The Issue The issue is whether the site plan for the Evergreens project should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association, Inc.; Lynn Hill; A.A. Sulkes; Philip Bennett; Vera Harper; and Carlos McDonald (Petitioners), have contested a decision by the Developmental Review Committee (DRC) of Respondent, City of Tallahassee (City), to approve a Type B site review application for a project known as Evergreens at Mahan (Evergreens). In its decision, the DRC exempted the project from the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan based upon a 1991 agreement by the City and the property owner which conferred vested rights on the property. Thus, the project was never reviewed for compliance with the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the application is approved, the applicant will be authorized to commence the process for constructing 416 apartment units in ten three-story buildings on approximately 24.56 acres of land located just south of the intersection at East Mahan Drive and Riggins Road in Tallahassee, Florida. The apartment complex will be one of the largest in the City. The application was filed by Respondent, Genesis Group (Genesis), acting as an agent for the owner of the property, Respondent, George K. Walker, Trustee (Walker). After the application is approved, Walker is contractually obligated to sell the property to Respondent, TTK, L.L.C. (TTK), a New Hampshire developer, who will actually construct the complex. In response to the DRC's decision, on August 9, 2000, Petitioners filed a Notice of Intent to File Petition for Formal Proceedings. On August 28, 2000, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. As grounds for denying the application, Petitioners contended that a Stipulation and Final Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) entered into by Walker and the City on August 6, 1991, in DOAH Case No. 91-4109VR determining that the property was presumptively vested violated in a number of respects the City's Vested Rights Review Ordinance (Ordinance); that any vested rights acquired on the property have expired under Section 18-104(1)(c), Code of Ordinances; and the site plan is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. As to the latter ground, the parties have agreed that this issue need not be addressed now, but rather it can be considered by the DRC in the event Petitioners prevail on the merits of this action. Other than the vesting status, no issues have been raised regarding the site plan itself. On September 11, 2000, the Commission entered its Determination of Standing. Pursuant to the Bylaws of the Commission, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on September 20, 2000, for an evidentiary hearing. The parties Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Association) is a not-for-profit corporation organized on February 18, 2000, and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The Association represents approximately 200 of the 279 homeowners who reside in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. The Meadowbrook neighborhood is zoned for Residential Preservation-1 and has a residential density of less than three units per acre. A portion of the Meadowbrook neigborhood is adjacent to the proposed project. Lynn Hill, A.A. Sulkes, Philip Bennett, Vera Harper, and Carlos McDonald reside and own property in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. Their property either abuts, or is close to, the location of the proposed Evergreens project. All are members of the Association and bring this action in their individual capacity and as a member of the Association. During the course of the hearing, Respondents stipulated to the standing of all Petitioners. The City is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida. It has authority to review proposed site plans for real property located within the City's geographic boundaries. Genesis is a Tallahassee consulting firm which prepared the application for Walker and acted as his agent in seeking approval of the site plan for the Evergreens project. TTK, a New Hampshire limited liability corporation, is a developer and builder of real property, and has a contract to purchase the site of the Evergreens project pending final approval of the site plan by the City. Walker is the owner of the approximately 30-acre parcel (the subject property) which is at issue in this proceeding, and is the applicant for the Evergreens site plan. The Evergreens project will be located on 24.56 acres of this 30-acre parcel. The property and its history The subject property has been owned by the Walker family, either as a part of a consortium of investors or in trust, for more than 70 years. Since the mid-1960's, Walker has controlled the property as trustee for himself and his brother. The site of the apartment complex lies a few hundred feet south of the intersection of East Mahan Drive (U.S. 90) and Riggins Road. Approximately 11.738 acres of the land sit on the eastern side of Riggins Road while the remaining 12.821 acres sit on the western side. The remainder of the property, which consists of around 7 or 8 acres, is situated just north of the apartment site, fronts on East Mahan Drive, and is currently zoned commercial. The Meadowbrook neighborhood begins approximately 1,250 feet or so south of Mahan Drive and sits on around 100 acres. The boundaries of the neighborhood abut the southern and southeastern ends of the project site. The relevant history of the property goes back to January 9, 1926, when the original plat of Glenwood Estates was recorded in Leon County (County). The property was located in the County, but not within the City, and was owned by a group that included Walker's father. The subject property was identified in the plat as Blocks L and M. The Glenwood Estates plat did not contain any statements establishing use or density for the subject property. On April 7, 1943, Glenwood Estates was replatted for taxation purposes. Walker's mother, a widow and the heir of Walker's father, was among the owners of the property. The 1943 replat reconfigured the subject