The Issue Whether Centervillage Limited Partnership has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that development rights in certain real property it owns have vested against the provisions of the Tallahassee-Leon County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Procedure. On or about August 6, 1990, Centervillage filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination with the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department. (Application VR0027T) The following information concerning the development of the Centervillage property was contained on the Application: "Gerald E. Songy" is listed as the "owner/agent." Question 3 lists the name of the project as "Centervillage Limited Partnership." "Progress . . . Toward Completion" is described as:(1) planning, (2) site preparation, (3) Leon County environmental permits, (4) DER Dredge and Fill Permit, (5) DOT Drainage Connection Permit. Original P.U.D., Rezoning, Minor subdivision Approval and a stormwater agreement with Leon County, are included in Centervillage's application as forms of government approvals and as the actions of government relied on prior to committing funds toward completion of the proposed development. On September 10 and 17, 1990, hearings were held to consider the Application before the Staff Committee comprised of the City Attorney, the Director of Planning for the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission and the Director of Growth Management for the City. By letter dated September 17, 1990, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department informed Centervillage that the Application had been denied. By letter dated September 28, 1990, to Mr. Gumula, Centervillage appealed the decision to deny the Application. By letter dated October 10, 1990, the Division of Administrative Hearings was requested to provide a Hearing Officer to review this matter. By agreement of the parties, the undersigned allowed the parties to supplement the record in this matter on November 26, 1990. The Property. Centervillage currently owns approximately 27.20 acres of property (the Property) located at the Northeast corner of Capital Circle, Northeast, and Centerville Road, Tallahassee, Florida (Application). Centervillage began assembling the Property, through various transactions, in the early 1980's. By October, 1984, Centervillage had acquired the bulk of the Property. (T-3 p. 23) Prior to Centervillage's initial acquisition of the Property, the prior owners of portions of the Property began development of the site as an industrial, mini-warehouse development. This prior development activity involved a series of violations of state and local environmental laws and regulations. (T-3 pp. 50-51, 59) As a result of improper development activities by the prior owners of the Property, fines were imposed and, at the time Centervillage made the initial purchase, the Property was subject to a Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) consent order. (T-3 p. 26) Development Activity. The project that Centervillage proposes to develop is a shopping center containing 200,000 square feet of gross leasable space on approximately 18 of the total 27.20 acres. (T-3 p. 96) The balance of the property is dedicated to stormwater facilities. (T-3 pp. 96-99) During the process of acquiring the 27.20 acres it currently owns, Centervillage began preparing the Property for future development by clearing and demolishing existing structures such as mobile homes, concrete driveways, and wells. (T-1 pp. 27-28) Permits were obtained early in the process to demolish these structures and in December 1984, the front corner of the Property was selectively cleared. (T-1 p. 28) In April, 1986, Leon County (the County) began construction of a ditch on a portion of the perimeter of the Property. The purpose of this ditch was to allow stormwater discharge from a Centerville Road construction project that the County was involved in. The County had been unable to locate an alternative site to provide any catchment and holding facility to handle the stormwater run off and, as a result, had encountered problems with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). (T-3, pp. 70-71) At the same time, Centervillage was involved in attempting to resolve problems associated with improper development activity on the Property by its previous owners. These factors led to cooperative efforts on the part of both Centervillage and the County in dealing with the DER and to conceptual agreements between the Centervillage and the County regarding aspects of future development of the Property. Centervillage granted the County a temporary easement for the purpose of constructing the drainage ditch. (T-1 p. 28, T-3 p. 52) The drainage ditch constructed on the site turned out to be a "long, skinny holding pond." (T-1 p. 29) The County constructed over 80 percent of the overall onsite perimeter ditch in mid to late 1986. (T-1 p. 29) The property subject to the temporary easement will be conveyed to the County pursuant to a formalized conceptual agreement between Centervillage and the County. (App. Ex. G, G-8) This agreement will be the subject of expanded discussion later in this Final Order. Construction of the majority of the current improvements on the Property began in June of 1989. The work consisted of: construction of a holding pond sized for commercial development; construction of some two and a half acres of wetlands; and construction of the perimeter ditch from the north end of the project to Centerville Road, then west along Centerville Road under Capital Circle. (T-1 pp. 30-31) The work also included vegetation of the perimeter ditch to create wetlands. (T-1 p. 31) This development activity also involved the placing of 50,000 to 60,000 cubic yards of fill material on the site. (T-1 p. 30) In May and June of 1989, Centervillage acquired over six acres of adjoining property in order to construct a stormwater facility which it had agreed to provide as part of its conceptual agreements with the County and in partial mitigation against prior improper development on the Property. (App. Ex. H, H-2; T-1 p. 11; T-3 pp. 125-126; T-3 pp. 26-27) The two and a half acres of new wetlands Centervillage constructed on the property was also in mitigation for prior improper development activity engaged in by previous owners of the Property. (T-1 p. 30) Further development has been permitted but not constructed. This work is to involve the construction of culverts, crossings, and onsite, upland filtration facilities. (T-1 pp. 31-32) As a result of the 1989 development activity, the northern 7.57 acres of the property has been excavated for the stormwater facility and some 18 acres of the Property have been filled from depths of two to six feet. (T-3 p. 97) Government Approvals. In July, 1984, the City approved Centervillage's request for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) to allow the Property to be developed as a shopping center to be constructed in three phases. Each phase of construction was to involve 50,000 square feet of retail space. (App. Ex. G, G-1) In December, 1984, the City approved an amendment to the previously approved P.U.D., to add additional property and to expand the size of the development by the addition of approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space. (App. Ex. G, G-2) In January, 1988, Centervillage received rezoning approval from the P.U.D. to Commercial Parkway, limited use site plan (CP zoning). (App. Ex. G, G-3; T-3 pp. 25-26) The limited use site plan outlines, among other things, the limited access to the Property and the reestablishment of the canopy road on portions of Centerville Road which abut the property. (App. Ex. G, G-3) In May, 1988, the City approved Centervillage's application for minor subdivision approval. This minor subdivision approval established one parcel as the previously developed mini-warehouse site to the east of the Property and the other parcel as the Property as it currently exists except for 2.79 acres on Capital Circle which had not been acquired at that time. (App. Ex. G, G-4) In October, 1988, the City granted a separate minor subdivision approval which addressed the additional 2.79 acres. (Minor subdivision approval, dated October 26, 1988, signed by Donny Brown, Development Coordinator for the City.) The parcel containing the mini-warehouse facility was sold in 1986, and is no longer part of the Property. (T-1 pp. 37-38) On July 22, 1988, the DER issued an environmental permit to Centervillage. (App. Ex. E, E-9) This permit was a result of extensive negotiations between DER and Centervillage and also involved the County because of the County's own permitting problems with the road improvement Project. (T-1 pp. 63-65) This DER permit specifies that the "permit does not convey any vested rights." (App. Ex. E, E-9, paragraph 3) On August 17, 1988, the County issued Environmental Management Permit #88-0299 to Centervillage. This permit was for "earth work only" and specified that "stormwater runoff [would] be required upon final development plans." (App. Ex. E, E-1) On October 25, 1988, the County accepted Centervillage's hydrological analysis on the Property. (App. Ex. E, E-3) On December 5, 1988, Centervillage received notification from the County that the project site was exempt from site plan review. (App. Ex. E, E- 9) Currently, there is not a city-approved site plan for the Centervillage project. (T-3 p. 115) On May 3, 1989, the County issued Environmental Permit #89-0230. This permit reflects approval of an additional of 630,000 square feet of impervious surface to the site. Centervillage's application for this permit also lists the proposed use of the Property as "M-1 mini-warehouses and CP shopping center." (App. Ex. E, E-5) Centervillage began its construction of the majority of current site improvements in June of 1989. (T-1 p. 30) In meetings between Centervillage and the City it was never confirmed that the approval of an additional 630,000 square feet of impervious surface on the site was a valid assumption. (T-3 p. 138) The County issued two additional environmental permits in 1989, one for tree removal (App. Ex. E, E-6) and one for stormwater permit amendments. (App. Ex. E, E-7) In March, 1990, the County issued an additional environmental permit for tree removal. (App. Ex. E, E-8) In January and in June, 1990, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) issued two separate drainage connection permits to Centervillage. (App. Ex. E, E-10, E-11) Until October, 1990, the County performed the environmental regulatory services for both the County and the City. (T-3 p. 56) At the time the County issued the environmental permits described in this Final Order, there was no City of Tallahassee Environmental Ordinance. (T- 3 pp. 73-74) At the time the County issued the environmental permits described in this Final Order, the County Chief of Environmental Management regularly appeared before the Tallahassee City Commission as part of his duties in issuing environmental permits for property within the City. (T-3 p. 56) At the time the County environmental permits described in this Final Order were issued to Centervillage, the City would look to a County environmental permit before issuing a building permit. (T-3 p. 74) At the November 26, 1990, hearing in this case, the Chief of Environmental Management for the County testified that he knew of no specific resolution or ordinance that granted