The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Board to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2019-01002 (Application) filed by Edgewater Valor cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact Edgewater Valor proposes to develop an 80-unit attached dwelling with 164 associated off-street parking spaces on 2.931 acres of property it owns. The property is located at 1026 Sunset Point Road and 1919 Edgewater Drive in Clearwater, Florida. The proposal consists of three buildings and a structured parking platform with a pool and deck on the west side of the parking platform. Sixty percent of the 164 parking spaces is garage parking, with the rest as exposed surface parking. Two of the buildings, both in the T district, are proposed at a height of 86 feet measured from base flood elevation. The third building, in the MDR district, is proposed at a height of 38 feet measured from base flood elevation. The buildings in the T district are set back 152 feet from the east property line. The building in the MDR district is set back 75 feet from the east property line. The proposal includes landscaping and setbacks that exceed the Board's requirements for approval. The Application requests Level Two approval of flexibility for a building height of 86 feet from base flood elevation in the T zoning district. A Level One approval allows a building height of up to 50 feet, and up to 100 feet as a Level Two approval. The Application also requests Level Two approval of flexibility for an attached dwelling use in the MDR zoning district. The attached dwelling has a building height of 38 feet from base flood elevation, where up to 40 feet is allowed as a Level Two approval and flexibility from lot width in the MDR zoning district. Edgewater Valor owns 2.437 acres of the property which is zoned T with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The remaining 0.494 acres is zoned MDR with an underlying Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use category of Residential Medium (RM). The property to the north of the proposed development is zoned T and is currently developed as a Comfort Suites hotel. The property to the south is zoned Office (O), MDR, and Preservation (P). There is a vacant automobile service station adjacent to the proposed development to the southwest, and a multi-family development to the south across Sunset Point Road. The property to the east is zoned MDR and P with single-family detached dwellings and attached dwellings further east along Sunset Point Road. The property to the west is zoned Commercial (C) and P. EDNA's boundaries are Sunset Point Road north to Union Street, and Edgewater Drive east to Pinellas Trail. The neighborhood consists of 400 homes that are mostly single-family, single-story detached dwellings. The proposed development would be located in the southwest corner of the neighborhood at the intersection of Edgewater Drive and Sunnydale Drive. The Comfort Suites hotel is located directly across from the proposed development on the opposite corner of Sunnydale Drive and Edgewater Drive. Sunnydale Drive travels east away from Edgewater Drive and dead-ends as a cul-de-sac with mostly single- family detached dwellings.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent should grant the Petitioner's application for licensure as a "community association manager."
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, George Charles Fair, applied for licensure as a "community association manager" on or about April 26, 1992. His application included three character references. Licensure as a "community association manager" is a license to perform community association management services to one or more associations containing more than 50 units, or having an annual budget or budgets in excess of $100,000. A "community association manager" is licensed to control or disburse funds of a community association, prepare budgets or other financial documents for a community association, assist in the noticing or conduct of community association meetings, and coordinate maintenance for the residential development and other day-to-day services involved with the operation of a community association. Performance of the functions of a "community association manager" involves specialized knowledge, judgment and managerial skill; it is not a clerical or ministerial position under the direct supervision of another. It can involve writing checks, disbursing association funds, accounting for and depositing unit owner assessments, some of which might be paid in cash, placing association funds in investment accounts, and budgeting association funds. Depending on the size of the association, a "community association manager" could have access to subtantial sums of money in the form of cash, credit cards, and checking accounts. On or about August 20, 1990, the Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of one federal felony count of misapplication of bank funds. While an officer with the Southeast Bank in Dunedin, Florida, the Petitioner made a supposed loan of approximately $60,000 to a fictitious borrower. He personally used the proceeds of the supposed loan. For a time, he paid the interest on the "loan." But when he did not repay the "loan," the bank discovered what the Petitioner had done and reported him to the authorities. Upon his conviction for the offense, the Petitioner was sentenced to ten months in prison. After serving the prison term, the Petitioner was released under the supervision of a probation officer for a period of 24 months. The Petitioner also was ordered to pay restitution to the Southeast Bank "in the amount of $61,634.92 in payments under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the probation office." The Petitioner is making small monthly payments at this time due to his lack of funds and unemployment. The Petitioner's federal conviction is for conduct that is related to the work of a "community association manager." Despite the Petitioner's character references, cooperation with federal authorities and personal assurances that he would not repeat the kind of conduct that resulted the federal conviction, inadequate time has passed for the Petitioner to be able to prove that he has rehabilitated himself so as to be trusted handling others' money. The Petitioner testified that he was conditionally offered a job that primarily would involve soliciting community association clients for a property management company. He understood that licensure as a "community association manager" would be necessary for him to get and perform the job. That is why he applied for licensure. The Petitioner's testimony at final hearing was to the effect that the real reason he asked for formal administrative proceedings was to raise objections to the manner in which his application was processed by the Respondent. First, he felt that he was invited to apply for licensure despite his conviction, and to pay his application fee, although his conviction was enough to preclude licensure. Second, he felt that the process took too long, especially if denial was a foregone conclusion in view of the conviction. Third, the application was denied although his references were not contacted by the Respondent. As to the Petitioner's first complaint, it was not demonstrated that the Petitioner fully explained to the representatives of the Respondent with whom he spoke on the telephone, before he applied, the nature of the offense for which he was convicted. To the contrary, he asked generally whether a felony conviction necessarily would preclude licensure, and he was told, "not necessarily." He testified that he did not think it would make any difference what kind of felony it was. As to the second complaint, the process indeed seemed to be unduly prolonged. The Petitioner received no response to his application by June 17, 1992, and telephoned to inquire. He was told the application was just sent "downstairs" for investigation of the criminal conviction. He then got a letter asking for an explanation of the conviction, and he supplied the information by letter dated June 26, 1992. In two subsequent telephone inquiries, the Petitioner was told that his application was "in process." In three telephone inquiries on August 18 and 19, 1992, the Petitioner was told that the person responsible for his application was on vacation until August 24, 1992. The Petitioner called the person back on August 24 and was told that his application was on her desk but that she had to review it. She called the Petitioner the next day to tell him that his application was being denied, but the written Notice and Order of Rejection was not issued until on or about October 22, 1992. As for the third complaint, the evidence was that the Petitioner's written character references in his application were considered even though the references themselves were not personally contacted. The Petitioner suggested, as a compromise resolution to his license application, that he be issued a conditional license. He envisions that the job he has been offered, conditioned upon his licensure, will not require that he handle funds but only that he solicit association clients for his employer. He suggests the issuance of a conditional or probationary license that would not allow him to handle money for a time certain. The Respondent's agency policy and practice is not to issue "conditional" or "probationary" or "conditional" licenses, or the like.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure as a "community association manager." RECOMMENDED this 24th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: George Charles Fair 1540 Fife Court Dunedin, Florida 34698 Jeanne M. L. Player, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Henry M. Solares, Director Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1000
Findings Of Fact In 1987 the City of St. Petersburg sought permission to file an application for an Areawide Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for the Intown Area. On July 23, 1987, notice was sent to each property owner within the proposed Areawide DRI. The notice indicates that a public hearing would be held on August 27, 1987, from which the St. Petersburg City Council would decide whether to authorize the City of St. Petersburg to proceed to apply for the DRI. Petitioner, John Warren, received said notice and owns property within the area encompassing the Areawide DRI. Further notices were provided to property owners within the area, including a notice of the petition filed by the City which was published in the St. Petersburg Times on July 27, 1987; a notice to property owners dated September 1, 1987, advising that the City was authorized to proceed with the Intown Areawide DRI; and three other notices regarding public hearings and consideration of the DRI. After all required notice, the St. Petersburg City Council considered the proposed Areawide DRI on December 15, 1988, and formally adopted the DRI by Ordinance No. 1072-F. The ordinance was signed on December 15, 1988. A Notice of Adoption of a Development Order was executed and recorded in the public records on December 20, 1988. The development order enacted on December 15, 1988, was transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council on December 19, 1988, and to the City Clerk on December 20, 1988. A certified copy of the DRI Ordinance 1072-F as enacted on December 15, 1988, is a part of the record as Exhibit K and it is incorporated by reference. Thereafter the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council appealed the DRI pursuant to Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The City and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council reached an agreement for settling the appeal and said settlement was finalized in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the St. Petersburg City Council, at its February 2, 1989, meeting, adopted the terms of the Settlement Agreement, modified Ordinance 1072-F to incorporate the settlement terms, and adopted Ordinance 1072-F as modified. Based upon the settlement and modification of the DRI by the St. Petersburg City Council, on February 7, 1989, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission entered a Final Order of Dismissal on February 20, 1989. Warren filed his Petition on Appeal on March 20, 1989. The Petition is filed pursuant to Sections 380.06(25)(h) and 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-2.002, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a Final Order granting the Amended Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the Petition on Appeal filed by John Warren. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter B. Belmont Patty Woodworth, Secretary Attorney at Law Planning and Budgeting 511 31st Avenue North Executive Office of the Governor St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Michael S. Davis Mirelle Murphy James Honorable Bob Martinez Mark A. Winn Governor, State of Florida Attorneys at Law The Capitol Post Office Box 2842 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Roger S. Tucker Attorney General Attorney at Law State of Florida Tampa Bay Regional Planning The Capitol Council Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Suite 209 9455 Koger Boulevard Honorable Doyle Conner St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida Jeffrey N. Steinsnyder The Capitol Attorney at Law Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Honorable Betty Castor Suite 138 Commissioner of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 State of Florida The Capitol James C. Vaughn, Jr. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Governmental Analyst Florida Land and Water Honorable Jim Smith Adjudicatory Commission Secretary of State The Capitol State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida 32399 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Honorable Gerald Lewis Commissioner Comptroller, State of Florida State of Florida The Capitol The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Tesoro Community Development District (Petition), dated December 22, 2003, as supplemented and corrected. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
Conclusions Having considered the totality of the record in this cause and being mindful of the development order of Lee County referenced above and the lack of expressed opposition to the establishment of the subject community services district by Lee County or any other person or entity, it is, concluded: That all statements contained within the petition are found to be true and correct. That the creation of the district is consistent with applicable elements or portions of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan. That the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional, interrelated community. That the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. That the community development services and facilities of the district would be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. That the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate, special-district government. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken van Assenderp, Esq. YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE & BENTON, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Melvin D. Deutsch, II, Esq. Timothy Jones, Esq. Westinghouse Gateway Communities, Inc. 1625 Hendry Street, Suite 201 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Michael J. Ciccarone, Esq. Assistant County Attorney Lee County Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Glenn Robertson, Secretary Florida Land Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governori The Captol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Pioneer Community Development District (Petition). The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