property as a single, large acre parcel. The replat does not contain any statements establishing uses or densities for the platted parcels. Prior to 1967, Glenwood Estates became the sole property of Walker's mother. Upon her death, the property was placed in trust for the benefit of Walker and his brother. George K. Walker is the named trustee of the property. On March 22, 1989, the remaining property owned by Walker was subdivided into three parcels; two of the small parcels on the southwestern corner of Riggins Road and Mahan Drive were sold, thereby reducing the size of the subject property by approximately 1.56 acres. By 1991, the 1943 replat of Glenwood Estates had been resubdivided a minimum of seven times which changed the replat substantially from its original configuration. Five of the resubdivisions involved the Meadowbrook tract. Since 1989, the subject property has been configured as a large parcel of approximately 30 acres. Since 1991, the subject property is the only property in the replat that Walker has owned. In addition to his ownership of the subject property, until 1971 Walker owned approximately 69 acres of land that presently constitute a large part of the Meadowbrook neighborhood. On October 6, 1971, Walker entered into a contract for the sale of that land. Among the conditions of the sale was a requirement that the property consisting of the Meadowbrook neighborhood be rezoned R-3; that the property that is the proposed apartment site be rezoned RM-2; and that the property fronting Mahan Drive be rezoned C-1. Costs of the rezoning were to be shared equally by the buyer and seller. At the time of this sale, the subject property and the Meadowbrook tract were undeveloped. In 1972, the County rezoned the property consisting of the Meadowbrook neighborhood as R-2 for single-family residential development; rezoned the approximately 25-acre portion of the subject property north of the Meadowbrook tract as RM-2, for multi-family residential development; and rezoned the property fronting Mahan Drive as C-1 for commercial development. The multi-family zoning on the property that is the proposed location for the Evergreen project authorized a range of dwelling units from single-family to two-family to multi-family up to a maximum of 17.4 units per acre. One of the conditions of the 1971 sale was the granting of an easement by Walker to the buyer (Collins Brothers) to extend Riggins Road south from Mahan Drive to the northern boundary of the Meadowbrook tract. At the time of the sale, there was no direct access from the Meadowbrook tract north to Mahan Drive. On an undisclosed date, Collins Brothers was forced into receivership. Therefore, between 1971 and 1980, there was no development on the Meadowbrook tract or the subject property, other than the roughing-out of the location of what was to become Riggins Road. In 1980, Guardian Mortgage Investors (Guardian) took over the previous buyer's interest. At that time, Walker entered into a road construction agreement with Guardian in which he agreed to pay one-half of the road construction costs to extend Riggins Road south from Mahan Drive to the Meadowbrook subdivision. Guardian agreed to pay one-half of the road construction costs as well as all of the cost for the installation of the main water and sewer trunk lines, except for laterals which were to be installed at Walker's expense. In 1981, the construction of Riggins Road and the main water and sewer trunk lines were completed. The minimum allowable width of Riggins Road from Mahan Drive to the northern boundary of the Meadowbrook tract was 30 feet. However, it was constructed 36 feet wide so that it could serve not only the Meadowbrooks neighborhood, but also Walker's future development. For the same reason, even though the minimum right-of-way for this section of Riggins Road was 60 feet, an extra 20 feet (or 80 feet in all) were dedicated for the right-of-way. No development has occurred on the subject property since this dedication. The sewer main serving the Meadowbrook neighborhood is a gravity feed system flowing into a pump station within the Meadowbrook neighborhood. From there, it is pumped into a force main to a point under or adjacent to Riggins Road approximately 50 feet into the property that is zoned RM-2. From there, the system is again a gravity feed system flowing north under Mahan Drive to another pump station. If the sewer system had been installed to serve only the Meadowbrook neighborhood, it could have consisted only of a forced main system between the two pump stations. However, because further development was anticipated, the developer installed a gravity feed system that flowed through the RM-2 property, through the C-1 property, and under Mahan Drive at considerably more expense than a forced main system. Both the water and sewer systems have the capacity to serve 670 domestic equivalent units in the RM-2 and C-1 portions of the subject property. Following their completion, the water and sewer facilities, and Riggins Road, were dedicated to the City. Since 1983 or 1984, the City has owned, operated, and maintained Riggins Road and the water and sewer lines from Mahan to the Meadowbrook neighborhood. On April 14, 1983, Walker petitioned the City to annex his property. By Ordinance No. 83-0-2185 adopted on December 30, 1983, the Walker property, the Meadowbrook neighborhood, and considerable other properties were annexed into the City. Prior to annexation, Walker received assurance from the City that the annexation would not affect his ability to develop the RM-2 and C-1 portions of his property. The City's vesting process On July 16, 1990, the City adopted its 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Concurrent with its adoption, the City adopted a Vested Development Rights Review Ordinance (Ordinance), which established "the sole administrative procedures and standards by which a property owner" could assert that he had acquired certain property rights and obtain a vested rights determination from the City. The Ordinance is codified as Article VII of Chapter 18 of the City's Code of Ordinances. The