Findings Of Fact Respondent, Philip Lee Sullivan (Sullivan), has served as Chief of Police for the City of Panama City Beach, Florida since August 10, 1977. Sullivan's salary as Police Chief was $62,326.12 in 1994, and will total $63,211.20 in 1995. As Police Chief, Sullivan's duties include planning, organizing, and directing all activities of the Panama City Beach Police Department. He is also charged with supervision of all members of the police force, with particular attention to personnel at the administrative and supervisory level, and with the investigation and disposition of complaints against police officers. In his official capacity, Sullivan is also required to cooperate with state and federal officers in the apprehension and detention of wanted persons and with other agencies where activities of the police department are involved. Sullivan has the authority to take disciplinary action against an employee of the police department up to and including suspension without pay for 30 days, and can recommend termination to the City Manager. He also completes written performance evaluations on members of his command staff, which is comprised of the Patrol Division Commander, the Investigative Division Commander, the Assistant to the Chief, and the Reserve Division Commander. In 1987, Sullivan began a business as a loss prevention and security consultant, operating as a sole proprietorship. Sullivan's first client was Hilton, Inc. Charles Hilton is the Chief Executive Officer of Hilton, Inc. It was Mr. Hilton who made the initial decision to hire Sullivan. He considered one other person for the work, but rejected that individual based on the fee sought. Sullivan verbally sought approval from the City Manager to contract with Hilton, Inc. The City Manager verbally approved the arrangement. Hilton, Inc. owns and operates five hotels in Panama City Beach: The Holiday Inn Sun Spree, Ramada Inn, Days Inn, Best Western Del Coronado, and Best Western Casa Loma. All except Sun Spree, which was added in 1990, were owned by Hilton, Inc., when Sullivan began contracting with the corporation. Hilton, Inc. pays Sullivan $2,000 a month with an additional fee for background checks. Sullivan's next client was the Bay Point Improvement Association (Bay Point). Bay Point is outside the city limits of Panama City Beach. By letter dated February 2, 1989, Sullivan formally requested approval from the City Manager to accept the position of Director of Security for Bay Point. Approval was granted by letter dated February 15, 1989. Sullivan was initially hired in February, 1989, as Director of Security, but his employment status was subsequently changed to that of an independent contractor, similar to his position with his other private employers. Bay Point pays Sullivan $18,000 per year for his services. Sullivan's next client was the La Vela Beach Club ("La Vela") in March, 1993. He was hired by the club's owner, Alois Pfeffer. Sullivan no longer works for the La Vela Beach Club, but while he was working for the club he was paid $6,000 per year. Sullivan's next client was Boardwalk Beach Resorts, which hired him in September, 1993. Boardwalk Beach Resort is the fictitious name for a limited partnership, Resort Hospitality Enterprises, Ltd. ("Resort Hospitality"). The majority of the stock of Resort Hospitality is owned by People's First Properties, Inc. ("People's First"). Resort Hospitality owns and operates four hotel properties, totaling approximately 625 rooms, on Panama City Beach. Robert Henry, the chief financial officer for People's First, was the person who decided to contract with Sullivan after independently determining to the satisfaction of People's First that Sullivan did not have a conflict of interest. People's First pays Sullivan $18,000 per year with additional fees for background checks. In 1994 Sullivan was paid $6,450 for background checks and as of September 11, 1995, he was paid $4,720 for the background checks performed in 1995. Sullivan incorporated his business as Beach Security, Inc. on December 12, 1993. Sullivan's next client was the Miracle Strip Park/Shipwreck Island (Miracle Strip). He was hired in May, 1994 by the Miracle Strip's General Manager, Shelton Wilkes. Miracle Strip is located on Panama City Beach. Sullivan receives $7,200 per year from Miracle Strip. Sullivan's next client was Spinnakers, where he was hired in July, 1994, by W. B. Sparkman, III. Spinnakers paid Sullivan $6,000 per year. As of the date of the final hearing it was not known whether Spinnakers would continue its contract with Sullivan for the next season. Except for Bay Point, there are no written contracts between Sullivan and any of the businesses with which he contracts. Sullivan has no job description, no set work hours, and no regular meetings with his employers. As part of the services offered by Beach Security, Sullivan makes recommendations to his clients in developing their safety and security policies and procedures, particularly with respect to policies, procedures and training for the security staff. The ultimate decision whether to implement any of Sullivan's recommendations rests with Sullivan's clients. Sullivan is also expected to defend those policies and procedures in court as an expert witness in the event his employer adopts his recommendations and is sued. Sullivan neither sets nor manages security for his clients. He makes recommendations. Sullivan does not hire, fire, or make other employment decisions for the security personnel of his clients. He does not supervise or evaluate the performance of his clients' security staff on a daily basis, and does not evaluate the individual performance of any of his clients' employees. As part of Sullivan's services to Hilton, Inc., Boardwalk Beach Resort and La Vela, Sullivan did background checks for potential employees. Sullivan hired an employee of the police department to do the background checks for him. The background checks were performed at the Bay County Courthouse for local applicants. If the information needed was located in another county or state, Sullivan would contact the clerk of the court at the appropriate location for the information. Getting information from another county or state can be a slow process. The information which Sullivan uses in doing the background checks is information which is available to the general public. The Police Department of Panama City Beach (Police Department) has an agreement with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to allow the Police Department access to criminal history record information. Access to the information is limited to police department business. If a police department employee desires to access the information, the employee must log in on the computer, which creates a computer-generated log at FDLE. Sullivan personally does not know how to access the information. Sullivan could request a police department employee to access the information for him. Panama City Beach is a popular resort area, which experiences a large influx of teenagers and young adults during spring break. Problems associated with alcohol consumption, including traffic violations and accidents, assaults, and disorderly conduct, are commonplace police concerns, particularly during spring break. Spinnakers and La Vela are clubs located on Panama City Beach which cater to the spring break crowd and serve alcohol. The La Vela has a capacity for about 6,000 people and Spinnakers about 4,000. The Hilton, Inc. hotels, the Boardwalk Beach Resort, and the Miracle Strip also do heavy spring break business. The Miracle Strip deals with more than 600,000 visitors over the course of its season. The police department investigates crimes and responds to calls and complaints made by citizens. The department also investigates accidents and is routinely called any time an ambulance is called. In the past two years the police department has received more than five thousand calls for service at businesses which are located in Panama City Beach and which contract with Sullivan. No evidence was presented that Sullivan has ever disregarded public duty in favor of private interests, or misused confidential police information for the benefit of his private employers. In February 1993, Spinnakers was sued for the wrongful death of one of its patrons. The Complaint alleged that the deceased, Robert Gaither, was involved in an altercation with one or more of the club's other patrons. Spinnaker security became involved, and the other patrons were ejected. When Mr. Gaither left, security allegedly saw these individuals in Spinnakers' parking lot, but took no action. After leaving the club, Mr. Gaither was beaten to unconsciousness by these same people, and was either