Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a private yacht club located on Lots 5-11 inclusive, Block D, Bayside No. 6, Unit A, 830 South Bayway Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida. Founded some five years ago, the club provides a wide array of boating and social functions for its membership. It sits on the north side of Bayway Boulevard and is approximately 50 feet east of Clearwater Pass Avenue. The property is rectangular shaped and has dimensions of approximately 420 feet by 120 feet. The widest portion of the property fronts Clearwater Harbor to the north and Bayway Boulevard on the south. The yacht club is situated within an area currently zoned by the City as CTF-28 (high density commercial-tourist). This District provides for a complete range of motel-hotel developments with a major emphasis on tourism. The primary permitted uses and structures within the CTF-28 District are combination hotel, motel, apartment and business buildings, apartment houses, townhouse developments and restaurants. A number of special exceptions to the permitted uses are authorized within a CTF-28 District. These include, inter alia, three types of marina facilities, namely, Type A (pleasure craft docking), Type B (launching ramp site, commercial) and Type C (private marina). The City has never classified Petitioner under any of these categories. Upon obtaining a Type C classification, a property owner may engage in 12 separate uses of the property as a matter of right, and a thirteenth upon obtaining specific Board approval. These include: (a) sales and service facilities, (b) boat slips (excluding covered boat slips or dry storage unless specific Board approval is obtained), (c) boat handling equipment, (d) boat and gear storage, (e) launching facilities, (f) fuel station, (g) lockers and sanitary facilities, (h) restaurant facilities (not advertised), (i) club house, (j) motel or boatel, (k) recreational facilities (not commercial), (l) park or picnic area, and (m) automobile parking. Petitioner now engages in all permitted activities except items (a), and (j). It does not wish to engage in the latter three uses even if the application is granted. All activities presently conducted are done so in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. On the east side of Petitioner's property is a multi-story restaurant and lounge while to the west lies a 4-story condominium complex (Bayside 17). Directly across Bayway Boulevard and to the south are two high-rise condominium complexes, one of which is still under construction. Boat docking facilities are located on the waterfront throughout the area, including that of Petitioner and adjacent property owners. The area may be generally described as a combination of high density residential and commercial buildings and structures catering to the tourist or part-time resident. The proposed reclassification is compatible with the surrounding properties and the character of the land. Its uses fit within the general scheme of zoning for a CTF-28 District, and are consistent with the Land Use Plan. The chief concern of the adjacent property owners who testified is a fear that reclassification of the property will diminish the view of the water now enjoyed across the clear space on the west side of Petitioner's property. However, since no change in the use of the property will be made by virtue of reclassification, the existing view should not be impaired.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's proposed award of DCPHU Bid I-90 to the Intervenor, Meyers Parking Systems, Inc., for the management of a parking facility located at 1350 Northwest 14th Street should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact For approximately the last ten years, Kinney has operated the parking lot at the Dade County Public Health Unit building located at 1350 N.W. 14th Street in Miami, Florida (the "Parking Lot") pursuant to a contract with HRS. The existing contract between Kinney and HRS for the management of the Parking Lot was entered in June 1989 and was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1990. That contract included two one-year options to renew. The contract also included a provision that allowed either party to terminate the contract upon thirty days notice. The contracts for management of the Parking Lot in previous years were substantially identical in form to the existing contract. In February of each year, a contract review committee consisting of the head of the administrative services department of the facility (the "Contract Manager') and several other employees of the facility would meet to discuss the Parking Lot contract and to determine whether to renew the contract or rebid it. (This Committee will be referred to as "Parking Lot Committee.") The Contract Manager (whose title has been recently changed to Administrative Services Director) essentially chaired the Parking Lot Committee and appointed the other employees who served on the Committee. For the last ten years the Contract Manager has been responsible for overseeing this contract. During this time, his main contacts at Kinney were Chuck Adams, who was usually at the Parking Lot on a daily basis, and Mr. Adams' supervisor, Ken Deutsch. Both Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Adams left the employ of Kinney sometime prior to February, 1990. The exact date of their departure was not established. Both Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Adams now work for Meyers. Kinney's new representative with respect to the Parking Lot contract was Tony Benyon, who assumed those responsibilities on February 1, 1990. Mr. Benyon had previously worked for Meyers and was on the job only twenty two days before the decision was made to rebid the contract. On February 22, 1990, the Parking Lot Committee met and determined not to renew the contract with Kinney. At the time this decision was made, the Contract Manager was aware that the former Kinney employees had switched jobs and were now working for Meyers. However, it does not appear that he brought the job changes to the attention of the Parking Lot Committee because at least one member of the Committee was not aware of the job changes. On or about March 23, 1990, HRS issued an invitation to bid for the management and operation of the Parking Lot (the "Invitation to Bid.") Although the evidence did not establish exactly how many time this contract had been bid in the past, it appears that bids were solicited for this contract on at least two prior occasions during the ten years that Kinney had been operating the Parking Lot. On each occasion, the Invitation to Bid form was substantially identical to the form used in March of 1990. Page 6 of the Invitation to Bid requested bidders to submit a resume of their backgrounds. Page 8 of the Invitation to Bid was entitled "Bid Sheet" and required bidders to submit the following information: "(1) Proposal for Operating the Lot; (2) Proposed Rates, (3) Proposed Net Income Distribution." The Invitation to Bid did not require the bidders to provide any documentation regarding their financial condition nor did it indicate that prior job performance would be considered in evaluating the bids. The Invitation to Bid contained a provision that "any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening." Between the time the Invitation to Bid was sent out and the bids were received, the Contract Manager admits that he "probably" had conversations with some of the bidders and responded to questions about the bid. The Contract Manager could not specifically recall any such discussions with potential bidders between the time the Invitation to Bid was sent out and the date the bids were submitted. However, he admitted that it was likely that some discussions took place. Kinney was never advised of any such discussions between the Contract Manager and other potential bidders. Three sealed bids (including proposals from Kinney and Meyers) were received and opened by HRS at a bid opening on April 4, 1990. A fourth bid was disqualified because it was not sealed. The members of the Parking Lot Committee and representatives of the bidders were present at the bid opening. The bid submitted by Kinney proposed a net income distribution to HRS of 82.5 percent with the remaining 17.5 percent being retained by Petitioner. The Kinney bid also contained a specific breakdown of anticipated costs, fees and expenses to be deducted from the projected gross income to achieve projected net income, a resume and a list of references regarding other-lots being managed by the Petitioner in the area. Meyers and Hi-Rise Parking Systems, Inc. ("Hi- Rise") also submitted bids. Both of those bids contained a proposed net income distribution of 90 percent to HRS. Neither the Hi-Rise nor the Meyers' bids contained a resume or a list of local references of other lots being managed by the companies nor did they contain a listing of anticipated costs, fees and expenses. At the bid opening, the Contract Manager indicated that the bids submitted by Meyers and Hi-Rise were the low bids and the Parking Lot Committee would meet to determine how to "break the tie." At this point, Kinney was effectively eliminated from consideration. By letter dated April 10, 1990, the Contract Manager requested additional information from Meyers and Hi-Rise as follows: Company background information including officers, organization and latest financial/management audit; [and] At least three references to include name of contact person, firm, mailing address and telephone number. The Contract Manager did not request any additional information from Kinney or the