manatee in the area is documented. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have offered recommendations to mitigate the secondary impacts of the proposed development on these species of endangered wildlife, including the installation of an educational display and restrictions on the provision of additional marina facilities. Additional conditions and restrictions are appropriate and may be imposed pursuant to sections 9.5-61 and 9.5-63 of the Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations. Limitations are particularly necessary to minimize the impacts of the proposed development upon neighboring residential uses and the canal, in consideration of the water-oriented nature of the use.