left or passed out in the street, where he was run over by a drunk driver. The Complaint alleges that Spinnakers' security staff was negligent in its handling of the incident. Although the incident took place before Spinnakers hired Sullivan, Sullivan has given a deposition in the case as a potential expert witness. The Panama City Beach Police Department investigated the death of Mr. Gaither. Part of Sullivan's services to Le Vela has been to instruct its staff on how to handle fights. The owner of the club has complained to Sullivan about reaction from Panama City Beach police officers when fights have occurred at the club. It is the club owner's observation that the police, in protection of their own physical safety, often leave the burden of breaking up a fight to the security officers, or wait until the participants wear themselves out. Since the club's insurance will not pay for damages if the club's security officers get involved in the fight, the owner wants the police officers to intervene at an earlier stage in the fight and has so complained to the police department. At the June 23, 1994 meeting of the Panama City Beach City Council, Sullivan's outside employment as a consultant was thoroughly discussed. Sullivan gave a detailed account of his operation. At that meeting the City Council voted to continue the City's policy of encouraging outside employment of its police officers and allowing police officers to use the police vehicles during off-duty hours as long as the police officer is on call. On October 12, 1995, the City Council of the City of Panama City Beach enacted Ordinance No. 455, which codified the rules governing secondary or off- duty employment by employees of the City of Panama City Beach. Section 2-46 of the ordinance deals specifically with law enforcement officers, including the Chief of Police. Section 2-46(d)(1) of Ordinance 455 provides: The following types of off-duty employment do not, on their face, constitute a conflict of interest for law enforcement officers: Security guard duty protecting premises or property. Security consultant within or without the City. Providing dignitary or official's protection. Conducting pre-employment checks into the applicant's previous criminal history provided that only public records are accessed. Performing accident investigations or providing technical services as otherwise per- mitted by the Department. Ordinance 455 requires that police officers who desire to have outside employment must submit an "Off-Duty Employment Request" form. The forms were made available to the police officers sometime during the early part of December, 1995. Shortly after Sullivan received the forms, he submitted authorization requests for off-duty employment with Bay Point Resort, Miracle Strip Amusement Park, Boardwalk Beach Resort, and Hilton, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that Philip Lee Sullivan's employment with businesses within the jurisdiction of the Panama City Beach Police Department and his employment in doing pre-employment application background checks is in violation of Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, and recommending that Philip Lee Sullivan be dismissed from his employment as Police Chief of the Panama City Beach Police Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, 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 21st day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4141EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted to the extent that the computer database can be accessed from the Police Department but rejected to the extent that it implies that Sullivan, himself, can physically access the information based on his testimony that he does not know how to operate the computer to get the information. Paragraph 6: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 8-12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: The first two sentences are accepted. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 14-21: Accepted. Paragraph 22: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is accepted. Paragraphs 24-28: Accepted. Paragraphs 29-32: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 33-34: Accepted. Paragraph 35: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 36: The first sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that the information is available at the Police Department and can be accessed by Police Department staff pursuant to an agreement with FDLE. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 37: Accepted in substance except for the employment outside the police department jurisdiction. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance that Sullivan requested approval for employment as Director of Security for Bay Point. Rejected to the extent that the request could be construed as a request for blanket approval for Sullivan to do security consulting services. It appears from Sullivan's letter that his employment at that time dealt with more than consulting services given that he had the authority to hire, fire, and direct the security force at Bay Point. Paragraph 3: Accepted to the extent that Beach Security Inc. was incorporated in December, 1993. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted to the extent that Sullivan has submitted the off-duty employment authorization requests. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 8: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found Paragraph 9: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 10: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 11-15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Accepted as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 17: The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence that such an arrangement could not tempt dishonor. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The first part of the second sentence is accepted in substance. The last part of the second sentence is rejected to the extent that although the businesses were anticipating that Sullivan would gather his information from public records, human nature being what it is, if Sullivan knew that an applicant was a suspect in a criminal investigation the employers would not want Sullivan to recommend that the applicant be hired. Paragraphs 19-22: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Advocate For the Florida Commission on Ethics Department of Legal Affairs PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mary Ellen Davis, Esquire Hilton, Hilton, Kolk, Penson & Roesch Post Office Box 1327 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the Applicant, Florida-Georgia Venture Group, is entitled to development orders for its proposed development of regional impact, Hunter's Ridge, in Flagler County and the City of Ormond Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Florida-Georgia Venture Group, 402 Clifton Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117, and its authorized agent is Thomas L. Durrance, Managing Partner. The Hunter's Ridge project lies within the jurisdiction of both the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (NEFRPC) and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) and underwent concurrent review. The Hunter's Ridge project as proposed in this proceeding is a proposed planned unit development located in the unincorporated area of Flagler County and in the City of Ormond Beach on approximately 5,037 acres. The portion of the Hunter's Ridge project located in the unincorporated area of Flagler County consists of approximately 3,800 acres, of which 1,940 acres will be preserved as conservation area. The portion to be developed in the unincorporated area of Flagler County is approximately 1,860 acres, consisting of 1,702 residential units, plus commercial, recreational, and other uses. The portion of the Hunter's Ridge project located in the City of Ormond Beach consists of approximately 1,237 acres, of which 327 acres will be preserved as conservation area. The portion of the property in Ormond Beach to be developed is approximately 910 acres, consisting of 982 residential units, plus commercial, recreational, and other uses. Of the residential units to be developed in the City of Ormond Beach, 109 residential units were approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) under a preliminary development agreement. The Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County held a public hearing on the DRI/ADA on July 13, 1989, which was continued to October 12, 1989, to November 2, 1989, to January 11, 1990, and to January 25, 1990. On January 25, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County passed and adopted a Development Order for the