disqualified bidder. On or about April 16, 1990, Meyers submitted the requested information to the Contract Manager. On or about April 17, 1990, Hi-Rise submitted the requested information to the Contract Manager. Thus, it is clear that information regarding the financial condition of Meyers and Hi-Rise was not submitted until after the bids were opened. On May 1, 1990, the Parking Lot Committee met to discuss the additional information received from Meyers and Hi- Rise. At that meeting, the members of the Committee completed a "bid selection review form" that listed (1) net income distribution (2) references and (3) company management and financial condition as the criteria for evaluation of the bids. The Committee determined that Meyers and Hi--Rise were "tied" in all categories except financial condition. At best, the submitted financial information provides a cloudy picture of Meyers' financial status. The information indicates that Meyers showed an income loss for the year 1988-1989 of $3,670,000. While a large portion of this loss is apparently related to corporate restructuring, it does not appear that any members of the Parking Lot Committee understood or fully considered this financial information nor did they seek to have the submitted financial information reviewed by an accountant. Hi-Rise's financial records indicate that it is a significantly smaller company, but its records indicated a positive cash flow for the preceding year. Notwithstanding these facts, the Committee decided to award the contract to Meyers. This decision was essentially made on the recommendation of the Contract Manager. The bid selection review form stated as follows: Based on bids and additional information provided, the Parking Lot Management Bid Selection Team recommended award of DCPH Bid No. I-90 to Meyers Parking System, Inc. On May 9, 1990, HRS provided all interested parties with a notice of its selection of Meyers as the successful bidder. In the Notice of Selection, HRS indicated that Meyers had been selected based on the proposed net income distribution, references, background and financial condition. Petitioner timely filed a protest of the proposed award of the contract. The Parking Lot Committee excluded Kinney from consideration based solely upon the net income distribution percentage. However, since the Invitation to Bid did not require the bidders to specify or limit in any way the expenses that could be deducted from gross revenues prior to distributing proceeds to HRS, there was an insufficient basis to accurately evaluate the proceeds that HRS could reasonably expect pursuant to any of the bid proposals. HRS and Meyers have argued that, because HRS has many years experience and expense records relating to the operation of the Parking Lot, the information provided pursuant to the Invitation to Bid provided HRS with sufficient information to make a reasonable evaluation of the financial terms of the proposals. This contention is rejected. To permit such uncertainty and discretion to be built into the bid process would substantially undermine the integrity and dependability of the process. Item 12 on page 6 of the Invitation to Bid required that "bidders will submit a resume of their background and other local lots they are currently managing." No such resume or lists were provided by Meyers. Meyers contends that its response to Item 1 on Page 8 of 8 adequately addressed this requirement. That response provided as follows: PROPOSAL FOR OPERATING LOT. Meyers Parking System, Inc. proposes to operate the Dade County Health department's parking lot with the same high degree of professionalism that we are known for and have demonstrated to our other clients throughout the county. The facility will be managed by trained, uniformed, courteous employees and supervised regularly and closely with our field supervisors and our Regional Vice-President... This statement is not a sufficient response to Item 12 of the Invitation to Bid. During the Parking Lot Committee meeting on February 22, 1990, several complaints were made regarding Kinney's performance under the existing contract. However, no efforts were ever undertaken by HRS to terminate the existing contract with Kinney. While HRS contends that the complaints were part of the reason for deciding to rebid the contract, no steps were taken to disqualify Kinney from bidding on the new contract. In any event, most of the complaints voiced on February 22, 1990 would have been the responsibility of the prior managers of Kinney who now work for Meyers. In February and March of 1990, the disbursements to HRS under the existing contract diminished significantly. This decrease in payments was the result of embezzlement by Kinney employees. While HRS has cited this shortage to justify its decision in awarding the contract to Meyers, there is no evidence that HRS ever attempted to terminate the existing contract nor does it appear that the Parking Lot Committee considered this fact in deciding to eliminate Kinney's bid from consideration. Similarly, the evidence established that there have been problems during the months of March, April and May of 1990 with attendants failing to appear at work on time or leaving the job site. Again, however, there is no indication that HRS attempted to terminate the existing contract or that the Parking Lot Committee relied upon these factors in deciding to eliminate the Kinney bid from consideration. There have been recurring complaints made to Kinney under the existing contract regarding excessive towing of cars from the Parking Lot. The problem of parking lot attendants ordering cars towed without the permission of HRS has existed off and on for sometime. Even though HRS representatives had voiced complaints about the. towing policies, the evidence indicates that this recurring problem became worse in the late spring and early summer of 1990. Nonetheless, HRS never sought to terminate the existing contract because of the towing problems nor did the Parking Lot Committee rely upon this fact in deciding to eliminate the Kinney bid from consideration.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for DCPHU Bid I-90 and issue a new Invitation to Bid. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31 day of October, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31 day of October, 1990.
The Issue Whether Respondent acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly in its proposed rejection of all bids received in response to Request for Proposals, Lease No. 700:0819.
Findings Of Fact On May 10, 1999, the Respondent, Department of Corrections (Department), issued Request for Proposal, Lease No. 700:0819 (the RFP) for office space in Dade County for the Office for Probation and Parole Supervision. Petitioner, 7952 West 2nd Corporation, and Intervenor, Capital Group of Miami, Inc. (Capital), submitted the only responses to the RFP. Upon receipt of the proposals, Mr. Audwyn Francis, the Department's employee in charge of the RFP, believing the bids to be nonresponsive, contacted the Department's legal section for advice and for a determination of responsiveness. While waiting for the legal section to research and make a recommendation on the responsiveness of the proposals, because of time constraints, Department staff decided to proceed with the site visits and evaluation of the proposals but not to make an award until they received a decision from legal counsel concerning the responsiveness of the proposals. A site visit was conducted at the two proposed sites. The responses were evaluated according to the criteria in the RFP. Capital received a score of 98. 7925 West 2nd Corporation received a score of 92. The evaluation committee recommended that an award be made to Capital. Upon further review of the proposals by the Department's attorneys, it was determined that all of the bids were nonresponsive. Based on this determination, the Department rejected all bids. On page four, section A, paragraph seven, the RFP provides the following requirements relating to parking: A minimum of 50 on-site spaces for the exclusive use of the employees and clients at no additional charge to the leasee. Parking spaces must be under the control of the bidder and be suitably paved, lined, bumper pads installed, and labeled D.C. parking. At least two spaces must meet the requirements of the Accessibility Requirements Manual published by the Department of Community Affairs, latest edition. Parking area shall be well lighted and secure. Bidder shall provide a site plan identifying the number of parking spaces assigned to specific other tenants. The purpose of this submittal is to assure parking spaces requested in this RFP can be achieved without infringing on or combining with the parking requirements of other tenants. At the preproposal conference, Mr. Francis, advised the attendees that all attachments as indicated on pages 29 through 31 of the bid package must be included with the bid submittal. On page 30 the RFP requires the proposers to show proof of structures and parking control and directs the proposers to page 4, section A, paragraph 7 and page 23, section D, paragraph 7. Capital proposed to provide 43 parking spaces on-site and 7 parking spaces across the street. Capital's proposal was not responsive to the requirement of providing 50 parking spaces on-site. Petitioner included a document entitled "As-Built Survey" with its proposal. The survey showed the outline of the building on the site, but did not show any parking spaces. Petitioner stated in its proposal that it would provide 50 parking spaces. When Department staff arrived at Petitioner's site to conduct a site visit, they