environmental permitting authority within city limits to the County. (T-3 pp. 74-75) However, the testimony at the November 26, 1990, hearing in this case establishes that the City relied on the County's environmental permitting in making its own permitting decisions. (T-3 pp. 56, 73-75) In practice and effect, the County was acting on behalf of the City in granting local environmental permits. (T-3 pp. 73-80) The County has never been delegated the authority to make land use decisions, such as subdivision approvals, for property within the City. (T-3 pp. 74-76) The rezoning of the Property from P.U.D. to CP Zoning, approved by the City in January, 1988, provided no specific approval of densities and intensities for development of the Centervillage project. (T-3 pp. 130-132) When Centervillage requested rezoning of the Property from P.U.D. in January, 1988, its managing general partner assumed that as part of the approved zoning change it received approval for the same density and intensity of development that existed under the P.U.D. (T-3 p. 125) The Conceptual Agreement. In early 1986, the County was in the process of attempting to widen and improve Centerville Road. (T-1 p. 28) During this construction by the County, the DER asserted jurisdiction over the road project and the construction was stalled because the County did not have adequate property on which to construct facilities for the storage and treatment of stormwater runoff generated by the road construction project. (T-3 pp. 70-71, 82-84) During the initial rezoning and permitting process, Centervillage was required to address the effects of prior improper development activity engaged in on a portion of the Property by previous owners. As a result of the prior improper development on the Property, Centervillage was required to mitigate against flooding problems and to facilitate revegetation of a denuded canopy road segment along Centerville Road. (T-3 p. 52) On April 11, 1986, James G. Parrish, Administrator for the County, presented Centervillage with a conceptual agreement whereby, among other things, Centervillage agreed to grant necessary easements to the County for the construction of a drainage ditch on the Property to accept and store stormwater runoff from the County's Centerville Road improvement project. (App. Ex. G, G- 6) During 1986, the County and Centervillage cooperated through a series of permitting contacts specific to the development of a shopping center, to establish a major regional water management facility, to provide water management for the Centerville Road project, and to engage in cooperative efforts to reforest the canopy road. (T-3 pp. 52-53) These cooperative permitting contacts included contacts with the DER. (T-3 p. 53) The conceptual agreement was finally formalized and adopted by the Leon County Commission on July 18, 1989. (App. Ex. G, G-8) In this agreement, Centervillage obligated itself to acquire additional property, construct a stormwater management facility and to convey the completed facility to the County. (App. Ex. G, G-8) In the formalized conceptual agreement, the County agreed to fully cooperate in the efforts of Centervillage to obtain all permits necessary to complete all improvements in accordance with the DER permit issued to Centervillage in July, 1988. (App. Ex. G, G-8) The formalized conceptual agreement further provides that the County will not require any additional stormwater retention or detention above that required by the County environmental permit issued to Centervillage previously. (App. Ex. G, G-8) The agreement also provides that the County will allow Centervillage to develop the southwest portion of the Property, fronting Capital Circle Northeast and Centerville Road," to its fullest commercial potential, subject only to existing zoning ordinances, terms and conditions of the limited use site plan, approval of subsequent short-term applications for environmental management permits, and Leon County Environmental Permit number 88-0299." This portion of the agreement also provides that the property will no longer be "protected from development." (App. Ex. G, G-8, paragraph 8) Centervillage is obligated, pursuant to the agreement, to convey in excess of 7 acres of property and the drainage ditch area for no additional consideration. (T-3 pp. 85-86) Absent the agreement of Centervillage to provide stormwater drainage and retention on the Property and to convey that portion of the Property to the County, the County could not have completed the Centerville Road improvement project. (T-3 pp. 70-71) Centervillage's agreement to donate land to the County was tied to the DER permits issued to both Centervillage and the County. (T-1 p. 41) Centervillage's agreement to provide the 7.57 acre stormwater facility to the County was a required condition in connection with the issuance of the environmental management permit issued by the County. (T-3 p. 88) The City was privy to the conceptual agreement between Centervillage and the County from the development stages through to its final, formal approval by the County Commission in July 1989. The plans for the stormwater facility were discussed with and reviewed by the City, with the understanding that the city would accept and maintain the facilities. (T-3 pp. 86-87) During these discussion with City personnel, there was no indication given that the agreement included land use decisions. (T-3 pp. 90-91) The 7.57 acre stormwater facility serves more than the development area. The facility is a major component of the total drainage system for the City of Tallahassee. (T-3 p. 88) The size of the 7.57 acre stormwater facility is not directly related to the Centervillage development proposal. (T-3 p. 90) Development Expenses. The cost of purchasing the original tract was $1,812,012.00. Centervillage has since sold a portion of the original tract for $738,282.00. Centervillage's net land costs for the Property are $1,073,730.00. (App. Ex. C, C-1) Centervillage incurred costs of $175,000.00 in purchasing land pursuant to the conceptual agreement with the County. (T-3 pp. 123-126) Other than the $175,000.00 expended pursuant to the conceptual agreement, the balance of costs of purchase of land were not incurred in reliance on any act or omission of the City. Interest and property taxes paid by Centervillage were $1,279,753.30. (App. Ex. C, C-1) No significant portion of the costs attributed to interest and property taxes were incurred in reliance on any act or omission of the City. Centervillage incurred $543,624.50 in costs associated with site work, clearing, and landscaping on the Property. Significant portions of these costs were incurred beginning in June, 1989. (T-1 pp. 30-31) These costs were substantially incurred after Centervillage had engaged in extensive negotiations with state and local government entities and after permits were issued by the state DER and DOT as well as environmental permits issued by the County. At the time the County issued these permits it was, in practice and effect, acting on behalf of the City. These negotiations, agreements, permits and approvals are outlined in the Government Approvals portion of this Final Order. Centervillage has established that it expended well in excess of $400,000.00 on testing, inspection, soil investigation, engineer and survey fees, architectural fees, legal and title fees and general development expenses associated with the development of the Property. (App. Ex. C, C-1) Centervillage has proved that a significant portion of these "soft costs" were expanded during the period it engaged in extensive negotiations with and after Centervillage obtained permits and approvals from the various state and local government entities as outlined in the Government Approvals portion of this Final Order. Centervillage would not have made the large expenditure of funds, or made the commitment to convey significant portions of the property to the County pursuant to the Conceptual Agreement if it had not obtained the zoning approvals and environmental permits that were necessary to construct a community size shopping center of approximately 200,000 square feet. (T-1 pp. 68-70; T-3 pp. 127-128) The evidence in this case establishes that Centervillage reasonably relied on the approvals and environmental permits it obtained from state and local governments, as well as on the conceptual agreement between Centervillage and the County in changing its position and in incurring substantial costs associated with the development of the Property. Current Status of the Development. Centervillage took a site that was a drainage way, added properties to it, accomplished an enormous amount of permitting and fill work to come up with a fairly level buildable site suitable for building anything allowed within the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. (T-1 p. 18) The shopping center project has been pursued by Centervillage for the past several years. Centervillage has never proposed any alternative plans to the City or other governmental authorities in the history of its project. (T-3 pp. 57-60, 82; T-1 pp. 17-18) Environmental Management Permit #89-0230, issued on May 3, 1989, by the County, contemplated approval of the addition of 630,000 square feet of impervious surface to the Property. (App. Ex. E) Centervillage relied on this approval and incurred substantial costs in proceeding with the further development of the Property. At the hearing on November 26, 1990, Centervillage presented the testimony of Richard Moore, a licensed professional engineer. (T-3 p. 94) Mr. Moore has been involved with the Centervillage project for seven years. (T-3 p. 95) Mr. Moore testified that he prepared a layout based on several planning concepts on engineering design and determined that 630,000 square feet of impervious surface allowed 200,000 square feet of gross leasable space and allowed the development of adequate parking with good internal circulation and sufficient green areas to allow for aesthetic landscaping. (T-3 pp. 106-107) Mr. Moore further testified that this square footage ratio is on average with design standards accepted in the engineering community. (T-3 p. 107) According to Mr. Moore's testimony, if Centervillage is required to meet consistency and concurrency requirements of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the shopping center development could be limited or delayed because the Property is located on a constrained roadway. (T-3 pp. 103-106) The DOT and the City have scheduled widening of Capital Circle, on which the Centervillage Property fronts, for 1991. (T-3 pp. 109-110) However, based upon Mr. Moore's testimony, Centervillage has established that constrained roadway limitations could limit or delay the project under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan despite the current improvement schedule. According to Mr. Moore's testimony, under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the proximity of the Property to Centerville Road, a canopy road, could limit the development of a shopping center to 100,000 square feet of leasable space. (T-3 pp. 103-104) As of July 16, 1990, the date of adoption of the City of Tallahassee Vesting Ordinance, the stormwater facilities on the Property were not complete. Additional water treatment facilities must still be constructed for runoff from the site. (T-3 pp. 19-21) No roadways, water and sewer services or electrical services have been constructed on site. (T-3 p. 108)