Hunter's Ridge DRI, which Development Order was recorded in Official Records Book 0423, Page 0669 through 0728, Public Records of Flagler County, Florida. The City Commission of the City of Ormond Beach held a public hearing on the DRI/ADA on August 15, 1989, which was continued to September 5, 1989, to September 19, 1989, to October 3, 1989, to October 17, 1989 and to January 30, 1990. At the public hearing on January 30, 1990, the City of Ormond Beach adopted Resolution 90-20 denying the DRI/ADA for the portion of the Hunter's Ridge DRI located in the City of Ormond Beach. The DCA, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rules 42- 2.002 through 42-2.011, Florida Administrative Code, timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC), whereby DCA appealed the Development Order adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County. The Applicant, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rules 42-2.002 through 42-2.011, Florida Administrative Code, timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing with FLWAC, whereby the Applicant appealed the denial of approval by Ormond Beach. This cause came before FLWAC on May 22, 1990, for consideration of the Appeals and the Petitions for Administrative Hearing; FLWAC ordered that this matter be forwarded to Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for assignment of a hearing officer and further proceedings. At the Administrative Hearing conducted by DOAH, on December 5-7, 1990, the Applicant amended its DRI/ADA to reduce the size of the project and to reallocate land uses, densities, and other components of the project. The current scope of the project is reflected in Florida-Georgia Exhibits 1-5, 9, and 14. As amended by the Applicant, the proposed project now consists of the following uses in Flagler County: 11.61 acres of Village Retail Office; 5.71 acres of Village Office; 16.68 acres of Light Industrial; 197.18 acres of Village Services/Recreational; 90.89 acres of Parks and Schools; 64.52 acres of Multi-Family Residential (with Upland Buffer); 259.34 acres of Wetlands; 146.93 acres of Roads, Drainage, and Retention; 52.90 acres of Lakes; 130.00 acres of Golf Course; 57.25 acres of Utility Easement; and 130.00 acres of Single Family Residential. The total number of dwelling units permitted in the County is 220 townhouses and villas and 145 apartments and condominiums. As amended by the Applicant, the proposed project now consists of the following uses in the City: 192.00 acres of Village Services/Recreational; 30.61 acres of Parks and Schools; 14.51 acres of Multi-Family Residential (with Upland Buffer); 174.54 acres of Wetlands; 110.95 acres of Roads, Drainage, and Retention; 28.65 acres of Lakes; 17.32 acres of Utility Easement; and 341.42 acres of Single Family Residential (with Upland Buffer). The total number of dwelling units permitted in the City are 932 single family units and 50 townhouses and villas. Generally speaking, the portions of the development within the County which are to be developed are in Township 41 South, Range 31 East, Section 22 and the east half of Section 21; Section 15 and the east half of Section 16, with the exception of a golf course in Section 15, constitute an area that, if it is to be developed in the future, will require a substantial deviation approval from all concerned agencies. Pursuant to stipulation of the Applicant and Flagler County, an area approximating Section 15 and the east half of Section 16 will be redesignated under the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural, with a permitted residential density of not more than one unit per five acres. Pursuant to stipulation, Sections 17 and 20 and the west halves of Sections 16 and 21, along with most of the portions of Sections 29 and 30 north of State Road 40, will be deeded to a public or public interest agency, with the Applicant retaining the right to conduct silviculture with best management practices except in those wetland areas of the property designated for conservation. The parties, with the exception of Citizens, have stipulated that Florida-Georgia Exhibit 5 constitutes the necessary affordable housing conditions for the project. The affordable housing provisions of the proposed project are consistent of the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and the State Comprehensive Plan. The affordable housing conditions adequately address affordable housing needs of the project consistent with all local government, state, and regional requirements and regulations. The Applicant, the Florida Audubon Society, Flagler County and the City of Ormond Beach, have stipulated that the conditions contained in their Joint Stipulation, filed as Florida-Georgia Exhibit 9 satisfactorily resolve all issues concerning wetlands, wildlife habitat, and endangered species. The soils on the project will support the proposed development. During review of the DRI/ADA by the RPCs, Volusia County submitted comments and recommendations to ECFRPC. The comments and recommendations of Volusia County were considered by ECFRPC when it adopted its recommended conditions of approval. The conservation area proposed by the Applicant represents a significant contribution to conservation and wildlife. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval adequately address the regional impacts of the project on the environment and natural resources. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval include measures intended to address impacts upon, and to protect, the Little Tomoka River. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide for preservation and conservation of wetlands. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide flexibility for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed plan of development reflects a development that provides adequate environmental protection. The proposed project will have no adverse environmental impacts in the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide protection for the Little Tomoka River, preventive measures regarding stormwater discharge and stormwater treatment, and mitigative, water quality treatment methods in the surface drainage system, if any degradation is found at a later date. The proposed Conditions of Approval require that all construction within the project be protected against flooding. The project has sufficient safeguards to prevent construction within flood prone areas. Minimum floor elevations for flood plain purposes will be controlled by FEMA flood plain designations and by local rules and regulations, and will be established on a case by case basis for the Hunter's Ridge project. The proposed Conditions of Approval addressing transportation impacts and facilities are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, with the provisions of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and with the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Conditions of Approval ensure that the Hunter's Ridge project will not have an adverse impact on regionally significant roadways, including State Road 40. The proposed Conditions of Approval will ensure that the regional highway network will function at the desired level of service during the project buildout. The proposed Conditions of Approval are consistent with the provisions of Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes, relating to transportation impacts. The proposed Conditions of Approval adequately address the transportation concerns of Flagler County. The proposed Conditions of Approval adequately address the transportation impacts on the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Conditions of Approval dealing with public facilities are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, consistent with the provisions of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. If the conditions for providing public facilities are not met by the Applicant, development must cease. The proposed Conditions of Approval dealing with public facilities are consistent with the concurrency requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval adequately address the regional impacts of the project on public services and facilities. The proposed plan for development of the Flagler County portion of the project provides for all required public facilities and services. The Applicant will have to subsidize any deficits in providing public services. The Applicant has agreed to make contributions intended to assist Flagler County in providing public services to residents of areas outside of the Hunter's Ridge project. Solid waste is not an issue in Flagler County. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project provide three options for wastewater treatment. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project require that the project must stand on its own and must provide water supply and wastewater treatment without cost to the rest of the residents of Flagler County. The Flagler County portion of the project requires 1,200 to 1,500 dwelling units to provide a self-contained, self-supporting, self-sufficient development which will not require subsidy by other Flagler County taxpayers. The good mix of land uses contained in the proposed plan for development will help the tax base of Flagler County and avoid a deficit during the buildout of the project prior to construction of 1,200 to 1,500 dwelling units. The tax base, the values, and the assessments for the proposed project will provide sufficient funds to support the development. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project provide for voluntary contributions by the Applicant in excess of what is required by local ordinance. The dedication and donation of the golf course and conservation areas to Flagler County are voluntary contributions by the Applicant. The Ormond Beach portion of Hunter's Ridge project will not require a separate police patrol zone. The Ormond Beach Police Department can provide acceptable response times for the portions of the project within the City. The public safety site to be dedicated by the Applicant will benefit the City and the Police Department and will be helpful in rendering public safety services to the citizens of Ormond Beach. The Ormond Beach portion of Hunter's Ridge project will provide needed revenue to provide needed Police Department services. The Ormond Beach Police Department can adequately provide public safety services for the Hunter's Ridge area and respond to public safety needs within a reasonable amount of time. The City of Ormond Beach is capable of providing potable water service to the project. Impact fees generated by the project will be sufficient to fund water supply and wastewater capital facilities needed to serve the project. The City has adopted the West Ormond Plan to provide utilities to the Hunter's Ridge project. The Applicant has dedicated to the City a westerly wellfield site which will be needed for the entire city in the future, even if the Hunter's Ridge project is not developed. The City of Ormond Beach does not lose money on water and sewer fees. If the homes built in the Ormond Beach portion of the Hunter's Ridge project approximate the assessed values of existing homes within the city, there will be no revenue strain on the operating budget of the City of Ormond Beach. The average sale price for homes in the Hunter's Ridge project will be higher than the current average sale price within the City of Ormond Beach. The Hunter's Ridge project will not place an economic strain on the City of Ormond Beach. Future growth in the City of Ormond Beach will pay for itself in terms of capital needs. The fiscal problems of the City of Ormond Beach are not unique, but are similar to those occurring throughout the state. Increased property values from the Hunter's Ridge project will help the city's fiscal problems in the long run. The City of Ormond Beach has a great deal of ad valorem capacity to meet service needs and operating budgets. The Hunter's Ridge DRI will make significantly more contributions to public services and facilities than traditional subdivisions. The reduced project as proposed for approval in this proceeding contributes a greater amount of money toward public facilities. The public safety site to be dedicated in the Ormond Beach portion of the project is adequate to serve the fire fighting needs of the project and the surrounding areas. The public safety site to be dedicated in the Ormond Beach portion of the project gives the city flexibility in providing fire fighting services if the road network connecting the project with Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails is in place and will enable the city to better serve Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails. The roadway network for the Hunter's Ridge project will provide interconnections with Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails for the provision of police, fire, and emergency services. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no impact on solid waste in the City of Ormond Beach. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no impact on the vehicular needs of the City of Ormond Beach Department of Public Works. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no adverse impact on road maintenance in the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Hunter's Ridge DRI is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the requirements of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The Hunter's Ridge DRI meets all regional requirements. The Hunter's Ridge DRI does not represent "leap frog development," nor does it constitute "urban sprawl." The density of 982 dwelling units for the Ormond Beach portion of the Hunter's Ridge project is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Reducing the density proposed for the Ormond Beach portion of the project from 982 residential units to 882 residential dwelling units would not necessarily be considered an improvement to furthering the plan concept. The Hunter's Ridge DRI is consistent with the plans and policies of the Regional Planning Councils. As to the portions within Flagler County, the Hunter's Ridge DRI: Is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes; Is beneficial to Flagler County; Is consistent with the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan; Is consistent with the NEFRPC report and recommendations; Is superior to existing zoning; Provides better development and more planning opportunities than non- DRI approaches to development; and, Provides adequate controls for the development of Hunter's Ridge. The Ormond Beach portion of the project: Is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes; Is consistent with the Ormond Beach Comprehensive Plan and all City ordinances and regulations; Adequately mitigates against adverse impacts through the Conditions of the proposed Development Order. To the extent that the opinions of some witnesses, primarily Mr. Grace and Mr. Shearer, have not been adopted in these Findings of Fact, they are deemed to be unreliable or lacking in substantial weight or persuasive value.
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 and therein: Adopt the development order with conditions as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and the City of Ormond Beach. Adopt the development order with conditions as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and Flagler County. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 21st day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Florida-Georgia Venture Group Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5(1-5); 12-14(6-8); 16- 19(9-12); 20(18); 22-25(19-22); 27-38(23-34); 40-89(35-83); 91(84); 92(85); 94(86); 97(87(; and 98(88). Proposed findings of fact 26, 39, 90, 93, 95, and 96 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6-11 and 21 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 15 is irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Department of Community Affairs Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 8-12(13-17). Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, and 13-17 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 3-7 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the City of Ormond Beach 1. Proposed findings of fact 1, 8, 10-17, 21, 33-36, 38-40, 43, 46, and 49 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2-7, 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, 47, 48, and 50 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 9, 18, 24-32, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, and 52 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Citizens for Ormond Beach 1. Proposed findings of fact 7, 9-11, 13-19, 21-25, 35, 47, and 49-52 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8, 12, 20, 26-32, 34, 42, and 57 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 33, 36-39, 43-46, 48, and 53-56 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 1-6, 40, and 41 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Doyle Tumbleson, Attorney at Law Kinsey Vincent Pyle Professional Association 150 South Palmetto Avenue, Box A Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Fred S. Disselkoen, Jr. Attorney at Law City of Ormond Beach Post Office Box 277 Ormond Beach, FL 32175-0277 Gerald S. Livingston Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, FL 32802 Timothy Keyser, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, FL 32148 Jonathan Hewett Attorney at Law Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. 216 South Sixth Street Palatka, FL 32177 David Russ, Senior Attorney Julia Johnson, Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, FL 32751 Linda Loomis Shelley Attorney at Law Dixon, Blanton & Shelley 902 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Noah McKinnon Attorney at Law 595 West Granada Avenue Ormond Beach, FL 32075 Douglas M. Cook, Director Planning and Budgeting Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