Ordinance established the administrative procedures and standards for common law or statutory vesting. A property that was determined to be vested under the Ordinance was exempt from the application of the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Once a property is found to be exempt, or vested, it retains that status in perpetuity. In order to claim vested development rights under the Ordinance, a property owner was required to apply for a vested rights determination with the City's Planning Department within 120 days of July 16, 1990. A failure to timely file an application constituted a waiver of any vested rights claim. However, a property owner whose property was located within a recorded subdivision, or unrecorded subdivision which the City determined had satisfied the City's infrastructure requirements, did not have to submit an application for a vested rights determination. In those cases, vested rights were "presumed," based upon the infrastructure requirements being satisfied, and the property was "presumptively" vested from the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section III.1.a. of the Ordinance. The right of a property owner to assert that his property is presumptively vested can be made at any time, even today. After reviewing its land development records, on July 25, 1990, the City published in the Tallahassee Democrat a lengthy list of recorded and unrecorded subdivisions it had determined were presumptively vested from the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property, identified on the City's tax rolls by Tax I.D. #11-28-20-071-000-0, was included within the City's list of presumptively vested recorded subdivisions. The notice stated that it was the City's intent to only exempt subdivisions for which streets, stormwater management facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure required for development had been completed by July 16, 1990. Recorded subdivisions included on the list of exempt subdivisions were presumed to have satisfied the infrastructure requirements. The City did not inspect recorded subdivisions to ensure compliance with the infrastructure requirements, but presumed the existence of the requisite infrastructure. Any recorded subdivision subsequently determined not to be in compliance with the infrastructure requirements could be removed from the exempt list. Unrecorded subdivisions were not included on the exempt list unless they had first been physically inspected to ensure compliance with the infrastructure requirements. Walker's application for vested rights On October 17, 1990, the City's Director of Growth Management instructed that Walker's property be removed from the list of exempt subdivisions due to the resubdivision of the original plat and because all of the infrastructure was not in place. At that time, however, there was no provision in the Ordinance that made resubdivision a factor in the determination of an exemption or vesting. On the other hand, the issue of infrastructure was a valid consideration. On November 13, 1990, Walker timely submitted an application for a vested rights determination on the basis that his property was entitled to vesting under the common law. The City assigned Number V.R.0195T to the application. On January 8, 1991, in accordance with Section III.3.b. of the Ordinance, the City Planning Department determined that the subject property was not vested and notified Walker that Application Number V.R. 0195T was denied. No reason was given. The letter of denial advised him of his rights to contest the planning staff's denial of his vested rights. On January 22, 1991, Walker notified the City of his decision to challenge planning staff's denial of his vested rights application. He elected to waive his right to a hearing before the City Staff Committee, and he requested a hearing before DOAH pursuant to Section III.3.c. of the Ordinance. On July 3, 1991, the City referred Walker's request for an administrative hearing to DOAH on the planning staff's denial of Application Number V.R.0195T. The request was assigned DOAH Case Number 91-004109VR. On July 9, 1991, the case was scheduled for a hearing on August 29, 1991. During the pendency of the DOAH case, and at the request of the City, Walker and his counsel met with representatives of the City, including a Planning Department staffer and an assistant city attorney. Before the meeting, Walker reconfirmed with City officials that his property had been rezoned to C-1, RM-2, and R-2 in 1972, and that the necessary water and sewer lines were in place to serve his property. After learning at the meeting that infrastructure for the property had already been built, the City agreed to find Walker's property vested to the extent that the infrastructure was in place. In other words, Walker would be allowed to develop as many units as the existing infrastructure would accommodate. After the meeting, Walker secured an affidavit from Wayne Colony, the engineer who designed the water and sewer system for the property and the southern extension of Riggins Road. In his affidavit dated August 6, 1991, Coloney attested that the sewer line between Mahan Drive and the Meadowbrook neighborhood was designed to serve the single-family residences, the RM-2 property and the C-1 property; that the sewer line had the capacity to serve 670 residential equivalent units in the RM-2 and C-1 portions of that property; and that the sewer had sufficient capacity for the maximum density of development on the RM-2 and C-1 portions of the property. A letter from the City's Water and Sewer Department dated August 1, 1991, also confirmed that the City had "the necessary water and sewer lines to serve the property." Finally, Riggins Road and the stormwater drain to serve the property had been completed in the early 1980's. With this information in hand, counsel for the City agreed that the property was presumptively vested. On August 6, 1991, or just prior to the scheduled administrative hearing, counsel for Walker and the City executed the Settlement Agreement which declared the subject property an exempt subdivision