Findings Of Fact Petitioners purchased the property here involved in 1961 and occupied it as their residence until April 1991 when they moved to a new home they had just completed. The Hillsborough County Northwest Expressway was in the talking stage for several years before the final route for the Expressway was decided. Numerous public hearings were held before the final route of the Expressway was determined. Throughout most of these meetings and discussions Petitioners' property was deemed likely to be in the right-of-way of the Expressway and subject to taking. Anticipating their property would be taken for the Expressway, Petitioners, in 1989, purchased another lot on which to construct a residence. The Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority was designated as agent for the Florida Department of Transportation to acquire the necessary rights-of-way for the proposed Northwest Hillsborough County Expressway Project. In turn the Expressway Authority designated O.R. Colon Associates, Inc. (Colon) to serve as its agent in acquiring the property needed for this project. The ultimate route of the Northwest Expressway was determined and property owners on the selected route were sent a letter in January 1991 informing them that their property would probably be taken and that the Expressway Authority would negotiate with the owners of all parcels of property to be acquired to arrive at a fair price to be paid for their property. That letter further provided that: In order to facilitate construction of this project, the Authority will begin the appraisal and relocation survey of your property, after which you will be offered the fair market value of your property based upon an independent appraisal. * * * In addition to receiving payment for the fair market value of your property, you may be entitled to certain relocation assistance payments and other costs payable only during the settlement process. (Emphasis added) Petitioners also had a business occupying the same property on which their residence was situated. This business was incorporated and did not move from the property until after Petitioners had moved into their new residence in April 1991. Subsequent to moving their residence from the property to be taken for the Expressway project Petitioners were shown a relocation brochure (Exhibit 2) prepared by Colon which contained information regarding relocation benefits. The first personal contact with Petitioner was made by an employee of Colon on January 16, 1992 at which time a written offer to purchase the property for $116,400 was presented to Petitioners.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Verlyn Spivey's and Sandra Spivey's application for relocation benefits associated with the taking of their property in the right-of-way of the Hillsborough County Northwest Expressway. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 22nd day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: RONALD R SWARTZ ESQ 610 WATERS AVE - STE J TAMPA FL 33604 CHARLES G GARDNER ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BLDG - MS 58 605 SUWANNEE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0458 THORNTON J WILLIAMS ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BLDG - MS 58 605 SUWANNEE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0458 BEN G WATTS/SECRETARY ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BLDG - MS 58 605 SUWANNEE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0458
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this case had previously been owned by an individual who had begun development of the subject property and adjoining property (hereinafter referred to as the "Dawkins' Property"), in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Part of the Dawkins Property was developed and has been sold (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank Tract"). The subject property (hereinafter referred to as the "Golden Tract"), was acquired by Golden/Jacksonville Co. in December, 1986. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied Upon by the Applicant. Most of the Dawkins Property, including most of the Golden Tract, was approved and zoned in 1977 by Clay County for development as a shopping center. A part of the Golden Tract (hereinafter referred to as the "Multifamily Tract"), however, was not zoned for development as a shopping center at that time. Part of the Dawkins Property (the Bank Tract) was fully developed as a bank. Various environmental permits required to further develop the Dawkins Property, less the Bank Tract and the Multifamily Tract, as a shopping center were acquired by the previous owner of the property. Permits were issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the St. Johns Water Management District. Prior to purchasing the Golden Tract, the Applicant sought assurance of Clay County that the Golden Tract (but not the Multifamily Tract) was zoned for development as a shopping center. Clay County, in a letter dated December 9, 1985, confirmed that development of the Golden Tract as a shopping center was consistent with the then current zoning for the property. In confirming the zoning of the Golden Tract, Clay County notified the Applicant that it would be necessary that a traffic signal be installed at an intersection on Blanding Boulevard which would be impacted by the shopping center. In 1987, the Applicant sought and obtained approval of the rezoning of the Multifamily Tract for development as a shopping center. The Applicant submitted a revised site plan for the proposed shopping center dated August 27, 1987 to Clay County for approval in connection with the request to rezone the Multifamily Tract. The site plan included the development of 264,000 square feet of commercial space. The August 27, 1987 revised site plan was approved by Clay County in November, 1987. In May, 1988, the Applicant applied with the Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "DOT"), for a drainage connection permit and a driveway connection permit in connection with providing access to the proposed shopping center. As a condition of issuing the required permit, DOT required that Clay County construct certain intersection improvements on Blanding Boulevard, the main traffic artery adjacent to the Golden Property. The Applicant entered into negotiations with Clay County in order to get the Blanding Boulevard intersection improvements required by DOT completed. On January 9, 1990, the Applicant and Clay County entered into an agreement wherein the Applicant agreed to pay Clay County 50% of the costs (up to a total of $23,000.00) of the DOT-required intersection improvements. The Applicant's Detrimental Reliance. In reliance on Clay County's actions in informing the Applicant that it would be required to provide a traffic signal in order to proceed with the development of the Golden Tract, the Applicant had the traffic signal installed at a cost of $7,500.00. Following approval of the August 27, 1987 revised site plan by Clay County, the Applicant spent approximately $128,000.00 to construct a stormwater retention pond required by the St. Johns River Water Management District. Part of the costs of intersection improvements required by DOT were incurred by the Applicant. The weight of the evidence failed to prove how much the Applicant actually spent, however. The Applicant also proceeded with the development of the Golden Tract, incurring architecture and engineering fees and other costs associated with the proposed development of the Golden Tract. A detailed breakdown of various expenses incurred by the Applicant was included at tab 25 of the documentation filed in support of the Application. Although not all of the expenditures listed at tab 25, i.e., taxes and costs associated with the purchase of the Golden Property, are relevant to the issues in this proceeding, some of the expenditures were incurred in reliance on the actions of Clay County other than approval of zoning of the Golden Tract. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Pursuant to the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan, there are insufficient "peak hour trips" available on the roads impacted by the Golden Tract to accommodate the peak hour trips required for the Golden Tract if it is developed as a shopping center. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended by Clay County Ordinance 92-22 have been met.
Findings Of Fact On April 16, 1986, in conjunction with the preparation of plans for widening Southside Boulevard (State Road 115) in Jacksonville, Florida, the Department recorded a Map of Reservation pursuant to Section 337.241(1), Florida Statutes, which encompassed a portion of the Petitioner's property. It was stipulated by the parties that the Department complied with the necessary notice, filing, and approval requirements of Section 337.241(1), Florida Statutes. The property in question is located in Jacksonville, adjacent to the east side of Southside Boulevard at the intersection of Hogan Road. It is zoned commercial, but there is currently no development on the east side of Southside Boulevard in the immediate vicinity of Hogan Road. The west side of Southside Boulevard is developed commercially for its entire length. This property consists of a tract of land approximately 892 feet long by 15 feet deep which lies adjacent to a strip of land approximately 100 feet deep which is immediately adjacent to Southside Boulevard. The Department determined that there existed a need to widen Southside Boulevard from a two lane highway to a four lane, limited access facility accompanied by two one-way, parallel service roads. In designing the widening of this highway, the Department determined that the minimum right-of-way corridor width for the facility should be 250 feet. This minimum width was established by using official rules and criteria established by the Department, as well as the Rules of the American Association of State Highway Officials and those of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Presently, the Department has a 200 foot wide right-of-way corridor. Because of the requirement for at least 250 feet of width, the Department needed to take steps to assure that the extra 50 feet would be available by use of a Map of Reservation. The Department determined that land should be reserved on the east side of the right-of-way corridor for the needed 50 feet because the east side of Southside Boulevard in the area in question is undeveloped, while the west side is substantially developed. This was an economic decision based upon an alignment of the right-of-way corridor that would have the least economic impact on the acquisition of the additional right-of-way. The Department did not place all of the Petitioner's property under the Map of Reservation. Only the 50 feet required for the widening project is affected by the regulation. The owner of the subject property is an individual, E. W. Mayhew, and a corporation, Beta Development Company, Inc. The property was purchased in 1982 for development as office/warehouse space. The Petitioner E. W. Mayhew knew that the property was affected by a Limited Access Line across the property, which was established by the Department in the 1960's, well before the Petitioner's purchase of this property. Despite the presence of this Limited Access Line, the Petitioner did not realize until 1984 that the Line informed potential buyers that direct access to Southside Boulevard from the subject property would be eliminated eventually. Although it spent more than $43,000 to develop plans to promote its property, the Petitioner had not applied to the City of Jacksonville for any of the permits that are required in order to build its proposed office/warehouse project by the time the Map of Reservation was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter its Final Order dismissing the Petition in this case. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 24th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 November, 1986. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1587 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-4. Accepted. 5.-16. Rejected, as irrelevant because the elements of reasonableness and arbitrariness were not proved. 17. Rejected, as not a proposed finding of fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Theresa M. Rooney, Esquire 1550 Florida Bank Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Paul J. Martin, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint in the manner specified therein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a Florida-licensed real estate sales associate since March 19, 1990. He holds license number SL-557575. His license has been in the name of his professional association (Frank Rhoden, P.A.), as allowed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-1.013(1)(f),4/ since January 11, 2007. At no time during the period that he has been licensed (from March 19, 1990, to present) has he ever been disciplined. Respondent (operating as a professional association) is now, and was at all times material to the instant case, affiliated with All Homes Realty, Inc. (All Homes), a Florida- registered brokerage corporation.5/ Since the late 1970's, Gina Brimmell, a now-retired school teacher,6/ has owned a condominium unit--Unit 305--located at 4311 Crystal Lake Drive, Pompano Beach, Florida (Subject Unit). In or around April 2009, Ms. Brimmell asked a representative of the community association management firm servicing the condominium association to which (by virtue of her ownership of the Subject Unit) she belonged (CAM Firm) to recommend a real estate professional to help her sell or rent the Subject Unit7/ and, in response to her request, was given Respondent's name.8/ Ms. Brimmell, who was then residing in North Carolina, thereafter contacted Respondent and, on April 28, 2009, met with him in person to discuss the possibility of her using him to market the Subject Unit, which at the time was unoccupied and vacant, except for a television and VCR belonging to Ms. Brimmell that she had left behind (on a built-in shelving unit (Shelving Unit)) when she had moved out of the Subject Unit. In introducing himself at the April 28, 2009, meeting, Respondent handed Ms. Brimmell his business card, which indicated that he was working for All Homes. After "interview[ing]" Respondent, an impressed Ms. Brimmell (who was aware of Respondent's affiliation with All Homes and that Respondent was not his own "boss"9/) let Respondent know that she wanted to use his services. Respondent thereupon presented to Ms. Brimmell, for her consideration and signature, the following Property Management Agreement (PMA): PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: Owner of: 4311 Crystal Lake Drive, #305, Pompano Beach, Fl. 33064 Authorizes Frank Rhoden P.A. To manage, rent and maintain the above property for a fee of 10% of the annual rental and 10% per month of the rent for management services. Frank Rhoden PA will provide electricians, plumbers, painters, and ensure that property is well maintained and rent collected in a timely manner. Owner authorizes the payment of rental fees, management fees, repairs and maintenance out of rent collected. Frank Rhoden PA and Attorney will evict tenants who fail to pay rent in a timely manner, disturb the peace or fail to maintain the excellent condition of the condo as rented. Agreed to By: Owner Frank Rhoden PA After reviewing the PMA, Ms. Brimmell wrote the following handwritten language (Handwritten Addition) underneath the signature lines on the PMA: 10% fee up front to rent (equal to one month's rent) then 10% per month to manage property. Then, Ms. Brimmell and Respondent signed and dated the PMA (on the appropriate signature lines), and they both placed their initials beneath the Handwritten Addition.10/ During their meeting, Ms. Brimmell and Respondent also executed a listing agreement for the sale of the Subject Unit (Listing Agreement).11/ Before the meeting ended, Ms. Brimmell gave Respondent the key to the Subject Unit so that he would be able to show it to prospective buyers and renters. She instructed him to market the unit, which had been cleaned, "as is." At no time did she ask or authorize him to bring and leave any item in the unit, be it for staging the unit or for any other purpose. Respondent was not the only one, aside from Ms. Brimmell, in possession of a key to the Subject Unit. Ms. Brimmell had also given keys to the condominium association and to her good friend, William Russell. Mr. Russell resided year-round in a unit (Unit 309) down the hall from the Subject Unit. Ms. Brimmell had given him a key when she had moved away and asked him to, every now and then, go inside the Subject Unit to make sure nothing was amiss, a responsibility he had agreed to undertake. True to his word, every month or two following Ms. Brimmell's move to North Carolina, Mr. Russell inspected the inside of the Subject Unit. During one such visit on or about June 22, 2009, he observed numerous items in the Subject Unit that had not been there during his last inspection (Unfamiliar Items), including books, paintings, and "knickknacks" on the Shelving Unit; clothing and a suitcase in the unit's walk-in closet; bags, boxes, bins, and containers with various articles in them; and large, blue industrial-looking barrels or drums.12/ Although Mr. Russell did not know it at the time, Respondent was using the Subject Unit to store things (without Ms. Brimmell's knowledge or authorization). Later that same day, Mr. Russell telephoned Ms. Brimmell and told her about the Unfamiliar Items he had found in the Subject Unit, commenting that it looked like someone had moved in to the unit. Two days later, he went back into the Subject Unit, took digital photographs of the Unfamiliar Items, and electronically sent these photographs to Ms. Brimmell. After viewing the photographs, Ms. Brimmell telephoned the CAM Firm, All Homes,13/ and Respondent to find out what, if anything, they knew about the Unfamiliar Items' presence in the Subject Unit. Ms. Brimmell was unable to reach Respondent, so she left messages for him. After a time, Respondent called her back and spoke to her. During their discussion, Respondent admitted to Ms. Brimmell that he was "storing stuff" in the Subject Unit, and he apologized to her for doing so. Ms. Brimmell, who was "extremely upset," advised Respondent that she was terminating the PMA and the Listing Agreement (neither of which had produced the result Ms. Brimmell had hoped for--rental of the Subject Unit in the case of the PMA, and sale of the Subject Unit in the case of the Listing Agreement), and she demanded that he return the key to the Subject Unit she had given him. Some time shortly after Respondent's and Ms. Brimmell's telephone conversation, the Unfamiliar Items were removed from the Subject Unit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order (1) finding that, as alleged in Count Two of The Administrative Complaint, "Respondent violated [s]ection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, when Respondent moved personal property into the [Subject Unit]" and disciplining him therefor by fining him $1,500.00, suspending his license for a period of six months, and directing him to pay, pursuant to section 455.227(3)(a), investigative and non-attorney prosecutorial costs related to this violation in an appropriate amount to be determined in accordance with chapter 120; and (2) dismissing the remaining allegations of professional misconduct made in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 2nd day of May, 2012.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant, Respondents Arthur C. Enger and William L. Baldwin were registered real estate salesmen and T. Maurice Rouede and Rouede Realty, Inc. were registered real estate brokers. In 1969 the cities of Eau Gallie and Melbourne were merged into the City of Melbourne. A comprehensive zoning plan for the new City of Melbourne was embarked upon and by Melbourne Ordinance No. 72-4, a comprehensive zoning plan was adopted. Because of the large area affected by the plan individual property owners were not advised of any changes in zoning of adjacent property. Southgate sub-division was sub-divided into lots and platted in 1964 by Disc Corporation, the owners of this property. Between this date and 1972 several of these lots had been sold to individuals who had erected houses on these lots. In 1972 some 38 lots in this sub-division remaining in the ownership of Disc Corporation were purchased by Rouede Builders, Inc. for the purpose of erecting homes thereon for sale. A model home was erected and used as the on-site sales office while the remainder of the property was sold. Since numerous lots in Southgate had already been sold by Disc when the remaining lots were bought by Rouede, a map showing the two platted units in Southgate were obtained from Disc by Rouede and placed on the wall in the on- site sales office with those lots already sold so indicated in red. Although there was some discrepancy in the testimony regarding which particular map was exhibited on the wall of the on-site sales office, each of these maps (which were introduced into evidence as Exhibits 11, 13, and 15) contained the entire plat of the Southgate lots and showed 11 lots number 7 - 17 adjacent to and immediately south of the lots which Rouede was offering for sale. Since all of these maps showed lots 7 - 17 south of the Rouede property and they differed only in the manner in which previously sold lots were indicated, it is immaterial to the issues herein which map was actually exhibited on the wall of the sales office. While the testimony on how the Rouede lots were sold was not clear, it appears that these lots were sold only to individuals who also contracted with Rouede for the construction of a residence, or were sold only with the residence. The property immediately south of the Rouede property was zoned R-1 prior to 1972, and it appears that lots 7 - 17 were shown on the map used by the Tax Assessor prior to 1975. The Comprehensive Zoning Plan enacted in 1972 zoned this property R-3 for multiple family dwellings. The current parcel map (Exhibit 10) indicates that in May, 1975 the parcel map was corrected by the addition of Village Green. Village Green occupies the same geographical area as lots 7 - 17 shown on Exhibits 11, 13, and 15 without any lot lines separation. On May 29, 1973 Rouede Builders, Inc. entered into a contract, (Exhibit 12) with William E. and Irene Cook to erect a residence thereon and deed lot number 27 in Southgate Section 2, Unit 1 to the Cooks. The construction was delayed for several weeks to obtain a variance for the purchasers. The construction was completed, and by warranty deed dated January 28, 1974 (Exhibit 8) Rouede Builders, Inc. conveyed the property to the Cooks. Following the occupancy of the residence by the Cooks the owners of the