The Issue Whether Glenda Parris (Respondent), while employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes,1/ by using her position to rent property and/or gain preferential treatment at a court proceeding and, if so, the appropriate penalty. Whether Respondent, while employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer, violated section 112.313(7), by having a contractual relationship that conflicted with her official responsibilities and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer. Respondent is subject to the requirements of part III, chapter 112, which consists of sections 112.311 - 112.326, and is known as the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Respondent's assigned duties included inspecting, observing, reporting, and enforcing the City of West Palm Beach's code regulating zoning, housing, and the environment Respondent's was assigned a work zone in West Palm Beach that included 231 Lytton Court (the subject property). At the times relevant to this proceeding, Dr. Rhonda Nasser was the owner and/or principal of El Nasco II, a limited liability company. El Nasco II owned the house at 231 Lytton Court. In the summer of 2010, Respondent issued multiple notices of violation to Dr. Nasser relating to the subject property. In July 2010, Respondent and Dr. Nasser met at the subject property to discuss the notices of violation. At that meeting, Respondent asked Dr. Nasser if she could rent the subject property. Respondent was on duty and in her uniform when she negotiated the lease of the subject property. Dr. Nasser entered into an agreement with Respondent for Respondent to rent the subject property for $1,200.00 per month beginning in August 2010. As soon as she moved in to the subject property, Respondent began to complain to Dr. Nasser as to items that needed to be repaired or replaced. Respondent wrote a demand letter on August 31, 2010, that referenced code requirements. On November 3, 2010, wrote a second demand letter that also referenced code requirements. Dr. Nasser testified, credibly, that she believed that Respondent was threatening to use code violations to support her demand as to items that needed to be impaired or replaced. Dr. Nasser's belief was reasonable. Respondent began to withhold rent because Dr. Nasser would not make the improvements Respondent had demanded. At the end of January or the beginning of February 2011, Dr. Nasser initiated eviction proceedings against Respondent due to Respondent's failure to pay rent. John Frasca has been employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer for more than 11 years. Respondent asked Mr. Frasca on two separate occasions prior to May 26, 2011, to inspect the subject property. At the first inspection, Respondent deliberately withheld the fact that she lived at the subject property. At the time of the second inspection, Respondent pressured Mr. Frasca to complete the inspection and informed him that she needed the inspection report for her attorney. A rental license for a residence is the official authorization from the City of West Palm Beach that an owner may rent its residence and that the residence will be inspected. A rental license guarantees to a renter that the residence has been inspected and maintained, and is meeting all current codes. A rental license is required by the city code. Mr. Frasca discovered that the owner of the subject property had no rental license. Respondent should have known that the owner did not have a rental license, and she should have refused to rent the property until the owner obtained a rental license. The eviction proceedings initiated by Dr. Nasser progressed to a court hearing before a judge. At the eviction hearing, Respondent wore her work uniform, which consisted of dark colored pants, a code enforcement badge on her belt, and a shirt with "City of West Palm Beach, Code Enforcement" written on it. Dr. Nasser believed that Respondent wore the uniform in court to give the appearance that Respondent was an expert in code enforcement. Alleged code violations came up as an issue during the eviction hearing. Respondent argued that she withheld the payment of rent because Dr. Nasser would not correct perceived code violations. Following the eviction hearing, Dr. Nasser contacted John Alford, who was, at that time, the Director of Public Works for West Palm Beach. Mr. Alford supervised the West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Department, including the code enforcement officers. There existed an unwritten policy that code enforcement officers were not to wear their uniforms on unofficial business. Mr. Alford had admonished the code enforcement officers, including Respondent, to "take care while wearing the badge." The City of West Palm Beach investigated Respondent's actions and prepared a document titled "Timeline - 231 Lytton Ct., WPB." That document, which is in evidence as Exhibit 9, reflects Respondent's actions regarding the subject property. West Palm Beach uses a computer tracking system called Community Plus System that tracks all activities relating to a building code complaint and/or violation. A code officer puts in all information related to an inspection plus action taken for the property by its owner or a magistrate. The public can go to a website to view the status of a property in the City. The City prepared a report based on the Community Plus System for the subject property. Mr. Alford determined that Respondent had manipulated entries for the subject property in the Community Plus System by changing information relating to inspections. On June 7, 2011, Mr. Alford notified Respondent in writing that he was going to terminate her employment. On July 6, 2011, Respondents' employment was terminated for violations of the City's Employee Handbook and Code of Ethics. Mr. Alford determined that Respondent's actions of proposing and negotiating a lease agreement while on duty and in uniform violated subparagraph 6 of the City's Ethics Policy 4.4, which is as follows: "City representatives shall not engage in financial transactions using non-public information or allow the improper use of such information to further any private interest or gain." Mr. Alford also determined that Respondent violated the City's Code of Ethics provision 4.4 by wearing her City-issued uniform and badge to court for a personal matter giving the appearance that she was acting on behalf of the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report that finds that Respondent, Glenda Parris, violated section 112.313(6) and imposes against her a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report that finds that Respondent, Glenda Parris, violated section 112.313(7) and imposes against her a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00, for a total civil penalty of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(i) and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a Certified Plumbing Contractor, holding License No. CF C056847. Respondent has maintained an active license since October 19, 1995. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent conducted his business under the name of Ron Price Plumbing and Tile. On May 18, 2000, Respondent's business was located at 2043 Mike Street, South Daytona, Florida. On May 18, 2000, Respondent gave Edward Carlson a written proposal to perform some repair work in a bathroom at Mr. Carlson's residence, which was located in Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida. The letterhead on the written proposal indicates that Respondent's business address was 2043 Mike Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. The written proposal states that for the sum of $1,200, Respondent would perform the following work : (a) remove floor and bottom two rows of tile; (b) install PVC pan and drain; (c) install dura rock to walls; (d) install four-by-four wall tile; (e) install second floor; (f) install two-by-two floor tile; (g) use white grout; and (h) haul away refuse. Mr. Carlson accepted this proposal. Respondent did not pull a permit from the City of Daytona Beach Building Department before commencing the work in Mr. Carlson's bathroom. The City of Daytona Beach, Florida, requires a permit for the type of work performed by Respondent, even though very few plumbers or contractors actually take the time to pull one. Specifically, City of Daytona Beach Ordinance 104.1.4.1 requires a permit for minor repairs exceeding $500. Respondent, subsequently, completed the work in Mr. Carlson's bathroom. Mr. Carlson inspected the work and paid Respondent $1,200 as agreed. There is no credible evidence that Respondent's work was substandard or that he damaged Mr. Carlson's property in any respect. Thereafter, Respondent moved his business to 6089 Airport Road, Port Orange, Volusia County, Florida. As of September 1, 2000, Petitioner's records correctly reflect Respondent's current address of record at the new business location. Petitioner expended $312.48 in total cost, excluding attorney's fees, for investigating, filing, and pursuing the complaint against Respondent through the administrative complaint process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500, and assessing investigative costs in the amount of $312.48. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 November, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is a certified general contractor and has been issued license number CG CA03134. During November of 1978, Respondent, doing business through the entity of Creative Home Design, Inc., entered into a contract with Dr. Stephen Silverstein to construct a residence in Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $180,000. Respondent received from Dr. Silverstein a total of $140,500 for the construction he performed on the Silverstein residence. (Stipulation by the parties) Additionally, Dr. Silvertstein paid certain liens which were filed with regard to the construction performed by Respondent on his residence, to wit: P.N.A. Drywall: $5,260.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Pentagon Diversified: $3,801.34 (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) American Lumber: $8,217.50 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Lone Star Industries, (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8) Inc. $1,293.50 Mack Industries: $4,604.29 (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 10) Smith and DeShield: $ 600.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Certain contractors furnishing labor and materials for the Silverstein residence based on contracts entered into by wit: Respondent also filed liens, to A. A. Marini Septic Tanks, Inc.: (Petitioner's Exhibit 21) $1,700.00 Delano Pools, Inc.: (Petitioner's Exhibit 20) $4,539.00 William D. Adeimy, Inc.: 3/ (Petitioner's Exhibit 16) $3,183.75 Climate Control Services: (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) $1,882.50 Ballavia Construction (Petitioner's Exhibit Company: 24) $5,446.00 Temperature Control: (Petitioner's Exhibit 18) $ 678.00 J. Griffin Painting: (Petitioner's Exhibit 23) $3,795.00 Central Systems, Inc.: $1,018.80 (Petitioner's Exhibit 19) Dr. Silverstein also entered into another contract for the sale of the residence being built by the Respondent whereby Dr. Silverstein agreed to sell the residence to Respondent's son, Joseph Roberts, for the sum of $210,000. (TR pages 5-6) On February 15, 1980, a notice of code violation was issued by the building official for Palm Beach County, Florida stating that the pool which was installed at the Silverstein residence was not completely enclosed by a fence or dense hedge as required by Section 500.14F of the Palm Beach Zoning Code. Respondent has failed to correct that violation. Respondent completed the Silverstein residence to a degree of completion where it could be occupied and he could move into the residence with his family. Thereafter, Dr. Silverstein eventually filed suit and was awarded a judgment evicting Respondent from the residence. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) Respondent's son, Joseph, failed to consummate the agreement to purchase the residence. Respondent and his family vacated the Silverstein residence and, in the process, removed certain fixtures attached to the residence including carpeting, appliances, door knobs, air conditioning and air handlers, the sprinkler system, light fixtures, vanities, a whirlpool tub, washer, dryer, air conditioning vents, bidet, sprinkling pump timer, and a drop-in range. (TR pages 23-28, 128- 130, and 98-100) Dr. Silverstein filed a claim of loss with his insurance company and was paid a settlement for the loss, which included the certain charges for reinstallation and the reconnection of the various fixtures which had been removed for a total sum of $24,252.02. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, TR 25-28) The Respondent's Position Respondent contended that he was authorized to occupy the Silverstein residence and this contention is not really in dispute herein. However, it later became necessary for Dr. Silverstein to evict the Respondent and his family from the residence when it became apparent that his son, Joseph Roberts, would not consummate the agreement to purchase the residence of Dr. Silverstein. Respondent admits to taking the fixtures and other items referred to hereinabove. Respondent was without authority to do so. Respondent contends that the various liens which were referred to hereinabove were not valid inasmuch as more than one year had elapsed during the time the work was performed and no claim of lien had been filed within that one- year period. Thus, Respondent contends the claims of lien were defective. Respondent offered no proof of payment of the various claims of lien. Additionally, Respondent states that several of the contractors did not perform work and therefore there were no amounts due and owing those companies. Specifically, Respondent contends that Marini Septic Tank did not install the septic tank but a former affiliate did and that there was an attempt to bill him twice. Additionally, Respondent contends that he paid Ballavia Construction Company for the amount claimed in cash, however he had no receipts or other documentary evidence to substantiate that transaction. As relates to the claim of Griffin Painting, Respondent contends that he paid all amounts due and owing them save $660.00. Respondent failed to introduce evidence to corroborate his claim in that regard and it is therefore rejected. Finally, Respondent furnished releases of liens and an invoice of the claim referred to hereinabove from Climate Control Services, Inc. indicating that they were paid in full. Documentary evidence received and testimony introduced herein substantiates Respondent's position and it is found that he, in fact, paid Climate Control Services, Inc. in full for the services they rendered. (Respondent's Exhibits, 4, 6, and 10) As noted hereinabove, it is found that the Respondent paid the amount due and owing William D. Adeimy, Inc., and a release of lien from that entity was received herein. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's certified general contractor's license number CG CA03134 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 1985.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction And Closing File in this proceeding.
Other Judicial Opinions 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, 107 EAST MADISON STREET, MSC 110, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-4128, 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. DEO-11-0028 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 Economic Development, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this JS Thay of November, 2011. Y ‘ Miriam Snipes, Agenéy Clerk DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail: Mr. Benjamin Gross, Esq. City of Daytona Beach 301 S. Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, FL 32114 grossb@codb.us By Hand Delivery: David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 By Filing with DOAH: The Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern pursuant to Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, and 380.07, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding and to DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI, Petitioner, Fred Snowman, owned the real property known as Lot 75, Matecumbe Ocean Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in Monroe County, Florida (the subject property). A building permit issued by Monroe County, described below, for this property was the subject of DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI (the underlying proceeding.) The lot is approximately 100 feet wide and, at different points, between 200 and 225 feet deep. The subject property is bounded on the landward side by U.S. 1 and fronts the Atlantic Ocean in an area known as Matecumbe Beach. Matecumbe Beach is a known resting and nesting habitat for marine turtles. This building permit constituted a development order on property within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On September 30, 1993, Monroe County issued to Mr. Snowman, as the owner and general contractor, building permit number 9330008850, which authorized the construction on the subject property of a single-family residence containing 2,472 square feet of heated and cooled area, 1,568 square feet of porches, 1,435 square feet of storage enclosure below base flood elevation, and a swimming pool. The authorized construction was to be consistent with the building site plan, which was also approved by Monroe County. On November 18, 1993, the Department timely appealed the subject building permit to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. FLWAC referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI. A formal hearing was conducted in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI in Key West, Florida, on June 30, 1994. Following the formal hearing, the parties were afforded the opportunity to file post-hearing submittals. Thereafter, a recommended order was entered which recommended that FLWAC enter a final order that dismisses the Department's appeal. After the entry of the recommended order, the Department voluntarily dismissed its appeal. FLWAC subsequently entered a final order of dismissal. Petitioner, Fred Snowman, was the prevailing party in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI. SMALL BUSINESS PARTY The issue as to whether Petitioner is a "small business party" as defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, was disputed by the Department in this proceeding. The parties stipulated that Mr. Snowman meets the remaining criteria contained in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, for an award of attorney's fees and costs. The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner was the sole evidence pertaining to the number of employees of the Petitioner: Could you tell us a little bit about your business? What's the nature of your business? Primarily I'm a speculation - spec builder and general contractor in the Florida Keys, and have been since 1973. Q. How many employees do you maintain on a regular basis? A. I mainly have subcontractors. Occasionally when I have a job, I hire for that particular job. But I'm the sole proprietor and I'm the employee. (Transcript, page 9, lines 12-22.) While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner was the sole proprietor and sole employee of his business, it does not establish that Petitioner had fewer than 25 employees in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. 1/ The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner pertains to his net worth: Q. What is your net worth? Let me ask you this. Does your net worth exceed a million dollars? A. No. Q. Less than a million dollars? A. Yes. (Transcript, page 9, line 23 through page 10, line 3) The following testimony elicited by Respondent's counsel of the Petitioner on cross examination also pertains to his net worth: Q. When you're identifying your net worth, what exactly are you considering? A. Well, net worth is all my assets minus my liabilities. Q. All of your personal assets? A. Which are far and few between (sic) today. Q. Do you have business assets? A. No. Q. Do you own any property? A. Lot 75. Q. Any property other than Lot 75? A. I own three lots, small lots in Plantation Key. Q. Are they developed or undeveloped? A. No, they're undeveloped. Q. Do you know how much they're worth? A. They're valued at fifteen thousand per lot. Q. They're not on the water? A. Not on the water. Q. Lot 75, do you know what that property's worth? A. That property is worth about a hundred and seventy-five thousand. Q. Without the house on it? A. Without the improvements, yes. Q. How about in its improved condition? A. I would say, in the improved condition, with this home, it would be about five hundred thousand. Q. Okay. Other than the real estate, do you have any personal or business investments, stocks or -- A. No. Q. No? A. Just my condo. (Transcript, page 10, line 8 through page 11, line 13.) There was no other evidence presented as to Petitioner's net worth. While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner had a net worth of less than two million dollars, it does not establish that his net worth was below that figure in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION The Department's appeal initially raised several issues. All issues in the underlying proceeding but one were voluntarily dismissed by the Department either prior to the hearing or at the hearing. The only issue litigated at the formal hearing in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI was the appropriate setback from the portion of the beach-berm complex located on the subject property known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9.5-345(3)(f), Monroe County Code, provides: f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds; There was no dispute in Case 93-7165DRI that the turtle nesting setback applied to Mr. Snowman's property. The dispute was how to apply the setback. There was a bona fide factual dispute as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property that should be considered to be "beach berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles" within the meaning of the setback ordinance. The Department established that it followed its standard procedures in deciding to appeal the subject development order. The Department maintains a field staff in the Florida Keys that routinely reviews development orders issued by Monroe County for consistency with the land development regulations, the Monroe County comprehensive plan, and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. The permit package typically reviewed, and reviewed in this case, includes the permit, a permit conditions sheet, surveys, and site plans. The Department staff usually reviews a biological survey or habitat evaluation index, reviews the County's entire file, reviews aerial photographs and conducts a field assessment. In this case, the Department also looked at records of the Department of Natural Resources and of the Save A Turtle volunteer environmental group. In this case, the Department conducted a field assessment of Mr. Snowman's lot and measured the point it considered to be the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Kate Edgerton, an experienced biologist employed by the Department, measured the point the Department asserted was the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Ms. Edgerton made a good faith assessment of the beach berm complex and considered the property to contain one beach berm complex. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93-7165DRI, page 166, line 17.) Ms. Edgerton testified in the underlying proceeding that she considered herself bound by the definitions in the Monroe County land use regulations and that she believed herself to be applying the pertinent definition when she measured the setback line. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93- 7165DRI, page 163, lines 20-23.) Following field staff review, a report is prepared and forwarded to Tallahassee for review by additonal staff, including the Department's administrator of the critical state concern program. Department staff in Tallahassee review the field staff report and participate in formulating a recommendation as to whether to appeal the permit. The appeal decision is then made either by the Department Division Director or by the agency head. Each material step in the Department's customary practice of reviewing permits was followed in reviewing the subject permit. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition of the term "beach berm" that was found to be pertinent to the underlying proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. The term "berm" is identified in the Monroe County comprehensive plan as . . . a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. A berm is higher in elevation than both the beach and the area landward of the berm. At the formal hearing in the underlying appeal, there was conflicting evidence as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property. The Recommended Order found that there were two distinct ridges located on the subject property. The issue of whether both ridges could be considered part of the "beach berm complex" was one of first impression. Succinctly stated, it was the position of the Department in the underlying appeal that both ridges were in an area of potential habitat on a beach that is known habitat and it asserted the position that both ridges should be considered to be one beach berm complex. The Department asserted the position that the setback should be measured from the landward extent of the second ridge (the more landward of the two ridges). Monroe County had measured the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge. Mr. Snowman agreed with the County's determination of the setback. Mr. Snowman presented evidence that the County had, for several years, applied the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge and argued that, based on the foregoing definitions each ridge should be considered to be a separate beach berm, but that only the first should be considered to be a beach berm. The Department presented evidence that the County had applied the setback provision in an inconsistent manner by measuring from the crest of berms in some cases and measuring from the landward extent of berms in other occasions. The Recommended Order rejected the Department's position and concluded that the definition of "beach berm" contained in Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, and the description of "berm" in the comprehensive plan were unambiguous. Although the Department argued that other provisions of the code and comprehensive plan supported their construction of the setback requirement, it was concluded that the issues should be resolved based on the unambiguous definition of "beach berm". It was also concluded that no deference should be afforded the Department's construction of the term "beach berm" because there is a plain and unambiguous definition of the term that is a part of the Monroe County Code. It was observed that "[w]hile a greater setback may better serve the goals of the comprehensive plan, as argued by the Department, the imposition of a greater setback requirement should come from a change in the Monroe County Code." This observation was made because the Department had found support for its interpretation of the setback requirement from other parts of the code and comprehensive plan. This case involved bona fide disputed issues of material fact and legal issues that were of first impression. It is found that those issues, although resolved against the Department following the formal hearing, were of sufficient merit to substantially justified the Department's actions in initiating the underlying appeal.
The Issue Whether the application of Respondent Gulf County (County) for permit to install a beach access road, constructed of oyster shell or dolomite, at the stumphole area on Cape San Blas should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On April 11, 1996, the County applied for a permit from DEP to install a beach access road constructed of oyster shell or dolomite over an area 275 feet in length by 12 feet wide at the stumphole area on Cape San Blas. The County owned the property at the site where a crude road bed to the beach already existed. On that same date, County Manager Donald Butler met with a DEP field engineer, William Fokes, on the site to determine the linear footage that would be necessary for the access road at the stumphole area. Fokes then issued the field permit for the access road to be constructed of oyster shell or dolomite over an area 275 feet in length by 12 feet wide. Since beach driving is permitted by the County in the area, the access road aids in preventing illegal crossing of beach dunes by motorists to get to the beach. Prior to issuance of the field permit and construction of the access road, the only legal motorist access to the beach was seven miles away. Permits to drive on the beach are issued by the County. DEP rules require that all applicants proposing to conduct permitted activities on a beach use a designated beach access. This road will allow access to conduct permitted activities, thereby preserving and enhancing public beach access. DEP will not permit a project that is expected to adversely impact the beach dune system. Although seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in the County, the area which is the subject of this field permit contained no dunes or vegetation since Hurricane Opal had flattened the area. Such a project cannot be permitted if the project will adversely impact existing upland property or property of others. In the instant case, neither the Petitioner’s property, which is located two miles away from the project site, or property of other owners in the area will be adversely impacted. The road is designed to be a non-rigid, pervious structure which causes less impact to any existing dune system. The road site is located on County property and provides logical and appropriate access. The construction of the road did not violate DEP prohibitions on permitting activities having adverse impact to marine turtles since the construction permit expired prior to the turtle nesting season. A requirement of field permit issuance is that the applicant and the DEP area engineer meet on site and review the project. This event occurred on April 11, 1996, when Butler and Fokes met on the site. Fokes determined that the project was within field permitting guidelines and issued the permit. Fokes was authorized to issue the field permit because the project fell in DEP’s category of a driveway or similar activity. Expected impacts of construction of the access road and a driveway are deemed similar by DEP. Subsequent review by DEP staff of Fokes’ issuance of the field permit determined that sufficient information had been provided to him for issuance of the permit, that the project falls in the category of minor activity and that no adverse impact to dunes, property of others, beach access or nesting marine turtles is expected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered confirming the grant of the field permit which is the subject of this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynette L. Ciardulli, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Michael Paulsson, Pro Se Route 1, Box 347B Port St. Joe, FL 32456 Timothy J. McFarland, Esquire Post Office Box 202 Port St. Joe, FL 32457 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Because of a 1984 Thanksgiving Day storm which inflicted damage in coastal areas, Barry Manson-Hing, an area engineer employed by the Department, issued emergency coastal construction permits from a temporary office in the Vero Beach Administration Building. On December 3, 1984, Respondent sought an emergency permit to allow him to place sand and sand-filled bags on his coastal property at 3755 Ocean Drive, Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent asked Mr. Manson-Hing if he could use sand from the beach to restore eroded areas. Mr. Manson-Hing said he could not, and told him that sand would have to be obtained from an upland source. Respondent replied that he had an available source of upland sand and would haul it by truck to the beach site. He also mentioned that he would remove an existing pine tree to allow vehicular access. On the next day, December 4, 1984, Mr. Manson-Hing issued an emergency coastal construction permit, #1R-127E, to Respondent. The permit allowed Respondent to place 1,500 cubic yards of sand fill material to restore eroded beach and dune areas at the site, and also permitted him to temporarily place sand-filled bags on filter cloth. In capital letters, the permit warned, "SCRAPING OF THE BEACH IS PROHIBITED." (Dept. Exhibit 4) On December 5, 1984, Lt. Raymond Barker of the Vero Beach Police Department, observed beach scraping activities being conducted on Respondent's coastal property. Respondent was present on the site. Beach sand seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line for Indian River County had been scraped and deposited at the face of the sand dune. The removal of the sand created depressions in the beach area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Lt. Barker ordered Respondent to cease the activity until it could be determined he had the required authorization. Respondent complied with Lt. Barker's order. The scraping of the beach and removal of sand below the coastal construction control line was accomplished without a permit from the Department. On July 17, 1985, the Department entered its "Final Order" assessing Respondent a $500 fine for unauthorized coastal construction activities in violation of Section 161.054, Florida Statutes (1985). Respondent requested a hearing; resulting in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department assess, impose, and collect an administrative fine of $500, to be paid within 30 days of final agency action. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings the 20th day of June, 1986.