based upon Section III.1.a.1. of the Ordinance, and presumptively vested the property from the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Settlement Agreement authorized the development of the subject property for up to 670 residential equivalent units. The Settlement Agreement also stated that there was no time frame in which the Walker property was required to commence or complete development, and that the property was vested in perpetuity. On August 7, 1991, the Settlement Agreement was filed with DOAH. On August 8, 1991, an Order Approving Stipulation and Final Settlement Agreement was entered. Therefore, an administrative hearing was never held on Application V.R.0195T. Walker's application was one of hundreds of vested rights applications being processed by the City at that time. Although many of the specific details underlying the City's decision to approve the settlement are not known now because of the passage of time, the subsequent loss by the City of Walker's application file, and the sheer number of applications then being processed, the City Attorney is certain that he would have known about the petition and the underlying facts before he authorized the Assistant City Attorney to execute the agreement. Based on the information then available, the City Attorney now says that Walker clearly qualified for either common law or presumptive vesting. Petitioners contend that the Assistant City Attorney (and/or City Attorney) lacked authority to settle the case without obtaining specific prior authority from the City Commission; however, the more credible and persuasive evidence shows otherwise. This is true even though the Ordinance does not specifically address the settlement of vested rights cases. The City Attorney's policy is and has been to involve the affected City staff in settlement negotiations rather than negotiating without the consent of his client. Moreover, the present City Attorney, and his two predecessors, have always considered it a part of their inherent authority to settle litigation on the City's behalf when it is in the best interest of the City to do so. The only exception to this inherent authority is when there is a budgetary impact; in those cases, prior approval must be obtained before committing the City to spending money. Here, however, there was no fiscal impact resulting from the Walker settlement. Further, at no time after the Settlement Agreement was signed has the City Commission ever expressed its disagreement with the City Attorney's interpretation of the Ordinance, taken steps to curtail his inherent authority, or acted to vacate the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the Assistant City Attorney, after consultation with the City Attorney and appropriate City staff, had the authority to execute the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the City without prior City Commission approval. Petitioners also contend that based upon the language in Section III.3.e.7. of the Ordinance, there was no authority for the hearing officer to approve the Settlement Agreement until a substantive review of the information which formed the basis for the agreement had been made. The cited provision sets forth the criteria upon which the decision of the hearing officer in a vested rights case must be based. They include an evidentiary presentation by the parties at a formal hearing, adherence to certain land use guidelines and relevant case law, and a recommended order at the conclusion of the proceeding. The City points out, however, that under its interpretation of the Ordinance, once the parties learned that the property was exempt and the dispute had been settled, the criteria in Section III.3.e.7. did not apply. In those situations, no useful purpose would be served in requiring the parties to go through the formality of a de novo hearing. Otherwise, the parties (including the taxpayers) would be required to expend time, resources, and energy to litigate a matter in which no material facts were in issue. Accordingly, the City's interpretation of the Ordinance is found to be the most logical and reasonable, and it is found that the DOAH hearing officer had the authority to accept the parties' settlement without conducting a hearing. Petitioners next contend that when the Settlement Agreement was executed, the City lacked sufficient evidence to show that Walker had installed the infrastructure necessary for presumptive vesting. More specifically, they assert that except for Wayne Colony's affidavit, and the letter from the City, there was no evidence to support that determination. Petitioners go on to contend that not only must the primary roadways and water and sewer lines be built before the vesting cut-off date, but the "on-site" water and sewer lines, stormwater facilities, and other facilities necessary to begin vertical construction on each apartment building must also be in place. This contention is based on Section III.1.a.1. of the Ordinance which requires that in order for a subdivision to attain exempt status, the "streets, stormwater management facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure required for the development must have been completed as of July 16, 1990." The City Attorney's testimony on this issue is found to be the most persuasive. According to his interpretation of the Ordinance, only that infrastructure necessary to serve the subdivision must be completed in order to qualify for vesting. Conversely, on-site or private infrastructure does not have to be completed in order to satisfy the terms of the Ordinance. Therefore, on-site infrastructure is not a factor in determining whether a property qualifies for an exempt status. Indeed, as the City Attorney points out, if Petitioners' interpretation of the Ordinance were accepted, there would be "no vested lots in the City" since infrastructure is never extended from the public street to the lot prior to its development. Finally, Petitioners contend that the Settlement Agreement is invalid because Walker's application in DOAH Case No. 91-4109VR was for common law vesting while the Settlement Agreement made a