property immediately south of the Cook's property, designated as Village Green on Exhibit 10, commenced the construction of townhouses. These are two story units with each unit comprising a ground floor and second floor, and with walls common to an adjacent unit on either side. These units are constructed 25 feet from the property line as required by the setback restrictions, and by virtue of the two-foot variance obtained for the Cook's residence they are located 48 feet from the Cook's house. Mrs. Cook testified that prior to entering into a contract for the purchase of Lot 27, the salesman with whom she was dealing, Arthur C. Enger, in response to her question, advised her that the property immediately south of Southgate (lots 7 - 17 on the wall plat) was zoned for single family residences the same as lot 27. Subsequent to the commencement of the construction of her house she testified that William C. Baldwin, in a telephone conversation also indicated that the property immediately south of Lot 27 was zoned R-1. She talked to Mr. Rouede once or twice by phone regarding construction of her home, but never discussed zoning with him. Other witnesses who contracted for the erection of a home in Southgate from Rouede recalled no discussion with any salesman regarding the zoning of the area to the south. One of these witnesses took it upon himself to ascertain this fact prior to having his house built and learned from the zoning authorities that the property was zoned R-3. All Respondents denied that they ever knew what the zoning of the area immediately south of the Rouede property was while they were building and selling houses in Southgate or that they ever discussed such zoning with prospective purchasers or among themselves. None of the Respondents knew who the owners of the property were at the time Rouede was building homes in Southgate; only that it was not included in their sales package. At the initial sales meeting, where the salesmen were advised how the lots would be sold as well as at subsequent monthly sales meetings, no mention was ever made regarding the zoning of the property later known as Village Green. At this time the property was undeveloped and what is shown as Berkley Avenue on Exhibits 11, 13, and 15, was not in existence. The map on the wall was reproduced to an 8 1/2 x 14 size (Exhibit 14) and copies of this smaller map were given to all salesmen. These maps were used only as visual sales tools and to keep the salesmen current on which lots were available for sale.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Carla Brice, has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a vested rights certificate to develop certain real property located in Alachua County, Florida without complying with the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 111"), consists of approximately 6 acres of real property located in Alachua County, Florida. Lot 111 is currently owned by the Petitioner, Carla Brice. Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111 through inheritance from her father, Carl L. Brice. Ms. Brice acquired the property in approximately January of 1993. Early History of the Development of Arredonda Estates. During the 1950s Mr. Brice acquired a platted subdivision in Alachua County known as Arredonda Estates Unit 1 (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 1"). Approximately 100 acres of property located adjacent to Unit 1 were also acquired by Mr. Brice. Unit 1 met the existing plat law of Alachua County. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 1 and the sale of lots therein. Part of the 100 acres acquired by Mr. Brice was subsequently platted and developed for sale as residential lots as Arredonda Estates Unit 2A (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2A"). Arredonda Estates Unit 2B (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 2B") was to be located to the north of Unit 2A. Because of the lack of access out of Unit 2B, the then County engineer of the Alachua County, Roy J. Miller, informed Mr. Brice that he would not allow Mr. Brice to proceed with Unit 2B until Mr. Brice completed development of approximately 33 acres of real property located to the east of Unit 1. Mr. Miller believed that there would be better access from the various phases of Arredonda Estates if the 33 acres were developed first because there would be access out of the 33 acres onto County Road 24 and onto Broken Arrow Road to the east of the 33 acres. Mr. Miller, as the County engineer, wielded a great deal of influence in the development of property in Alachua County at the time Mr. Brice developed Units 1 and 2A and at the time he was beginning development of the 33 acres. Although the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Miller could have legally required Mr. Brice to develop the 33 acres before developing Unit 2B, the uncontroverted evidence proved that it was believed that Mr. Miller's approval was necessary in order to complete a development. The 33 acres surround Lot 111 on the east, west and north. The south boundary of Lot 111 is County Road 24, Archer Road. One of the two access roads to County Road 24 from the 33 acre development was located to the immediate east of Lot 111 and the other was located to the immediate west of Lot 111. Lot 111 is bounded on the south by County Road 24. The 33 acres were to be developed as Arredonda Estates (hereinafter referred to as "Unit 4"). The Development of Unit 4. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller that he was concerned about developing Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B because Mr. Brice planned to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. He did not plan to build the shopping center until all phases of Arredonda Estates were completed, including Unit 2B. In agreeing to develop Unit 4 before Unit 2B, Mr. Brice was concerned about making expenditures for larger drainage facilities and obtaining additional easements necessary for the development of Lot 111 before he planned to begin actual development of the shopping center. Mr. Brice informed Mr. Miller of these concerns. The shopping center Mr. Brice planned to develop was to consist of 296,000 square feet of paved surface and 50,000 square feet of roof area. These plans required a redesign of the drainage for Unit 4. In particular, the following modifications were necessary: In conclusion I find it necessary to change the diameter of pipe #7 from an 18 inch diameter to a 21 inch diameter, placed at a 0.15 percent slope pipe grade. Some necessary amendments are required at this point. The larger size pipe in place will cost $9.20 per linear foot. Some sixty-two feet are needed, therefore the total cost will be $570.40. Brice exhibit 9. Despite Mr. Brice's concerns, Mr. Miller continued to insist on the development of Unit 4 before Unit 2B and Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Unit 4 was platted on July 19, 1970. The plat was recorded in Plat Book H, Page 30, Official Records of Alachua County. The initial design of Unit 4 provided for one point of ingress and egress on to State Road 24 from Unit 4. Mr. Miller required that two points of ingress and egress be provided and Mr. Brice agreed. The evidence failed to prove that this requirement was agreed to in exchange for any representation from Alachua County that Mr. Brice would be allowed to develop the shopping center. The final plat provided two means of ingress and egress to State Road 24 and one means of ingress and egress to County Road Number Southwest 24-C (Broken Arrow Road). Lot 111 is contained on the plat. No intended use for Lot 111 was designated on the plat of Unit 4. The plat simply identifies the lot. See Brice exhibit 5. The plat identifies the development of residential lots only. The 33 acres was initially zoned as "A" (agriculture). In order to develop Unit 4 it was necessary to obtain approval of re-zoning of the property as R1C, residential use. The re-zoning of the 33 acres was sought and approved. Lot 111 was also zoned for agricultural use when acquired. On February 11, 1969, 4.27 acres of Lot 111 were re-zoned from "A" (agriculture) to "BR" (retail sales and service). On July 1, 1969, a special use permit allowing a mobile home trailer sales agency was issued for use of 1.1 acres contiguous to the 4.27 acre parcel of Lot 111 by Alachua County. On July 7, 1975, the 1.1 acres, which the special use permit had been issued for, was zoned from "A" to "BR." Construction plans for site improvements for Unit 4 were subsequently prepared, filed with Alachua County and were approved. See Brice exhibit 10. Included on the plans is a rectangular shape identified as "Proposed Shopping Center" containing indications of measurements representing 50,000 square feet of building space. The "Proposed Shopping Center" designation is located on Lot 111. Mr. Brice was subsequently informed that the site improvements for Unit 4 were approved by Alachua County. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Alachua County specifically considered or approved the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in approving the site improvement plans for Unit 4. The approved site improvements for Unit 4 were ultimately made and accepted by Alachua County in September of 1970. Government Action Relied Upon. Mr. Miller intended to allow Mr. Brice to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center "as he had planned." Mr. Miller's approval was conditioned on the completion of development of Units 2B and 4 and the sale of lots thereon. The shopping center to be approved was to be limited to what Mr. Brice "had originally proposed" which was a shopping center of 50,000 square feet. Mr. Brice complied with Mr. Miller's condition that he complete development of Unit 4 before developing Unit 2B. The evidence failed to prove that it was reasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the approval of Mr. Brice's intended development of a shopping center on Lot 111 would last indefinitely. It was also unreasonable for Mr. Brice to believe that the representations of Mr. Miller would survive indefinitely beyond the time that Mr. Brice completed development of Arredonda Estates. In July of 1970, Alachua County Zoning Regulations contained the following site plan approval requirement for shopping centers: No permit shall be issued for construction of a shopping center until the plans and specifications, including the design of ingress and egress roads, parking facilities, and such other items as may be found of importance have been approved by the zoning commission. Based upon this provision, Mr. Miller did not have the authority to approve the construction of a shopping center on Lot 111 in July of 1970. If the representations made by Mr. Miller to Mr. Brice concerning construction of the shopping center had been made in July, 1970, it would be unreasonable for Mr. Brice to rely upon Mr. Miller's representation because of the Alachua County Zoning Regulations quoted in finding of fact 31. If the representations were made before July, 1970, it would be reasonable for Mr. Brice to rely on Mr. Miller's approval of the shopping center because the evidence failed to prove that Alachua County Zoning Regulation quoted above was in effect before July, 1970. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Miller's representations were made before July, 1970. Detrimental Reliance. Mr. Brice proceeded with the development of Unit 4. Roads and drainage facilities associated with Unit 4 were constructed by 1971. The cost of these improvements was approximately $68,989.54. The total cost of improvements associated with Unit 4 was $121,947.54. Mr. Brice also had to obtain a drainage easement but the evidence failed to prove the cost of doing so. The exact amount expended on Unit 4 attributable to work performed just for Lot 111 and the shopping center was not proved by Ms. Brice. One method of allocating costs associated with the development of Unit 4 to Lot 111 suggested by Ms. Brice is to determine the percentage of acreage Lot 111 represents of the whole of Unit 4: approximately 17.9 percent. Applying this percentage to the total costs equals $21,828.61. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that $21,828.61 was actually incurred in association with Lot 111. The evidence failed to prove that it would be reasonable to attribute any part of the expenditures listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11 or 12 of Brice exhibit 30 as attributable to Lot 111. Based upon evidence presented by Alachua County, the total expenditures made by Mr. Brice associated with Lot 111 and the shopping center were approximately $1,005.50. Subsequent Events. Mr. Brice caused preliminary plans for a shopping center for Lot 111 to be developed. Brice exhibit 14. Those plans were never submitted for approval and no building permit was issued approving the construction of a shopping center for Lot 111. The preliminary plans for the shopping center indicate a substantially different configuration for the shopping center than indicated on the site improvement plans for Unit 4. Brice exhibit 14. No final development plan or plat approving a shopping center on Lot 111 was issued by Alachua County. Efforts were made during the 1970s to market Lot 111 for development as a shopping center. These efforts were not successful. As a part of this effort, Mr. Brice incurred $7,000.00 for the construction of a three dimensional model of the proposed shopping center evidenced on the preliminary plans. It has been suggested that Mr. Brice did not proceed with the development of the shopping center during the 1970's and into the 1980's for a number of reasons: A dispute between Mr. Brice and Alachua County arose in 1976 concerning the road in Unit 2A; A dispute also arose concerning the water system in the area of Arredonda Estates; The state of the economy was not conducive to development. The evidence, however, failed to prove why the shopping center was not developed. In 1973, Alachua County created a development review committee. Final site plans for commercial sites were required to be approved by the committee. Mr. Brice did not obtain approval for the proposed shopping center or seek assurances from Alachua County that Mr. Miller's representations concerning the shopping center on Lot 111 were still valid. During 1982 and 1983, Mr. Brice became aware of proposed revisions to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brice met with Alachua County officials concerning the revisions and followed the progress of the revisions. In 1984 Alachua County adopted a comprehensive plan. Under this plan commercial use of Lot 111 was not allowed except for a neighborhood convenience store with square footage of 10,000 square feet. In 1985, during a meeting with Alachua County personnel, Mr. Brice and his attorney were informed that Lot 111 could not be developed as a shopping center without a comprehensive plan amendment. No amendment was applied for. In 1989, offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. Those offers were continent upon the property being developed consistent with the BR zoning. Ms. Brice's name, then known as Carla B. Sutton, first appears in connection with Lot 111 in 1989 when offers to purchase Lot 111 were received. The evidence, however, failed to prove that she was owner of Lot 111 at that time. In 1989 or 1990, a conceptual site plan review was applied for by David Miller, Mr. Brice's representative, concerning Lot 111. Brice exhibit 21. The application was considered at an Alachua County Development Review Committee meeting on March 22, 1990. Consideration of the application was deferred for two weeks. The development Review Committee met on April 19, 1990 and considered the application for conceptual site plan review for Lot 111. The Committee was concerned about how the fact that Lot 111 had been zoned BR before the comprehensive plan had been adopted impacted the fact that development of Lot 111 as a shopping center was prohibited by the comprehensive plan. A decision was delayed for a month and staff was asked to prepare a report dealing with similarly situated parcels. By January 1991, proposed language providing for vesting of certain zoning had been drafted by Alachua County. Brice exhibit 24. By letter dated January 30, 1991, Kurt Larsen, Director of the Office of Planning and Development of Alachua County, informed all affected property owners that Alachua County was "considering" allowing a period of time during which existing zoning would be honored. Brice exhibit 25 Comments were invited. By letter dated February 15, 1991, counsel for Ms. Brice responded to Mr. Larsen's January 30, 1991 letter. Brice exhibit 26. A Transmittal Draft of the Future Land Use Element of the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan dated April 1991 was sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review. See Brice exhibit 27. The Draft provided a two- year period during which undeveloped parcels zoned for a use that was otherwise inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be allowed to be developed essentially in accordance with existing zoning. This policy was ultimately rejected by the Department of Community Affairs. Alachua County informed Ms. Brice of the action of the Department of Community Affairs by letter dated September 18, 1991. Brice exhibit 28. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Alachua County adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in 1991. The following policy was agreed to in a compromise between Alachua County and the Department of Community Affairs concerning commercial enclaves: Policy 3.4.3. Commercial Enclaves are designed within the Urban Cluster on the Future Land Use Map. These sites shall be subject to the following location and compatibility standards: Development of Commercial Enclaves shall be required to meet all concurrency requirements. Development shall be required to minimize access from arterials and collectors. Whenever possible, driveways shall use common access points to reduce potential turn movements. A maximum of 20,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be permitted within each enclave. Uses may include neighborhood convenience centers consistent with Policy 3.8., offices consistent with Policy 3.9.1. and sit-down restaurants. The land development regulations for this land use category shall specify performance standards required to mitigate any adverse impact of such development on adjacent land uses and affected public facilities. Such performance standards shall include buffering and landscaping provisions, site design measures to locate such uses away from less intensive adjacent land uses, signage and parking restrictions, and intensity provisions (e.g. height and bulk restrictions). In the interim, until land development regulations consistent with these policies are adopted, the standards and criteria governing Commercial Enclaves shall be implemented through the County's Development Review Committee process. This policy shall be reviewed by 1993 to determine the effectiveness of the land use category. Mr. Brice was informed, after contacting the Alachua County Growth Management Department, that his development of Lot 111 was limited by the commercial enclave policy. Pursuant to the commercial enclave policy, development of Lot 111 is limited to a size of 20,000 square feet and the uses to which Lot 111 may be put are less than would be allowed under BR zoning. Carla Brice's Reliance and Detriment. The evidence in this case failed to prove that Ms. Brice, the current owner of Lot 111 and the applicant in this case, was aware of any representations made by Mr. Miller. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice in any way reasonably relied upon the representations made to her father. The evidence also failed to prove that Alachua County made any representations to Ms. Brice that she would be allowed to develop Lot 111 as a shopping center. In fact, Alachua County has indicated just the opposite to Ms. Brice since she became the owner of Lot 111. In light of the amount of time that passed after Mr. Miller's representations were made to Mr. Brice and the intervening events concerning development in Alachua County before Ms. Brice acquired Lot 111, any reliance by Ms. Brice on Mr. Miller's representations would not be reasonable. Finally, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Brice detrimentally relied upon any representation of Alachua County concerning the development of Lot 111. Only Mr. Brice, Ms. Brice's father, made expenditures related to the development of Lot 111 as a shopping center. I. Procedural Requirements. On June 9, 1993 Ms. Brice filed her Application seeking an equitable vested rights certificate or a statutory vested rights certificate. On September 22, 1993 Kurt Larsen, Director, Department of Growth Management, Alachua County, informed Ms. Brice that the Application was denied. Ms. Brice appealed the decision to deny the Application by letter dated September 28, 1993. The Division of Administrative Hearings was requested by letter dated January 18, 1994, from Alachua County to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal administrative hearing. The formal administrative hearing of this matter was conducted on March 14, 1994.