could not find a place to park. During the site visit, Robert Harrison, a representative of Petitioner, advised Department staff that Petitioner leased office space to another agency in the same building that was being offered to the Department. Mr. Harrison advised that he did not know the number of parking spaces to which the other agency was entitled to use. None of the parking spaces at the site were marked as being assigned to any tenant. As of the date of the Department's letter advising that it was rejecting all bids, Department staff were unaware of the total number of spaces available on the site and the number of spaces to which the other agency had exclusive use. After all the bids were rejected, Petitioner disclosed that it had a lease with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for space in the building in which it proposed to lease space to the Department. The lease provided that HRS had exclusive use of 150 parking spaces on- site. Petitioner further disclosed that it had a total of 250 parking spaces on-site. Petitioner failed to comply with the requirement that the proposer provide a site plan showing the number of spaces assigned for the use of the current tenant at the building. The Department utilizes a manual entitled "Competitive Proposals," which establishes the procedures to solicit and evaluate proposals. Section Seven of the manual pertains to the procedures to be followed by the Department when evaluating proposals and provides: All proposals will first be reviewed for conformance with the provisions specified in the RFP. Any proposal not in compliance with the terms of the proposal specifications shall not receive further consideration. The evaluation committee will analyze each responsive proposal to determine which proposal is the lowest and best in accordance with established provisions and award factors. . . . To be considered for award, a proposal must comply in all material respects with the RFP so that all proposers may stand on equal footing, with respect to the method and time frame of submission, and to the substance of any resulting lease. The proposal must result in a binding contract. Non-responsive proposals. Any proposal which fails to substantially conform to the requirements of the Request for Proposal. A proposal may not be considered if the proposer imposes conditions which would modify requirements of the Request for Proposal, or limit their liability to the State of Florida, giving them an advantage over other proposers. When a question of responsiveness is unclear the agency's legal counsel should be consulted. In the event no acceptable proposals are received, all proposal should be formally rejected by letter, sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. * * * F. Proposals which technically conform to the requirements of the Request for Proposal are considered to be responsive and may be accepted for consideration by the evaluation committee for determination of an award recommendation. The evaluation committee can seek clarifications as needed from any proposer. However, clarifications received from the proposer which change what was originally proposed cannot be considered in the evaluation. * * * Each committee member is to personally inspect the proposed facility, and evaluate the location and facility on the basis of the evaluation criteria contained in the specifications. When all committee members have individually assessed award factor points for each proposal, the entire evaluation committee will meet to review the individual evaluations and jointly develop a committee determination of the best proposal based on the overall factor ratings. * * * L. The agency has the right to reject any and all proposals when such rejection is in the best interest of the State of Florida. Such rejection cannot be arbitrary, but must be based on strong justification. Each person with a rejected proposal should be notified by certified mail return receipt requested.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 Hearings Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 29th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Moore, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Obed Dorceus, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas 165 East Boca Raton Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432-3911 David A. Anthony, Esquire Law Offices of David A. Anthony 916 Catalonia Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 475.25(1)(b) & (c), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of real estate pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed as a real estate broker associate in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3057283. At all times material to this Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed with Re/Max Professionals, Inc., a real estate corporation. At the time of hearing, Respondent was licensed with Access Realty of North Florida, Inc., a licensed real estate corporation. Respondent's address of record is 757 West Duval Street, Lake City, Florida 32055. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was the listing agent for a property known as 831 South West 5th Street, Live Oak, Florida (5th Street property). On March 4, 2008, Respondent listed the property as having a Commercial Intensive (CI) zoning. At the time of the listing, zoning classifications for property in Live Oak were not available on line, and could only be obtained by calling for the information. At the present time, George Curtis is employed by the City of Live Oak and handles inquiries regarding zoning for properties in the City of Live Oak. He does not recall receiving a telephone call from Respondent regarding the zoning classification for the 5th Street property. However, at the time of Respondent's inquiry, Mr. Curtis was just starting his employment with the city, and did not yet have an office. Inquiries were at that time directed to the City Clerk's office. Mr. Curtis could not state that no call was received by that office, or, if received, what information was given. The listing for the property states at the bottom, "[t]his information is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed." Respondent listed the property zoning as CI after calling to inquire regarding the appropriate zoning for the property. While she testified that her call was to the Suwannee County office as opposed to the City of Live Oak, it is found that the call must have been made to the City, given the telephone call described below. The property described in the listing is not zoned CI, but rather Commercial Neighborhood (CN). In Live Oak, CI zoning is the most intense zoning district, and is limited to major arterial roads in the city. It is intended to meet the needs of a regional population. CN zoning is intended to provide for commercial use on a more limited scale, in terms of the size of the building that can be placed and the types of uses. It is intended to meet the needs of a neighborhood area. A funeral home would not be a permitted use for property zoned CN. It would require a zoning change. A funeral home would be permitted on a property zoned as commercial general (CG). The CG category is between CI and CN. In September 2008, Respondent contacted the City of Live Oak and was referred to George Curtis about the possible use of the property on SE 5th Street as a daycare. During their telephone conversation, he told her that in order to operate a daycare on the property, the owner would need to receive a special exception to the zoning requirements. He obtained her e- mail address and sent her an e-mail with attachments regarding obtaining special exceptions. Respondent believed, based upon their conversation, that the same would be true for any business to be located on the property. Mr. Curtis does not recall telling Respondent at that time that the property was not zoned as CI. On October 16, 2008, Respondent sent the following e- mail to Mr. Curtis: Hi George, the contract for a day care on 831 SW 5th Street, Live Oak (lots 14, 15, 16, Block E, Hildreth) fell through. I now have a pending contract but the buyers want to use the property for a funeral home. Do you see any problem with this? Anne The e-mail was sent at 5:01 p.m. At 5:22 p.m., Mr. Curtis sent the following reply: Hello Anne: I believe this property was Neighborhood Commercial between Green and Ammons on the south side of 5th. C-N does not have any allowances for a Funeral Home, even as a Special Exception. A petition could be proposed to the City Council for Residential- Office or Office Zoning that does allow for the Funeral Home (with also a Special Exception) but other criteria would have to be evaluated to be sure that parting and buffering requirements could be met after any zoning change took place--which is also a process that is not guaranteed but a possibility--there is no way to predict whether the rezoning and the special exception would be approved. This would probably be a 4-6 month process start to finish plus the associated fees to try. Funeral Homes are allowed by right in General Commercial Zoning but you have to front a major street (129/90/51, etc. to get considered for that zoning…) Hope this helps -- wish I had better news… Respondent claims that she never received this e-mail, and that she never deleted it from her computer. She testified that when she did not receive a response, she called the zoning office and was told that a special exception would be required for a funeral home. She passed this information on to Mr. Wright. On October 17, 2008, Russell Wright made an offer to purchase the property on S.W. 5th Street for $45,000. The contract (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) has been reduced and copied several times, and as a result, is illegible in most respects. However, it can be ascertained that the contract was made on October 17, 2008, and signed by the sellers on October 22, 2008. The contract specified that closing was to take place October 31, 2008, which it did. The contract also specified that the Buyers would pay $5,000 down, and the Sellers would finance the remainder at 8 percent, with payments of $485.31. As part of the closing, the Buyers and Sellers signed an Affidavit of Buyer and Seller Regarding Contract Compliance, which stated "all of the contingencies and conditions set forth in the contract (and all addendums thereto) between the Seller and Buyer have been satisfied, performed or waived by the Buyer and the Seller " Because of the condition of Petitioner's Exhibit 3, it cannot be determined whether the form contract made any representations regarding zoning and who was responsible for determining the appropriate zoning for the property. On October 23, 2008, Respondent sent an e-mail to Russell Wright with attachments labeled "Petition for Special Exemption," "How the Future Land Use Plan Map - Brochure," and "Sec. 12.2 Special Exceptions." The message in the e-mail reads: Hi Russ, here's the contact person who deals with the zoning in Live Oak, and the forms for filing. I received 1 of the forms back from you, the As Is Rider but I still need the corrected Lead based paint disclosure that I sent with the AS Rider in yesterday's fax. Please complete this form and fact back to me. The Seller's [sic] are going to close at 9:00 am on Friday 31st, please let me know as soon as possible a time that would be convient [sic] for you and your wife to attend. Regards, Anne. Mr. Wright acknowledged receiving an e-mail, but not the documents. He sent Respondent the other documents required for closing. After the closing, he called her and stated that he could not locate the paperwork related to special exceptions, and on November 3, 2008, she mailed it to him. With the paperwork was the following note: Dear Russell and Marcus: I have enclosed the paperwork for the Special exception. If you have any questions you may call George Curtis at 386-362-2276. Mr. Curtis is the development manager for the City of Live Oak. Regards, Anne Mr. Wright began making renovations on the property in order to open a funeral home. In July 2009, he began the process of getting his city occupational license. He could not obtain the license because the property was not zoned for his intended use. At that point, Mr. Wright contacted city officials, including George Curtis and the Mayor of Live Oak. Mr. Curtis advised Mr. Wright that he had sent an e-mail to Respondent advising her that a funeral home could not be operated on the property with its present zoning. Mr. Wright wrote to Respondent, demanding that she compensate him for the fact that he could not open the funeral home without a zoning change. The letter stated in pertinent part: The Mayor of Live Oak and Mr. George Curtis has informed me that I can apply for a zoning change so that My Wife and I can open our business. But it will cost $750.00 to file the initial papers. And that is NOT a guarantee. To date with the down payment and monthly payments and renovation cost, your dealings have cost us $25,000 plus pain and suffering and embarrassment. And we have property that we can't use for the intention it was purchased. Ms. Hurst, we are allowing you and your firm to settle this matter out of court. Ms. Hurst we will settle this matter for the amount of $50,000.00 which is damages plus pain and suffering. If you and ReMax Professionals, Inc., are not willing to settle with us out of Court, we will retain the Attorney with whom my Wife and I have consulted. . . . It is clear from the evidence that Mr. Wright chose to believe that he could open a funeral home on the property without any further administrative action either to change the zoning or to obtain a Special Exception for its intended use. Neither belief is consistent with the credible evidence that Respondent sent him information regarding Special Exemptions and the process to obtain them. All of the information given to him is consistent with his need to follow up with the City's zoning department, which he did not do. Based on the more persuasive evidence presented in this classic, "he-said, she-said" case, it is found that Respondent did not receive the October 17, 2008 e-mail from George Curtis, but believed that a Special Exemption would be required to operate a funeral home on the property, and that she supplied information to Mr. Wright to that effect. Mr. Wright's claim that Respondent represented that the property could be used as a funeral home with no further action is rejected.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order dismissing Count One in the Administrative Complaint; finding a violation of section 475.25(1)(c), as alleged in Count Two; imposing a reprimand and fining Respondent $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 8th day of June, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William Haley, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A. Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Joseph A. Solla, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Thomas W. O’Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Fair Housing Act by discriminating against Petitioner based on her sex, national origin, and/or handicap by the manner it enforced its vehicle parking rules.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an 81-year-old female who is a native of Peru. Petitioner does not speak, write, or read English. Petitioner and her late husband were owners and residents of a condominium unit managed by Respondent. Petitioner continued to own and reside in the unit after her husband's death in September 2009. Petitioner and her husband had ten children, two of whom are Patricia Ramirez and Gloria Silva. At the time of his death, Petitioner's husband owned an automobile that he had properly registered with Respondent. Following her husband's death, Petitioner inherited the automobile he had owned. Petitioner does not drive and does not have a driver's license. On September 17, 2009, the title to the car was changed into the names of Petitioner and Gloria Silva. Gloria Silva has not been recognized by Respondent as a "resident" of Petitioner's unit.2 Respondent's rules and policies are set forth in a "Handbook of Rules and Regulations" (the Handbook). Respondent's vehicle parking policies begin on page 28 of the Handbook. Respondent's parking policies for a "Resident Parking Decal" provide, in relevant part, as follows: A "Resident" as set forth in these regulations is a person who has been registered at the Management Office and has been approved by the Association to live in the Unit whether it is an owner or a tenant. All vehicles of Residents parked in the Condominium Property must have a "Resident PARKING DECAL" [sic]. This permit consists of a decal containing a number that is placed on the outside top or bottom left- side corner of the rear glass of the vehicle. For your protection, this decal shall be applied to the glass by an Association Representative only. Only Residents actually living all year round in the Condominium Property and owning a valid driver's license will be issued a Resident Parking Decal. . . .. Only one vehicle is allowed per Resident with a valid driver's license and a Vehicle Registration to such vehicle issued in the Residents' name. There will be a $25.00 refundable deposit for every Resident Parking Decal issued. Failure to return the Decal to the Management Office upon selling and/or disposing of his/her vehicle (including total loss due to an automobile accident) or moving out of the Property, such $25.00 shall be forfeited. . . . If the Resident sells or in any other way disposes of a vehicle to which a Resident Parking Decal was previously issued, that Resident must remove and bring to the Management Office such Resident Parking Decal before a new Resident Parking Decal is issued for a new vehicle. Gary Mars, an attorney representing Respondent, advised Petitioner by letter dated September 10, 2009, that she was in violation of Respondent's vehicle parking policy and its occupancy policy. As to the parking policy, the letter provided, in relevant part, as follows: The Rules and Regulations state that "[o]nly Residents actually living all year round in the Condominium Property and owning a valid driver's license will be issued a Resident Parking Decal. Absentee owners who lease their units are not entitled to having a Resident Parking Decal. Only one vehicle is allowed per Resident with a valid driver's license and a Vehicle Registration to such vehicle issued in the Resident's name. " . . . This correspondence serves as . . . demand that any and all guests of your Unit cease and desist utilizing a resident parking decal immediately upon receipt of this communication and secure the appropriate parking decals from the Property Management Office. Mr. Mars wrote a second letter to Petitioner on November 9, 2009, containing the following demand: This letter is being provided in order to notify you as to a recently recognized violation of the Declaration of Condominium which requires your immediate attention. Specifically, the Association has recognized that the vehicle registered to your deceased husband continues to maintain a residents [sic] parking decal even though the vehicle is utilized by your daughter, Ms. Gloria Silva, who is not a resident of the Condominium. Therefore, this use of a decal is improper and in violation of the Association's controlling documents. The Rules and Regulations state that "[o]nly Residents actually living all year round in the Condominium Property and owning a valid driver's license will be issued a Resident Parking Decal. Absentee owners who lease their units are not entitled to having a Resident Parking Decal. Only one vehicle is allowed per Resident with a valid driver's license and a Vehicle Registration to such vehicle issued in the Resident's name. " Notice is hereby provided of this violation. Specifically, the Association is demanding that your guest permanently cease and desist utilizing a resident parking decal, and remove and return the decal within seventy-two hours of this communication to the Property Management Office. In the event you and your guests fail to comply with the request as set forth herein, the Association may have no alternative but to enforce the Rules and Regulations which may include the towing and removal of the vehicle . . . By letter dated December 31, 2009, Mr. Mars wrote to Petitioner a third and final letter, styled "Final Demand," repeating his notice that the vehicle would be towed if she did not comply with the resident parking policy. On the following dates Respondent had Petitioner's vehicle towed from the condominium property: January 19, January 22, and February 9, 2010. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was out-of-compliance with Respondent's resident parking policy. There was no evidence that Petitioner ever surrendered the Resident Parking Decal that remained on the vehicle after her husband died. There was no evidence that Petitioner filed an application reflecting the change of ownership of the vehicle following her husband's death or paid the application fee for a new decal.3 There was no evidence that Respondent knew or should have known that Petitioner was handicapped or disabled.4 There was no evidence that Respondent's enforcement of its parking policies was motivated by Petitioner's sex, national origin, or handicap.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents are guilty of housing discrimination against Petitioner based on disability, in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner suffered a stroke in September 1997 and was consequently disabled. His right side was impaired. Petitioner's right foot drags when he walks, and his right arm is of limited use. Petitioner is unable to walk long distances or stand for a significant period of time. To walk at all, Petitioner requires the use of a cane or a walker. Petitioner has been in this condition from September 1997 through the date of the final hearing. At all material times, Petitioner has possessed a handicapped parking sticker due to these disabilities. For many years, Petitioner's wife has lived in unit 102 at the Majestic Gardens Condominium, Building "C," Lauderhill, Florida. Petitioner married his wife shortly before suffering the stroke and moved into her condominium unit at Majestic Gardens in December 1997. Petitioner and his wife resided together at unit 102 until April 2001, when they rented the unit and moved to a house in Miramar. All of the buildings at Majestic Gardens Condominiums comprise 238 units. Building "C" is a three-story building with 41 units. Each unit in Building "C" is assigned one parking space. The assigned parking spaces are in close proximity to the entrances of the units. Building "C" provides nine guest parking spaces, but the parking is limited at Majestic Gardens, and these spaces are routinely unavailable. In the case of Petitioner's unit, the assigned space is less than 15 feet from the front door to the ground-floor unit. At all material times, Petitioner's wife has parked her car in this space. The two spaces to the left of Petitioner's assigned space, as one faces the unit, are slightly closer to Petitioner's unit and are designated as guest spaces. Both Respondents are jointly responsible for operating and assigning the parking spaces immediately adjacent to Building "C." From 1998 through 2001, Petitioner and his wife tried unsuccessfully to convince Respondents to designate a parking space in front of their unit as handicapped, so that Petitioner, who can still drive, could park his car directly in front of his unit. Respondents refused to designate a handicapped space because the effect of such a designation would have been that Petitioner and his wife would have had two spaces in front of their unit, when all of the other unitowners had only one space. Respondents have not designated any handicapped parking adjacent to Building "C." They have designated three handicapped spaces at a nearby clubhouse, but, after Petitioner started parking his car in one of these spaces, Respondent Majestic Gardens Condominium Association, Inc., informed Petitioner that these spaces were reserved for use by persons using the recreation facilities. Because Petitioner was not using the recreation facilities, he could not park in one of these handicapped spaces. Later, Respondent Majestic Gardens Condominium Association, Inc., painted over the blue lines and removed the handicapped-parking sign, thus allowing all users of the recreation facilities to park in the three spaces previously reserved for handicapped users of the recreation facilities. At that point, the entire eight-building Majestic Gardens complex lacked any parking designated exclusively for handicapped use. Relations between the condominium management and Petitioner and his wife became strained at times. Petitioner received cautionary notes and threats of towing whenever he parked his car in a guest space. However, Respondents gave Petitioner's wife the names of persons who might be willing to rent their assigned parking spaces. Despite several efforts, Petitioner and his wife were unable to secure another space by this means.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stewart Lee Karlin Stewart Lee Karlin, P.A. 315 Southeast 7th Street, Second Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Roosevelt Walters Qualified Representative 1509 Northwest 4th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Florida Donaldson Majestic Gardens Condominium 4045 Northwest 16th Street, Building C Lauderhill, Florida 33313
Findings Of Fact Sunset Company of Wilton, Incorporated, is the record title owner of a parcel of real property in Government Lot 1, Section 5, Township 66 South, Range 33 East, on Crawl Key No. 3 also known as Fat Deer Key, Monroe County, Florida. A portion of that parcel has been conveyed by Sunset Company to Whaler's Plaza, Incorporated, although that deed may not have been recorded. Petitioner Fred Roth owns and controls both corporations and exerts ownership and control over the entire parcel. The submerged lands in Tarpon Creek which are waterward of the line of mean high water contiguous to the parcel are sovereignty submerged lands. Roth received "major development" approval from Monroe County to develop the parcel by constructing a commercial/retail development known as "Whaler's Plaza.' The major development plan submitted to and approved by Monroe County includes a docking facility. In 1979 Roth filed an application with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for a private dock facility at Whaler's Plaza. The Department of Environmental Regulation approved that application and issued to Roth Permit/Certification No. 44-18542-5E. Roth never constructed that docking facility, and the permit expired on August 1, 1980. One of the agencies involved in reviewing that permit application was the Respondent. On June 26, 1979, Respondent notified Roth that upon review of the application in DER File No. 44-18542-5E, it had determined that the submerged lands were state-owned but that no lease agreement with Respondent would be required. After Permit No. 44-18542-5E expired on August 1, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation directed a letter to Petitioner advising him that the permit had expired and further advising him that if he wished to pursue the project he would have to obtain a new permit. in October 1983 Roth sought new authorization from the Department of Environmental Regulation and Respondent to construct a docking facility at Whaler's Plaza. His application was assigned DER File No. 440774875. On December 29, 1983, Respondent notified Roth that a lease would be required for the use of state-owned lands contiguous to Whaler's Plaza, relative to DER File No. 440774875. Respondent's rules changed in 1982 so that Roth's docking facility would be required to meet new criteria. The docking facility proposed by Roth in 1983 was similar to the docking facility proposed in 1979. The 1983 proposed modified docking facility was still represented to the Department of Environmental Regulation to be a private boat dock. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued an intent to deny the 1983 application under its then-existing rules, and Roth requested a formal hearing on that preliminary denial. Before a final hearing could be conducted, Roth again modified the proposed docking facility so that he qualified for a dredge and fill permit exemption from DER, so that no DER permit was needed for his project. A final order was entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation on August 27, 1985. While Roth's 1983 application was pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation, Roth was processing his application with Respondent for a submerged land lease for the docking facility. The documents he filed with Respondent, however, indicated that the docking facility was not intended to be a private dock but rather was a dock related to the commercial development at Whaler's Plaza. Roth represented to Respondent that the proposed docking facility would be for the convenience of patrons of the stores and restaurant at Whaler's Plaza and for his own personal use. Specifically, on June 3, 1985, Roth directed a letter to Respondent pursuant to Respondent's request for additional information. He described the Whaler's Plaza docking facility as follows: The wood dock will be used for arriving and departing customers of the restaurant and stores and my own personal use. The upland land use and activities of the property--will be developed into a shopping center. At the present time, the first phase is completed which is a one-story building containing four units, housing six retail stores, plus offices. The next phase will consist of three more buildings having five units each, 1,0000 [sic] sq. ft. each unit which will be for retail stores and offices, and the final phase will be a 200 seat restaurant, a miniature [sic] petting zoo and possibly a miniature golf course. ... 70 percent of the slips will be open to the general public for their convenience In patronizing the restaurant and stores; the remaining 30 percent of the slips will be for my own personal use. Roth never completed the lease application he filed with Respondent, and he failed to obtain approval for the use of the sovereignty submerged lands preempted by the docking facility proposed in DER File No. 440774875. Eventually, his pending application with Respondent was deactivated, and the file was closed. In late 1986, Roth initiated construction of his docking facility on sovereignty submerged lands, and he caused 30 pilings with cross-bracing to be placed into the submerged lands. On September 1, 1986, Grant Gelhardt, one of Respondent's enforcement officers, discovered the dock being constructed and verbally instructed Roth, through Mrs. Roth, to immediately cease construction activity. No further construction has taken place. Despite the verbal notification, a subsequent warning notice sent by certified mail, and Respondent's Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action, Roth has failed to remove the pilings and/or to take corrective measures regarding the partially completed docking facility. Roth has allowed vessels to be moored at the partially completed docking facility, has moored his own vessels at the partially completed docking facility, and has failed to prevent other persons from mooring at the partially completed docking facility. Roth's actions have resulted in damage to a benthic seagrass community on the adjacent sovereignty submerged lands over which Roth's partially completed docking facility is located, and over which vessels using the facility have been and would be moored. Those submerged lands constitute a benthic community of seagrass which supports various fauna and which would be adversely affected by completion and operation of the docking facility. The water depths in the area are shallow, with areas of less than -4 feet mean low water. The width of Tarpon Creek in the project area is approximately 100 feet. The length of the partially completed docking facility is approximately 150 feet. Although the dock extends parallel to the shore, the distance the dock extends into Tarpon Creek, as measured from the shoreline, is approximately 35 feet. Roth knowingly trespassed on sovereignty submerged lands by initiating construction of the docking facility, and he has willfully damaged those lands by drilling holes and placing pilings, and by allowing moored vessels to shade the seagrass. Although Roth ceased construction of the docking facility when told to stop, he has failed to attempt to resolve the violation, to remove the pilings, to seek an after-the-fact approval, or to cease all mooring of vessels on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the uplands, even subsequent to receiving the Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action. Respondent's June 26, 1979 letter to Roth authorized the activities described in DER Permit No. 44-18542-5E, for the period authorized by that permit. Roth knew that the DEP permit, and therefore Respondent's approval to engage in the activity authorized by that permit, had expired. Roth further knew that his new application filed in 1983, DER File No. 440774875, which was approved by DER after Roth further modified it in order to qualify for an exemption, did not exempt him from obtaining authorization from Respondent to use sovereignty submerged lands for the project and further knew that when he commenced construction of the docking facility in 1986 that he had not obtained approval from Respondent to use state-owned submerged lands. Roth offered no evidence to demonstrate any detrimental reliance upon the June 26, 1979, DNR letter, and the letter did not create a vested right for Roth to construct a different docking facility at a later time without authorization from Respondent. The uplands at the Whaler's Plaza commercial/retail development are owned by for-profit corporations which Roth controls and which derive income from the business and commercial activities at Whaler's Plaza. The docking facility intended primarily for the use of customers of Whaler's Plaza would therefore constitute a revenue generating/income related activity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring petitioner to: Remove the unauthorized structure within 20 days from the date on which the Final Order is entered and in accordance with Respondent's supervision of that removal; Immediately cease all mooring of vessels on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the uplands of the parcel known as Whaler's Plaza until authorized to use state-owned lands; and Pay a fine of $2500 within 15 days of receipt of a certified letter from the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources demanding payment to the internal improvement Trust Fund. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 31st day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Manz, Esquire Post Office Box 177 Marathon Florida 33050 Ross S. Burnaman, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The Petitioner appeals the disapproval of its license transfer application by the Respondent. Hence the issue posed is whether or not the Respondent unlawfully disapproved the application for transfer on the grounds that "the location failed to qualify for zoning approval" within the meaning of Section 561.18, F.S. The premises sought to be licensed is located at 1480 South Ocean Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida. The former name of the business was Paddock International, Inc., d/b/a Paddock International. The proposed name of the new business is Jacob's Ladder, Inc., d/b/a Jacob's Ladder. When the application for transfer was submitted to the Division of Beverage for approval, it was rejected on May 19, 1976, for, as previously stated, the reason that it "failed to qualify for zoning approval", citing Section 561.18, F.S., as amended. The disapproval was appealed and the matter is now before the undersigned to determine whether or not the applicants and the premises met all of the qualifications required in the beverage law. The Petitioner takes the position that the Respondent's and County Zoning Board's action amounts to arbitrary and capricious conduct and that in no instance, has zoning approval been required in license approval situations. C. Lloyd, Respondent's representative and employee for approximately eight years, testified that he processes approximately 600 license applications yearly of which approximately 40 to 50 percent represent transfer applications. Based on his experience, the Petitioner's application is the only transfer application requiring zoning approval. He was advised during his investigation by a Mr. Kauth that the Broward County Zoning Board acted on a previous mix-up in the type of license which was previously issued and the county was misinformed in giving zoning approval to the prior licensee. He testified further that in almost all cases no inspection is made as to whether or not the particular premises meets the zoning requirements in transfer application situations. By way of background, the record evidence reveals that the license was initially issued to the owners of the premises sought to be licensed here on or about January 4, 1960. Since that time, approximately 21 licenses have been issued and/or renewed and at no time has zoning ever surfaced as a problem. The most recent zoning certificate was dated December 4, 1974 and the zoning was satisfactory at that time. George Maurer, Chief of Zoning Inspection for Broward County and who has served as the Zoning Chief for the past three years testified that he supervises personnel in the zoning department and is charged with maintaining records; overseeing and enforcing zoning procedures. He recalled being asked to sign the zoning approval form for the subject premises and he refused in that there was no certificate on file and according to his testimony, such must be current with the present owner's name contained thereon. He admitted that the prior zoning approval certificate had not been revoked either administratively or otherwise and that there was no hearing as to any proposed revocation or notice of any intent to revoke the current zoning approval certificate. The zoning approval was withheld here due to the inadequate parking spaces and for violations of the South Florida Building Code and numerous other code violations. To the best of his