determination that the property was presumptively vested. As a practical matter, there is no difference between property being exempt or being vested. Under either category, the property would not have to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Here, the evidence shows that Walker's property qualified for both common law and presumptive vesting. Since the two types of vesting have the same practical effect, the validity of the Settlement Agreement has not been impaired. Expiration of vested rights Sections II.5.a., d., and i. of the Ordinance provide, respectively, that for purposes of a vested rights determination, an "[e]xempt subdivision," "[f]inal subdivision plat approval," or "[a]ny other development order which approved the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use and which allowed development activity on the land for which the development order was issued" shall be deemed a final development order. Section IV.1.c. of the Ordinance provides that "[a]ll final development orders shall expire in one year or such shorter time as may be adopted unless it is determined that substantial development has occurred and is continuing in good faith." Petitioners argue that the Settlement Agreement constitutes a "development order" within the meaning of the foregoing provisions of the Ordinance, and because no activity has occurred on the land since the Settlement Agreement was approved in 1991, the development order has expired by operation of the law. For the following reasons, this contention has been rejected. The Settlement Agreement did not approve "the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use" and did not allow "development activity on the land." Further, it did not allow the owner to pull building permits and commence development on his land. Rather, it simply determined which set of rules and regulations (pre-1990 or post-1990) Walker had to comply with in order to develop his property. Therefore, it cannot be "[a]ny other development order which approved the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use and which allowed development activity on the land for which the development order was issued." At the same time, a recorded subdivision such as Glenwood Estates is "complete" since all necessary infrastructure is in place. It has no expiration date, and no further development remains to be done to show "continuing good faith," as that term is used in the Ordinance. Therefore, even if the Walker property technically meets the definitions of an "exempt subdivision" or a "final subdivision plat approval," the expiration provisions of the Ordinance still do not apply. Finally, the City has never applied the expiration provisions of the cited provision to terminate the exempt status of a recorded subdivision, nor has it construed a vested rights determination as being a "final development order" within the meaning of the Ordinance. This interpretation of the Ordinance is found to be reasonable, and it is hereby accepted. Equitable estoppel As noted earlier, when Walker sold the Meadowbrook tract (69 acres) to Collins Brothers in 1972, he made the sale contingent on his obtaining not only residential zoning for the Meadowbrook tract, but also upon obtaining commercial and multi-family zoning on the remainder of the tract. Thus, he sold the site in reliance on his ability to develop the remainder of the tract in conformance with his master plan. As a part of that sale, Walker gave the purchasers credit towards the purchase price to defray one-half of the cost of installing the infrastructure for the entire 100-acre parcel, again in reliance on his ability to develop the property. When Collins Brothers defaulted, he paid the successor developer (Guardian) the money necessary to defray one-half of the cost of the communal infrastructure, and he paid additional funds for water and sewer taps and a storm drain, again in reliance on his ability to develop the property. Walker also petitioned the City to annex his property in the early 1980's based on a representation by the City that the annexation would not affect his ability to develop his property. After the annexation, Walker has continued to pay property taxes to the City based upon the value of the property to be developed under the property's C-1 and RM-2 zoning. In addition, Walker encumbered his property to secure loans in reliance on his ability to develop it in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. After the Settlement Agreement was approved, the City adopted a site-specific zoning plan which impacted Walker's property. Walker agreed to reduce the maximum density he might otherwise have obtained through litigation in reliance upon the City's representation that the Settlement Agreement remained in effect and that his rights under that Agreement would survive in perpetuity. Finally, Walker has entered into an option contract for the sale of his property to TTK based upon the validity of the Settlement Agreement. He has also expended substantial monies to further that sale and to develop his site plan. Other contentions Petitioners have also contended in their Proposed Recommended Order that "[t]he creation of new lots through the re-subdivision of the parent parcel [in 1989] subjects the property under review to the consistency and concurrency provisions in the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan." Because this contention was not raised in the initial pleading or in the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement, it has been disregarded. Finally, the Association points out that multiple three-story apartment buildings will be constructed immediately adjacent to single-family homes in the Association with only an 8-foot fence and a 30-foot setback dividing the two areas. In addition, its members logically fear that the project will generate additional traffic, crime, and pollution and result in the lowering of property values in the neighborhood. It also asserts that the developer has never been willing to sit down with neighborhood members and attempt to compromise on any design aspect of the apartment complex. While these concerns are obviously legitimate and well- intended, they are not relevant to the narrow issues raised in this appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission enter a final order granting the Type B site plan review application filed by George K. Walker which determined that his property is presumptively vested. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5201 Linda R. Hurst, Esquire City Hall, Second Floor 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731 Jay Adams, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Jean Gregory, Clerk Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