The Issue Whether Sing Oil Company has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that development rights in certain real property it owns have vested against the provisions of the Tallahassee-Leon County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Procedure. On November 9, 1990, Sing Oil filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination with the TLCPD. The following information concerning the development of the property was contained on the Application. "Sing Oil Company" is listed as the "owner/agent." Question 3 lists the name of the project as "Sing Oil Company-Woodville." Leon County Environmental Management Permit, DER General Permit, DOT Drainage Connection Permit, DOT Connection Permit, Leon County Septic Tank Permit, and expired Leon County Building Permit are included in Sing Oil's Application as forms of government approvals and as the actions of government relied on by Sing Oil. On March 11, 1990, a hearing was held to consider the Application before the Staff Committee comprised of the County Attorney, the Director of Planning for the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, and the Director of Growth Management for the County. By letter dated March 19, 1991, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the TLCPD, informed Sing Oil that the Application had been denied. By letter dated March 19, 1991, to Mr. Gumula, Sing Oil appealed the decision to deny the Application. On April 12, 1991, the Division of Administrative Hearings received the request for a hearing to review this matter. The Property. Sing Oil currently owns approximately 1.97 acres of property (the Property) located at the Northwest corner of Woodville Highway (SR 363) and Lawhon Road. At the time Petitioner purchased it, the Property was zoned to permit construction of a convenience store. Sing Oil contracted to purchase the property on August 24, 1988, and obtained title to the property by Warranty Deed executed December 22, 1988, recorded in O.R. Book 1354, Page 2081 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida for the purchase price of $160,000. At the time Sing Oil purchased the Property, there was an occupied residence located on the Property. Development Activity. The project Sing Oil proposed to develop is a 3,250 square foot Sing convenience store, with 38 parking spaces, on a 48,000 square foot site, and with total impervious surface being 25,650 square feet. After acquisition of the site, Sing Oil had the residential structure removed in preparation for site improvements. Prior to acquisition of the Property, the Property was surveyed by Bobby A. Presnell & Associates, and Broward Davis & Associates had performed a substantial amount of on-site work to determine feasibility for development and absence of any environmental or other site problems which would impair development. The Property was purchased for the specific purpose of building a convenience store. Governmental Approvals. On December 23, 1988, one day after acquisition of the site, Sing Oil filed its Application for an Environmental Management Permit with Leon County, and obtained Permit #89-0076 on January 5, 1989. On February 7, 1989, Sing Oil obtained Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Permit #RC37-160284. On March 13, 1989, Sing Oil filed its application with the Florida Department of Transportation for a Drainage Connection Permit and Application #15880 was approved on March 15, 1989. On April 5, 1989, Florida Department of Transportation Connection Permit #55-898-19 was issued to Sing Oil. On May 8, 1989, Sing Oil applied for and obtained a State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services On Site Sewage Disposal System Permit. On June 22, 1989, Sing Oil was issued Leon County Building Permit #89- 01392. The Leon County Environmental Management Permit has as an attached exhibit the Sing Oil Company Site and Grading Plan prepared by Broward Davis & Associates, Inc. and approved by Leon County. Page 2 of the Site Plan which is an Exhibit to the Environmental Permit contains the following notes: Lot Area: 1.97 Ac. Site Area: 48,000 sq. feet Proposed Building Area: 3,250 sq. feet Proposed Use: Convenience Store Parking Reqd.: 17 spaces Parking Provided: 38 spaces Vehicle Use Area: 21,000 sq. feet Landscape Islands Reqd.: 4 Landscape Islands Provided: 4 Area of Walks & Dumpster Pad: 1,064 sq. feet Total Impervious Area: 25,650 sq. feet Total Green Area: 22,350 sq. feet (47%) Total Interior Green Area: 17,560 sq. feet (37%) Development Expenses. The cost of purchase of the Property was $160,000.00. At the time of purchase, a residential structure was located on the Property. The structure was removed from the Property and sold for $7,000.00. Therefore, the net cost to Sing Oil for the original purchase of the Property was $153,000.00. These costs were incurred by Petitioner in reliance on the zoning classification of the property at the time of purchase. Prior to closing on the Property, Petitioner expended approximately $1,000.00 on survey and preliminary engineering work. After closing, Sing Oil expended $1,568 in engineering fees in connection with the Application for the Environmental Management Permit, and an additional $1,140.00 for the permit. These costs were incurred by Petitioner in reliance on existing zoning and permissible uses at the time of purchase of the Property. Subsequent to the issuance of the Environmental Management Permit, Petitioner expended $143,179.39 in engineering work permit fees, application fees and impact fees. These costs were incurred by Petitioner in reliance on existing zoning and permissible uses, the Environmental Management Permit, approved exhibits to the permit and other permits and approvals obtained from State and local government. Current Status of the Development. The Property is a fairly level site, with no severe grading or environmentally sensitive features and is ready for construction. Other than the removal of an existing residential structure, no site development or vertical construction has occurred on the site. The Building Permit. On June 16, 1989, Petitioner made payment to Leon County for a county- wide impact fee and for a building permit. Leon County issued a building permit for the site on June 22, 1989. In July 1989, Petitioner and Amoco Oil Company executed a confidentiality agreement. In February 1990, Petitioner and Amoco executed a purchase agreement, and the merger of the Petitioner with Amoco was completed in October 1990. At the time of the execution of the confidentiality agreement leading to its merger with Amoco, Petitioner placed development activity on hold pending the merger. By the time the merger was accomplished in October 1990, Petitioner's building permit had expired and Leon County had adopted the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. At no time during the course of the merger nor at any time after the issuance of the building permit in June 1989, did the Petitioner request an extension of the building permit. Had a request for extension of the permit been received, the County would have routinely granted an extension for at least 90 days, with no limit on further extensions. Application of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. At the time Petitioner purchased the Property, existing zoning would have permitted development of the Property for Petitioner's intended use, a convenience store and gasoline station. The current land use designation for the Property pursuant to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan prohibits development for retail commercial purposes. The Comprehensive Plan does permit multi-family residential and office uses of certain sizes on the Property. Petitioner has presented no evidence that application has been made to Leon County for any Comprehensive Plan concurrency or consistency determinations for any other proposed use for the site. Detrimental Reliance. Petitioner has established that it relied on existing zoning and permits that it obtained from State and local government in incurring costs associated with its intended development of the Property. The "detriment" Petitioner suffers as a result of such reliance is occasioned by Petitioner's admittedly inadvertent failure to extend or renew the previously issued building permit. Therefore, Petitioner's inability to proceed with its development as planned, due to the interim adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, is a result of its own omission and not the result of any act or omission on the part of the Leon County government.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for nonconforming status on his property at 1607 and 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road, Gainesville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of facts filed by the parties, the following findings of fact are determined: Mr. Mayhew resides in Hawthorne, which is located in the southeastern portion of Alachua County (County). (Some papers filed in this case identify his residence as being in Cross Creek, rather than Hawthorne, but with the same street address.) Since November 1998, he has owned property at 1607 and 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road, Gainesville, Florida. More specifically, the property is in an older, single-family residential neighborhood known as Florida Park which is located several blocks west of U.S. Highway 441, which runs in a north-south direction through the City, and approximately one-quarter mile north of Northwest 8th Avenue. In broader geographical terms, the property is located around one mile north of the University of Florida campus. There are two structures (or units) on Petitioner's property. One is a three-bedroom, two-bath dwelling constructed by the original owner (Mr. Gainous) in 1949, who occupied that dwelling with his wife. That unit's address is listed on the County Property Appraiser's records as 1607 Northwest 12th Road. The second structure, a two-bedroom, one-bath dwelling (also referred to as a "cottage"), was built by Mr. Gainous in 1957, and was apparently used primarily as rental property by the owner. The address of the second unit on the Property Appraiser's records is 1607 1/2 Northwest 12th Road. Separate gas meters and a single water line and electric meter serve the two units. (Although the two units are given separate street addresses by the Property Appraiser, only one tax bill is issued by the County Tax Collector.) When these structures were built, the County did not issue building permits. The property was in the unincorporated area of the County until 1961, when the City annexed the property. In 1964, the City adopted its first zoning plan and placed the property in what was then known as the Single-Family Residential (R-1a) zoning district. This category was used since the property was "closely consistent" with that zoning classification. A few years later, the property was rezoned to the Residential Single-Family zoning district (RSF-1), which apparently replaced the R-1a zoning district, and it still remains in that zoning classification. Under current zoning regulations, unless a property has "legal" nonconforming status, two family dwellings are not permitted in the RSF-1 zoning district. However, if a structure and use of land was in existence before the City annexed the property and adopted its zoning code, and was not otherwise shown to have lost that status, the nonconforming use is grandfathered and allowed "to continue until [it is] removed" or otherwise conflicts with conditions pertaining to nonconforming lots, uses, or structures. See § 30-346, Code of Ordinances. (Nonconforming status allows the owner to rent each unit on the parcel to no more than three unrelated persons. Thus, six unrelated persons could legally occupy Mr. Mayhew's two units. However, Mr. Mayhew has always rented to smaller numbers of tenants, and then only to graduate students or "professionals.") One way a property can lose its status is for the owner to not use the property in a nonconforming status for nine consecutive months. In the case of a rental property, this means that the owner has not rented the property for at least nine consecutive months. If this occurs, the owner is presumed to have abandoned the nonconforming status. See § 30-346(5)(d), Code of Ordinances. The precise date on which the City began using the nine-month time period is unknown. According to Mr. Calderon, this time period has been in the Code of Ordinances for "awhile," it was in the Code of Ordinances when "Citywide zoning" was first used in 1982, and he implied that it was in the first zoning code adopted in the 1960s. The City has no formal process by which it monitors properties to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements for legal nonconforming status. Generally, the issue arises after a complaint is filed by a third party or an inspection is made by City officials, who then require that the owner confirm (or prove) that the property still qualifies for that status. In this case, in October 2006, the tenant who occupied