knowledge, the code violations had been corrected with the exception of a sign which was erected on the premises sought to be licensed. When Petitioner filed its application for transfer of license from the previous owners, he was advised that there existed 47 parking spaces, however, based on a field examination conducted by him on August, 1976, his inspection revealed that there were only 38 parking spaces. On cross examination he testified that there has been no change in the zoning regulations from the time of issuance of the prior zoning certificate through the time that the disapproval was given for the license application in question. Robert R. Krauth, Deputy County Administrator of Broward County, testified he mailed a mailgram to beverage agent Joseph J. Scozzafava and advised that the zoning certificate had been improperly granted for the premises sought to be licensed under the previous ownership. The testimony is that he had no knowledge that zoning certificates were required in transfers and that to his knowledge no steps had been taken to close the restaurant due to these alleged inadequacies. On cross examination he testified that he had some knowledge that the use of the premises had changed however he had no evidence on that point. He received no complaints from Jacobs Ladder and to his knowledge the sole problem centered around the inadequate parking spaces. George C. Gatterer, 2/ an employee of Broward County Board of County Commissioners and the Assistant Director of General Services for the zoning department, testified that the area is located in a R-6 zoning area. The zoning certificate could not be approved for the subject premises based on the "improper parking spaces". He was aware of no regulation which required that new zoning certificates be changed based solely on a name change. He knew the former compliance officer, Smith, who certified that the property had been in compliance during the prior periods in which the zoning approval had been certified. Other evidence revealed that the parking lot had not changed nor had the use changed and that prior licensees had no problem getting licenses transferred. Petitioner's agents attempted to obtain parking in contiguous areas but were unable to obtain such.
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence, it is clear that the request for a new zoning certificate was a new procedure utilized by the Division of Beverage in the subject case. Respondent's own witness testified that he was in charge of processing most license transfers and that he was aware of no other application in which a zoning certificate was required in order to gain transfer approval from the Respondent. The evidence further revealed that the same number of parking spaces, at least in terms of footage, now exist as has existed when zoning approval was given in the earlier situations. This situation has existed for more than 16 years and the county's witness who is in charge of the zoning approval testified that there has been no change in the zoning regulations since the issuance of the most recent zoning certificate in 1974. Evidence further reveals that at no time did the Petitioner receive and notification that the prior zoning approval was being withdrawn either administratively or otherwise, nor was any notice given of an intent to revoke the prior zoning approval. Based on these facts, the undersigned concludes that the requirement that a zoning approval be submitted along with the transfer application in this case represented a marked departure from the existing rules, regulations and procedures of the Division of Beverage, and amounted to a denial of due process. Based thereon I shall recommend that the transfer application be approved since, in my opinion, based on the evidence presented, the premises possess the requisite qualifications as required by the beverage law. It thus appears that Respondent's failure to approve the application for reasons advanced cannot stand and I shall recommend that the approval be issued forthwith.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions of law, I recommend that the Department of Business Regulations, Division of Beverage, approve the application submitted in the subject case. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to make reasonable accommodations for Petitioner's handicap.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Botero has a Ph.D. in engineering. Due to a medical mishap, involving the administration of anesthesia, Mr. Botero suffers from narcolepsy. His narcolepsy is controlled by medication. Narcolepsy is a medical disorder which causes Mr. Botero to have sudden and uncontrollable, though brief, attacks of deep sleep, and he becomes unintelligible and unable to move. His condition gives him a warning before an attack occurs, and he has a small window period of time, approximately five to seven minutes, of reaction time. A narcolepsy attack for him lasts approximately three to four minutes. Mr. Botero is handicapped. Even though Mr. Botero suffers from narcolepsy, he has been licensed by the State of Florida to drive a vehicle and has a handicap parking permit. If his disorder presents itself when he is operating a vehicle, the small window period of reaction time allows him to maneuver his vehicle to a safe spot and park before the narcolepsy attack occurs.1 If he is not driving, but is parked when his disorder presents itself, Mr. Botero needs additional space to exit his vehicle or for someone to remove him from his vehicle. Calusa Club was constructed in 1980 and consists of several condominium buildings. Each condominium building has a homeowner’s association and is also referred to as a community. The developer of Calusa Club assigned reserved parking spaces for each condominium unit. As a result, each condominium owner is assigned a reserved parking space. Some handicap parking spaces are reserved and some are available on a first- come, first-serve basis. Only testimony, not written documentation, was presented at hearing evidencing the assignment of reserved parking spaces. The undersigned finds this testimony credible. Calusa Club is managed by Miami Management, Inc. Miami Management does not have the authority to change the reserved parking spaces assigned to condominium units, including reserved handicapped parking spaces, or to add additional reserved parking spaces for a condominium unit. Only testimony, not written documentation, was presented at hearing evidencing the assignment of reserved parking spaces. The undersigned finds this testimony credible. In 1997, Mr. Botero purchased a condominium unit at Calusa Club, unit number E-201. Mr. Botero's condominium association is Calusa Club Condominium D North Association, Inc. His assigned reserved parking space was number 9 (Reserved Space Number 9). At that time, he informed Miami Management, through its property manager for Calusa Club, Kathie Roder,2 that he was handicapped and needed a handicapped parking space close to his community. No reserved handicapped parking spaces were located at Mr. Botero's community. Ms. Roder informed Mr. Botero that no reserved handicapped parking space was available in his community; however, she gave Mr. Botero a non-reserved parking space in his community. Based on the testimony of the Miami Management's current assistant property manager for Calusa Club, Michelle Lopez, which is found to be credible, an inference is made that the parking space given to Mr. Botero by Ms. Roder was a guest parking space. To Mr. Botero, the parking space given to him was too small dimensionally to accommodate his condition. When he opened the door on the driver's side of his vehicle, Mr. Botero was unable to open the door fully and, therefore, the parking space given to him failed to provide sufficient space dimensionally for him to exit his vehicle or for someone to remove him from his vehicle. He subsequently requested another parking space.3 Mr. Botero was given another non-reserved parking space, but he again complained that it too was too small dimensionally for the same reason as before. Based on the testimony of Ms. Lopez, which is found to be credible, an inference is made that the second parking space given to Mr. Botero by Ms. Roder was a guest parking space. After complaining a third time,4 Ms. Roder moved Mr. Botero's Reserved Space Number 9 next to the access walkway to his condominium building, which is the current space complained of. Reserved Space Number 9 measures 78 inches in width; immediately to its left is another reserved space assigned to another condominium unit; immediately to its right is the access walkway to Mr. Botero's condominium building; and immediately to the right of the access walkway is a guest parking space. The width of the Reserved Space Number 9 is the same width of the other parking spaces of his condominium building. Mr. Botero complains that Reserved Space Number 9, even though it is located next to the access walkway to his unit, is also too small dimensionally to accommodate his condition in that, if an attack occurs in the parking space and if a vehicle is in the parking space next to him, insufficient space exists for him to exit his vehicle or for someone to remove him from his vehicle. Furthermore, Mr. Botero is unable to back into Reserved Space Number 9 because he is fearful of hitting another vehicle, an object, or someone else if he has a narcolepsy attack while he is backing-up. If he could back-in, the position of his vehicle would give him sufficient space to exit his vehicle or for someone to remove him because the driver's side of his vehicle would be next to the access walkway. Moreover, Mr. Botero would back into Reserved Space Number 9 if it was larger dimensionally because he would then not be fearful of hitting another vehicle, an object, or someone else. After complaining to Ms. Roder, regarding the re- location of Reserved Space Number 9, she advised him in a letter dated May 5, 2004, among other things, that Calusa Club had provided him a reasonable accommodation and that nothing else could be done. The letter provided, in pertinent part, as follows: Please be advised that we have contacted our attorney regarding providing you with a Handicapped parking place. We are sorry to report that because our community was built in the early 1980's, we are only required to provide you with "reasonable accommodation". We have done so by moving your reserved space #9 next to your access walkway. We would not be able to place a handicapped space anywhere near that location. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that Calusa Club incurred any expense moving Reserved Space Number 9 to the guest parking space to the left of the access walkway. Therefore, an inference is drawn and a finding is made that Calusa Club incurred no expense moving Reserved Space Number 9 to the guest parking space to the left of the access walkway. No reserved handicapped parking space was or is available at Mr. Botero's community; they were and are all assigned. In order to widen Reserved Space Number 9, Miami Management would have to take away the reserved parking space assigned to the owner of another condominium unit. Ms. Lopez testified that Miami Management could not take away a reserved parking space assigned to the owner of another condominium unit. The undersigned finds her testimony to be credible. Ms. Lopez also testified that Miami Management could not "change" a reserved parking space assigned to the owner of a condominium unit. She later testified that Miami Management could not "take away" a reserved parking space assigned to the owner of a condominium unit. No documentation was presented at hearing evidencing Miami Management's lack of authority to "change" or to "take away" a reserved parking space. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that "change" and "take away" have identical meaning as used by Ms. Lopez. Mr. Botero has had narcolepsy attacks since residing at Calusa Club. His neighbors have had to remove him from his vehicle and park his vehicle in Reserved Space Number 9 for him. Around 2001, Mr. Botero deeded his condominium unit to his son, a college student. He and his son live together in the unit. Mr. Botero did not inform Calusa Club or his condominium association that he had deeded the condominium unit to his son. Mr. Botero continues to pay the maintenance and condominium association fees. Mr. Botero parks his vehicle in a guest space, while his son parks his (son's) vehicle in Reserved Space Number 9. Calusa Club learned of Mr. Botero's present arrangement with his son at hearing through Mr. Botero's testimony. Mr. Botero filed his complaint of discrimination under Florida's Fair Housing Act (Act) with the FCHR on about June 4, 2004.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order: Finding that Calusa Club Village, P.O.A., discriminated against Humberto Botero under Florida’s Fair Housing Act by failing and refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for his handicap; Ordering Calusa Club Village, P.O.A.,to cease the discriminatory practice; and Ordering Calusa Club Village, P.O.A., to move the reserved parking space of condominium unit number E-201 to the right of the access walkway of the condominium building. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the evidence sustains the decision of the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) to deny the application of the Appellant, Clearwater Bay Marine Ways, Inc., for a 62-space parking requirement variance (200 spaces instead of the 262 required under the Code) for its property located at 900 North Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. (The variance is required as a result of the Appellant's desire to use a part of the property as a cruise ship docking facility.)
Findings Of Fact On or about October 25, 1993, the Appellant, Clearwater Bay Marine Ways, Inc., applied to the City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board (the Board) for an 81-space parking requirement variance (128 spaces instead of the 209 required under the Code) for its property located at 900 North Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. After filing the application, the site plan was modified, and the variance application was modified to request a 62-space variance (200 spaces instead of the 262 required under the Code). The variance is required as a result of the Appellant's plan to have Adventure Seaways Corporation use a part of the property for use as a docking facility for its 600-passenger cruise ship, the Majestic Empress. The City of Clearwater Development Code (the Code) has no parking space requirements specifically designed for cruise ship operations. To establish the parking space requirements, it was decided to utilize Section 42.34(6)(d)2.c. of the Code, which addresses certain "retail sales and service uses," and states: Theaters, indoor and outdoor recreation centers, swimming pools, skating rinks and other public or private recreation and amusement facilities: One parking space per three customers or patrons computed on the basis of maximum servicing capacity at any one time, as determined by the requirements of the city, plus one additional space for every two persons employed on the premises at peak period of use. Specific provisions over and above the standard may be required for uses such as movie theaters involving successive changes of patrons with a corresponding overlap in parking required. Under that provision, it was calculated that 200 spaces would be needed for peak capacity for the 600-passenger cruise ship. An additional 62 parking spaces are needed for other uses proposed in the site plan (including boat slips, a dive charter operation, a sail charter operation, a 2,800 square foot parts and service business and three work bays), for a total of 262 parking spaces for the overall site plan. The evidence was that no adjustments to the calculation under the "one space per three customers or patrons" formula were "determined by the requirements of the city," and that no additional spaces were required for "persons employed on the premises." (There was some evidence that the Adventure Seaways employees will park off-site.) Nor was there any evidence that there were any "[s]pecific provisions over and above the standard required for . . . successive changes of patrons with a corresponding overlap in parking required." The Adventure Seaways Corporation plans two excursions of the Majestic Empress a day, one during the day and one in the evening. It is expected that the ship would sail at full capacity only approximately one day a week, on Saturday. At peak capacity, it is expected that 30 percent of the passengers will arrive at the docking facility by tour bus. During the day cruise, the buses would leave the facility and return at the end of the cruise to drop off passengers for the evening cruise and pick up off-loading day cruise passengers. They would not remain at the facility during the times other cruise ship passengers would have their cars parked at the facility. Using only the "one space per three customers or patrons" formula under Section 42.34(6)(d)2.c. of the Code, the 70 percent of the total complement of passengers, who are expected to arrive by personal vehicle on peak days, would require only 140 parking spaces (420 passengers divided by three per parking space), well below the 200 spaces allocated to the cruise ship operation under Clearwater Bay Marine Ways site plan. Since Adventure Seaways has not been able to use the Majestic Empress at the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility without the parking space variance, it has transferred a smaller cruise ship, the Crown Empress, from its docking facility at Johns Pass on Treasure Island in the interim. The Crown Empress's capacity is only 400 passengers, and no parking space variance is required to use it at the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility. Meanwhile, Adventure Seaways has received temporary permission to utilize the Majestic Empress at the Johns Pass facility on the condition that it make greater than normal use of tour buses to transport passengers to and from the Johns Pass docking facility. Adventure Seaways purchased the Majestic Empress after being encouraged by City officials about the prospects of being able to utilize the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility. After purchasing the vessel, it had the vessel reconfigured to reduce its draft to accommodate the shallow waters it would have to navigate getting to and from the facility. Adventure Seaways also closed in the top deck of the vessel to meet Code requirements for noise control. Neither the special shallow draft configuration nor the noise control measures are required for utilization of the Johns Pass facility. Part of the encouragement by City officials about the prospects of Adventure Seaways being able to utilize the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility included assurances that the City would help Adventure Seaways gain access to additional parking, or develop or acquire additional parking, in the vicinity, if needed. Another option would be to utilize off-site parking and transport passengers to and from the Clearwater Bay Marine Ways facility by bus.