The Issue Whether Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 457, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings before the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) and is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within FREC’s jurisdiction. At all times material, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate broker, license number 684990, under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker at Florida’s Best Buy Realty & Mortgage Lender, LLC, Post Office Box 551, Winter Park, Florida 32793. On or about February 15, 2007, Respondent entered into a contract to manage the single-family dwelling owned by Jacqueline Danzer. The property is located at 2979 Krista Key Circle, Orlando, Florida 32817 (Subject Property). The agreement was for the period February 15, 2007, until February 15, 2008. Respondent was authorized, under the management agreement, to seek a tenant for the property. Said management agreement authorized Respondent to be compensated at the rate of 10 percent of the rent due during each rental period. On or about March 27, 2007, Respondent negotiated a lease agreement with Veronica Valcarcel to rent the Subject Propery. The tenant applied through the federal Section 8 program, administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Division (Agency), for rental assistance in order to rent the Subject Property. Section 8 assists low-income families with their rent. A tenant who qualifies for Section 8 assistance is prohibited from paying more than 40 percent of his or her income for rent and utilities. On April 26, 2007, Respondent, acting on behalf of the landlord for the Subject Property, entered into and signed a “Housing Assistance Payment Contract” or “HAP” contract with the Agency as part of the Section 8 program. The HAP contract provided that for the initial lease term for the Subject Property (for the period April 1, 2007, until March 31, 2008), the initial monthly rent was $1,150 per month. This was determined to be the maximum payment the tenant could pay without exceeding 40 percent of her income. The HAP contract explicitly provides in its terms that “[d]uring the initial lease term, the owner may not raise the rent to tenant.” Respondent knew that he was prohibited from charging more than the monthly rent stated in the HAP contract. Respondent has had experience in the past with other tenants who participated in the Section 8 program. Respondent has previously signed other HAP contracts which contained the same restrictive language. Under the lease contract that the tenant Veronica Valcarcel signed with the property owner Jacqueline Danzer, the monthly rent would be $1,150 per month. The signature page in the lease contract is not the same page on which the monthly rental amount is written. The property owner Jacqueline Danzer asserts that the initials in the lease contract reflecting a monthly rental of $1,150 were not all her initials. Under the terms of the Exclusive Property Management Agreement, Respondent was being compensated at the rate of 10 percent per month after the first month. A monthly rental amount of $1,500 indicates that the property owner would receive a net of $1,350 per month. The property management agreement provided that Respondent would make payments to the property owner by direct deposit. The property management agreement lists a 12-digit bank account number, with the last four digits of “6034,” into which Respondent was to make direct deposits. At the hearing, property owner Jacqueline Danzer testified that she had received payments from Respondent for the Subject Property to her Bank of America savings account, with the account number ending in “6034.” The last four digits of the account number on the Bank of America Statement match the last four digits on the account number found on the Property Management Agreement. According to the Bank of America records, Respondent made the following payments to the property owner: a) $1,550 on May 9, 2007 b) $1,000 on May 9, 2007 c) $850 on June 12, 2007 d) $1,350 on July 11, 2007 e) $1,350 on September 10, 2007 On September 12, 2007, property owner, Jacqueline Danzer went to see Lois Henry, the manager of the Section 8 department for the Agency. During the course of that meeting, Dnazer advised that Respondent was collecting $1,500 a month rent from the tenant instead of $1,150 a month. On September 12, 2007, during the course of a telephone conference with Jacqueline Danzer and Lois Henry, Respondent admitted that he had been collecting $1,500 monthly rent for the Subject Property, retaining a commission of $150 and depositing the balance in Danzer’s account. Respondent denied making an admission during the telephone conference on September 12, 2007. He also denied that he was collecting $1,500 from the tenant, and further denied that he was violating Section 8 regulations. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. The witness Danzer’s testimony is credible. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Housing Assistance Payments Contract. The total amount of investigative costs for the Petitioner for this case, not including attorney’s time, were $874.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; Revoking Respondent’s license, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00; and Requiring Respondent pay fees and costs related to the investigation in the amount of $874.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 26th day of August, 2009.