the cottage filed a complaint with the City concerning the installation of a new gas stove and other possible code violations. Prior to that time, no other complaints had been lodged against Mr. Mayhew's property. In response to that complaint, a code enforcement officer, Michael Wohl, inspected the property. During the course of that inspection, Mr. Wohl noticed that there were two rental units on one parcel of land. As a routine part of the inspection process, Mr. Wohl made an inquiry to determine if Mr. Mayhew had a landlord permit for each unit. Under the Code of Ordinances, a landlord permit is required for each rental unit. (The specific provision in the Code of Ordinances which imposes this requirement was not given.) According to Mr. Calderon, this requirement has been in the Code of Ordinances since 1989. Mr. Wohl learned that Mr. Mayhew had purchased one landlord permit for the parcel in the year 2000 (and had renewed that permit each year) but did not have a second permit. (When he purchased the property in late 1998, Mr. Mayhew did not know that such permits were even required. He obtained one as soon as this was brought to his attention.) After Mr. Mayhew advised Mr. Wohl that he was unaware that a permit was needed for each unit on his property, Mr. Wohl spoke with Mr. Calderon, who instructed Mr. Wohl to verify if the property was a legal nonconforming use (and therefore could qualify for two landlord permits) since it was located in a single-family zoning classification. Shortly thereafter, a citation was issued to Petitioner. The specific nature of the citation was not disclosed. In any event, by letter dated September 25, 2006, Mr. Calderon requested that Mr. Mayhew provide documentation to support the nonconforming use of the cottage at 1607 1/2 NW 12th Road as an accessory dwelling unit. In response to Mr. Calderon's request, on October 2, 2006, Mr. Mayhew submitted a lengthy letter with supporting documentation, including photographs of the units; copies of rental agreements of tenants who had rented the cottage since he had purchased the property in November 1998; information regarding the date of construction of the two units; and Property Appraiser records showing two units on the parcel. On December 7, 2006, the Department advised Mr. Mayhew by letter that "[b]ased on the physical evidence, property appraiser records and documents provided by you, the property is therefore classified as an existing non-conforming two-family development and is subject to regulations governing non-conforming uses." However, because the City apparently has a policy of notifying residents who live within 300 feet of the subject property of this type of decision, the City also issued on the same date a Notice of Decision to Issue Non-Conforming Status to Petitioner's Property (Notice)." (The record is unclear whether this notice was given pursuant to a policy or a specific Code provision. Other provisions within the Code of Ordinances provide for such notice when the Board conducts hearings on variances, appeals alleging error by an administrative official, and requests for special zoning exceptions. See § 30-354(h)(6)(i)-(k), Code of Ordinances.) In response to the Notice, affidavits were filed by a number of residents who lived adjacent to, or near, the subject property. After reviewing those affidavits, on December 20, 2006, the Department advised Petitioner by letter that based on "new information . . . submitted by affected persons within 300 feet of your property . . . [the] staff [is going to] reconsider the nonconforming status of your property." On January 25, 2007, Mr. Calderon issued a letter denying Mr. Mayhew's request for the following reasons: I have reviewed the information you submitted and those submitted by surrounding property owners. Based on the information and affidavits, there appears to be no consensus or conclusive data establishing emphatically that the subject property has been used consistently as a two-family development since annexation into the city. Evidence from the property owner would suggest that since 1998, the subject property has been used as a two- family dwelling and that no nine-month period has elapsed where the property was not used as a two-family dwelling. However, due to uncertainty for the period around and prior to 1998, staff cannot make a determination about the status of the development around and prior to 1998. Staff cannot determine whether the subject property was illegal, legal non-conforming or lost its non-conforming status at the time of ownership change in 1998. Since the current zoning of the subject property is RSF-1 (Single-family residential, 3.5 dwelling units per acre), the current use as a two-family dwelling is not permitted. Staff is therefore denying the request on the basis that available information cannot demonstrate continued use of the property as a two-family development, since annexation into the [C]ity of Gainesville. On February 8, 2007, Mr. Mayhew filed his appeal of that decision. Because Mr. Mayhew alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact, the appeal was forwarded to DOAH, rather than the Board. In his appeal, Mr. Mayhew alleged that the City had improperly relied on affidavits from neighbors to reconsider its decision, that there was no new evidence submitted to support a change in the City's initial decision, and that he could not get a fair hearing from the Board because several members of the Board live in the affected neighborhood or are members of a neighborhood association that includes the Florida Park area. Section 30-346(5)(d), Code of Ordinances, as amended in November 2006, provides the following restrictions on nonconforming uses: Whenever a nonconforming use of land or a building or other structure or any portion thereof is abandoned or the use is discontinued for a continuous period of nine months or more, such abandonment or discontinuance shall be presumed to constitute an intention to abandon or discontinue such use, and such use shall no longer be permitted. Any subsequent use of such building or structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. Although this section was amended in November 2006, the amendment did not affect (or otherwise change) the nine- month time period for losing a nonconforming use. Prior to the amendment, the section provided that if a nonconforming use was lost due to abandonment or discontinuation, the reestablishment of the use could be authorized by the Board, after hearing, if the Board found the design, construction, and character of the building not suitable for the uses in the district in which the nonconforming use is situated. Under the new amendment, that option no longer exists. The history note to this provision indicates that the original ordinance (No. 3777) was adopted on June 10, 1992, and was later amended on July 25, 1994.1 (However, Mr. Calderon indicated that the nine-month period dates back many years before the adoption of this particular Ordinance. See Finding of Fact 5, supra.) When an owner is required to demonstrate that his rental property has continuously retained its nonconforming status, he must show that the property has been continuously rented (with no nine-month breaks) not only for the period of time that he has owned the property, but also for the entire time the property has enjoyed nonconforming status, or in this case since the property was annexed by the City. Thus, Mr. Mayhew was obligated to show that the original owners (Mr. and Mrs. Gainous) rented the property continuously from the time the property was annexed in 1961 until it was sold to Mr. Mayhew in late 1998. The City's practice is to determine nonconforming status on a case by case basis but the burden is on the owner to prove that status through records such as building permits, landlord permits, zoning compliance permits, and occupational licenses, and "records from reputable sources." The parties agree that both units were continuously rented by Mr. Mayhew since the time he purchased the property in November 1998. The dispute here is whether the nonconforming use was abandoned for any nine-month period prior to Mr. Mayhew's purchase of the property. The City contends that Mr. Mayhew has presented no evidence to show that the cottage was rented by the prior owner from 1996 until the property was sold in late 1998. Although Mr. Mayhew clearly established (and the City agrees) that the property has been continuously rented since he purchased the parcel in late 1998, he conceded that the cottage was vacant when he purchased the property, that he had made no inquiry to the seller as to how long the cottage had been vacant, and that he had no personal knowledge regarding the rental history of the property during the three years preceding the purchase. He contended, however, that there are always periods of time when a unit remains vacant while the owner is actively seeking a new tenant or when necessary renovations must be made. While this is true, there is no evidence that this occurred during the years 1996, 1997, or 1998. (It is unknown where Mrs. Gainous presently resides, or even if she is still alive. When the property was sold in late 1998, Mrs. Gainous was described as being elderly and in poor health.) Significantly, City records show that Mrs. Gainous had secured landlord permits to rent the cottage from 1989 (when permits were first required) through 1995, but she had failed to obtain any permits for the years 1996, 1997, or 1998, at which time she sold the property to Mr. Mayhew. This raises a logical inference, not overcome by Mr. Mayhew, that she did not rent the cottage during those years. In addition, Dr. Kosch, who has lived across the street from the subject property for the last twenty years, testified that he personally observed several periods of time before the property was sold to Mr. Mayhew when there were no tenants in the cottage. Although Dr. Kosch could not specifically identify the exact time periods when this occurred (due to the passage of time), his testimony adds further support to a finding that there is insufficient evidence that the cottage was rented continuously (without any nine-month breaks) during the years 1996-1998. Mr. Mayhew purchased the property with the understanding that he could legally rent both units. While it may seem unfair for him to now have to prove that the property has been continuously rented (with no breaks exceeding nine consecutive months) since the 1960s, this interpretation of the Code of Ordinances has always been followed by the City without exception. According to Mr. Wohl, this situation has occurred at least 8 or 9 times in the last few years alone, and in each case, the property owner was required to prove a continued nonconforming use since the property was annexed by the City or placed in a more restrictive zoning classification.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is eligible for relocation assistance benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq. (P.L. 91-646) and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
Recommendation Application for relocation assistance benefits by Mrs. Marie Lewis Mims be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Guy Davis, Jr., Esquire 700 Brent Building Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 George L. Waas, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Joseph A. Alfes Chief of Right-of-Way Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