The Issue There are two issues presented in this case. The first issue is whether a statement by the Department of Banking and Finance (the "Department"), denying joinder of multiple unrelated abandoned property claims, in a Final Order directed to Petitioner is an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The second issue is whether the Department has a policy of delaying decisions on unclaimed property claims past the statutory 90th day, such that the policy constitutes an unpromulgated rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for administering the Florida Unclaimed Property Act, Chapter 717, Florida Statutes. As such, the Department is responsible for collecting and maintaining unclaimed property and processing claims for the return of the unclaimed property to its missing owners. The Department accomplishes this task through a staff composed of 12 full-time employees and 14 OPS employees. Individuals as well as private investigative agencies file claims for property held by the Department. Private investigative agencies account for appropriately 12 percent to 14 percent of the claims filed and approximately 38 percent to 42 percent of the property value returned to owners. The Department's Claims Process The Department has established internal procedures so that claims are processed timely, efficiently, and accurately. Claimants must submit claims in writing on a form supplied by the Department. The Department logs-in each claim on the day it is received. If the Department determines a claim is in compliance with Rules 3D-20.0021 and 3D-20.0022, Florida Administrative Code, and the proof submitted with the claim is sufficient to establish the claimant's ownership and entitlement to the funds, it is paid. If the Department determines that the claim is incomplete, within 5 to 15 days of its receipt of the claim, the Department sends the claimant a pre-screen letter advising the claimant of the additional information required to prove the claim. Rule 3D-20.0021(1), Florida Administrative Code. When the claimant resubmits the claim with the additional material that has been requested, the claim is re-logged into the computer and a 90th day is set. Rule 3D-20.0021(2), Florida Administrative Code. Claims supervisors receive a daily computer report alerting them of the claims which are 61 days old and aging. They receive high priority. Complex claims which are submitted with initial insufficient proof are referred to the legal department for review and resolution. During fiscal year 1999/2000 the Department processed and approved approximately 107,000 claims having an aggregate value of approximately $67 million. Throughout the review process, the Department assists claimants in developing the proof necessary to prove the claim in lieu of summarily denying the claim. In mid-1999, the Department's Unclaimed Property Program went on-line, which significantly increased the number of claims filed. From around July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000, the Department processed claims for approximately 132,900 unclaimed property accounts. The statutory 90-day period for determination was exceeded for an estimated 5000 of those accounts: 1,146 claims were denied and 3,991 claims were approved. However, of those 3991 approved accounts, 1,254 accounts were from an extended project with the FDIC which took about a year to complete. In sum, excluding the 1,254 FDIC accounts, the Department exceeded the 90th day on approximately 3 percent of the claims filed during this period. The Petitioner Petitioner is a licensed private investigator who specializes in the recovery of unclaimed property held by the Comptroller's office. Petitioner maintains both an individual and an agency license to engage in the business of locating missing owners of unclaimed property. He has been licensed by the Florida Department of State as a private investigator since 1993. In the course of Petitioner's business, his clients sign a form agreement which authorizes Petitioner to represent the client in recovering the abandoned property held by the Comptroller's Office. Petitioner represents the client through the entire claims process until the claim is either paid to his trust account or denied. If the claim is paid, Petitioner deducts his fractional share and costs and forwards the net value of the claim to the client. If the claim is denied, Petitioner's agreement with his client authorizes him to file a request for hearing on the client's behalf. Petitioner's Agreement Form Petitioner's agreement states that Petitioner has located property which may belong to the client, and pending the requisite proof of ownership, that Petitioner will recover the property for the client. The agreement provides that for his services, the "Agent is assigned a fee of 30 percent" and further provides that the agreement is an "irrevocable limited power of attorney." Lastly, the agreement recites that in any dispute between Petitioner and his client, "proper venue is in Volusia County, Florida." Petitioner's Business Since 1998, Petitioner has filed claims for approximately 3,000 unclaimed property accounts. Of those 3,000 accounts, 152, roughly 5 percent of Petitioner's claims, have exceeded the 90-day determination period. Petitioner files claims for all types of unclaimed property, but primarily involving dissolved corporations. Because of the nature of his business niche, Petitioner's claims are often more complex because they involve older accounts, lost or destroyed corporate documents, and archived banking information. Moreover, a decision by a bankruptcy trustee about whether or not to reopen a bankruptcy estate may also be needed to establish entitlement to the property, if the company was liquidated through a bankruptcy proceeding. Claimants, including Petitioner, routinely request the Department's assistance in obtaining additional information from the reporting company in order to establish ownership and entitlement on behalf of their client. Prior to August 2000, Petitioner had not requested the Department provide a denial letter of any of his claims in which the 90th day had exhausted while additional information was gathered. The Controversy In August 2000, Petitioner had six claims, representing four separate clients, pending with the Department, all of which were over the 90 days. In each case the Department determined the evidence provided was insufficient to establish the client's ownership of the property. Over the months during which these claims were pending, Petitioner met with the Department on several occasions to address the proof issues. On August 9, 2000, the Department sent Petitioner a letter outlining the deficiencies in each of the four files and advising Petitioner that unless he could provide the evidence needed by August 25, 2000, the Department would deny each claim. Petitioner faxed a letter dated September 7, 2000, to the Department stating he would be out of the country during the month of September and requested that the denials for the files listed in the August 9, 2000, letter be held until after he returned home on September 26, 2000. Petitioner's letter also requested that the "DOAH hearing be held in Daytona Beach, Florida, when each of the hearings takes place." To accommodate Petitioner's request, the Department delayed issuing the Individual Notices of Intent to Deny each of the four claims until October 3, 2000. Petitioner timely responded to the four denials with a single Petition for Hearing, attempting to consolidate the four unrelated cases. On November 27, 2000, the Department entered an Order denying his Petition for failure to comply with the Florida Administrative Code and granted Petitioner 20 days in which to re-file a conforming petition. The Order also advised Petitioner that consolidating these unrelated cases was inappropriate. On December 1, 2000, Petitioner signed and mailed the instant Rule Challenge, which specifically identified these four files. It was received by DOAH on December 6, 2000. On December 1, 2000, the same day the Rule Challenge was mailed to DOAH, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a standstill agreement, tolling all matters related to these four files as well as several other files. The agreement was reduced to writing and signed on December 7 and 8, 2000. On December 13, 2000, Petitioner and his attorney again met with the Department to discuss the evidence required to prove the claims in these four files. The Challenged Statement Petitioner challenges the "joinder" statement in the Department's Order which advised him that "it is inappropriate to consolidate four unrelated cases in a single Petition for Hearing." Petitioner contends this statement is a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. He further contends that the statement as applied is contrary to Rule 1.110(g), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The Challenged Policy As a separate but related matter, Petitioner also asserts that the Department has a tacit policy of delaying determinations on claims past the 90th day. Petitioner argues that the effect of this policy is to deny the claimant a point of entry into administrative proceedings. He contends that this policy has the force of a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Sanctions The Department requested that attorneys' fees be assessed against Petitioner. The Department incorrectly asserts this matter is completely without merit and was brought for an improper purpose, namely, to harass.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On his application for licensure as a real estate sales associate Petitioner answered in the affirmative to question numbered 1 requesting background information. Question numbered 1 reads, in part, as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to, even if you received a withhold of adjudication? On January 30, 2000, Petitioner, who had just turned 19 years of age, was arrested for grand theft, loitering and prowling, resisting arrest without violence, and burglary of an unoccupied structure. The affidavit forming the basis for the charges indicates that a police officer saw Petitioner standing next to a truck, that a window in the truck had been broken and the truck had been burglarized, that several items of property that had been removed from the truck were on the ground next to the truck and Petitioner, that Petitioner ran away from the police officer, and that he was apprehended after a pursuit on foot. Petitioner subsequently pled guilty, and adjudication was withheld. He was sentenced to one year of community control, which was followed by two years of probation, 80 hours of community service, and restitution in the amount of $200 for the truck window he broke. On March 14, 2000, Petitioner was arrested and charged with criminal mischief over $1,000, a third-degree felony. He was driving his motor vehicle around on a golf course. The affidavit forming the basis of the charge states that the damage was done willfully and maliciously. Petitioner pled guilty. The record in this cause suggests that adjudication was withheld but is not clear as to the sentence that was imposed. On July 30, 2002, Petitioner violated his probation with some type of traffic offense. His probation was extended and additional community service hours were required of him. Petitioner's probation was terminated on March 13, 2003. By letter dated September 7, 2004, the Department directed Petitioner to submit three letters of recommendation and to appear at the October 20, 2004, meeting of the Florida Real Estate Commission in support of his application. Although Petitioner received that letter, he failed to submit any letters of recommendation and failed to appear at the Commission's meeting. At the time of the final hearing in this cause Petitioner was employed in pharmaceutical sales and was engaged to be married.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Daniel Villazon, P.A. 419 West Vine Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801
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 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
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
