The Issue Has Respondent's connection permit number C-16-095-93 (permit) expired under Section 335.185, Florida Statutes? Has Respondent timely complied with the requirements and conditions of the permit? If not, does Respondent's noncompliance cause safety or operational problems on State Road 555 (SR 555) which would require closing Respondent's connection to SR 555?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for regulating vehicular access and connections to or from the State Highway System in accordance with Sections 335.18-335.188, Florida Statutes, known as the State Highway System Access Management Act. Respondent owns the property in issue which is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of SR 555 and SR 655 in Polk County, Florida. As a cure for the problem created by the eminent domain proceeding in FDOT v. Shaffer concerning the preexisting connections to SR 555 and SR 655, the Department agreed to provide connections to SR 555 and SR 655 for the property involved in the instant case. By letter dated September 27, 1993, the Department agreed to honor this agreement even though it was not included in the final order in FDOT v. Shaffer. In its letter, the Department agrees to issue a permit and construct the connections "on the condition that the remaining lands are reconstructed as shown in the attachment." The letter informs Respondent that the attachment was prepared by Reggie Mesimer for the Department and that "it appears that the settlement was based on that cure." The letter also informs Respondent that the "permit will contain limiting language to make clear that the permit has not been reviewed for compliance with DOT standards and that it is issued for replacement of preexisting access." Attached to the letter was a site plan showing: (a) the parking layout for the site which included two parallel parking spaces in front of the building, six perpendicular south to north parking spaces on the south end of the building and eight perpendicular north to south parking spaces on the south side of the south parking area; (b) a connection to SR 655 on the north side of the building; (c) a connection to SR 555 at the front of the building; and (d) a connection to First Avenue, a side street, on the south side of the building. The site plan shows a driveway commencing at the connection to SR 655 and continuing on in front of the building to First Avenue on the south side of the building. The site plan does not show any signings or pavement markings to indicate traffic flow in and out of the site. Sometime around June 1993, the agreement in FDOT v. Shaffer notwithstanding, the Department attempted to close the preexisting connections to SR 555 and SR 655. As a result, Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing and Department of Transportation vs First Mortgage Corporation, DOAH Case No. 93-9037 was filed with the Division. This case was later rendered moot by the issuance of the permit for the connections to SR 555 and SR 655 and the Department's agreement to construct the connections to SR 555 and SR 655. By letter dated December 15, 1993, with an addendum dated December 16, 1993, the Respondent agreed "to designating two parallel parking spaces in front of the building and have the striping done immediately." In return, the Department would "agree to have the driveway installed as shown on the drawing originally submitted." In the addendum, Respondent states that the two designated parallel parking spaces in front of the building were being striped on December 16, 1993, and that the Respondent was removing the chain link fence on the south side of the building to provide additional parking. The addendum also states that the Respondent will resurface the entire area of the drive and parking areas after the Department finishes the road construction. Additionally, the Respondent agreed to substantially comply with the driveway and parking area as shown on an attachment. The attachment was a copy of site plan referred to above in Finding of Fact 3. Respondent's Connection Application, number C-16-095-93, was approved by the Department on December 20, 1993, and the permit was issued. The application "requests permission for the construction of a connection(s) on Department of Transportation right-of-way. . . " The connections are described as: "REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CONNECTION: ONE 24 FT INGRESS ON SR 655, ONE 30 FT INGRESS & EGRESS ON US 17 (SR 555) FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE AND RESTAURANT." Although the permit provides blank spaces where the mandatory beginning and completion of construction dates are to be filled in, these spaces were left blank on the permit. Likewise, there is no expiration date shown on the permit. A site plan was attached to the permit. The site plan is a copy of the site plan attached to the Department's September 27, 1993, letter referred to above with signings and pavement markings added to indicate the traffic flow in and out of the site. General Provision one of the permit provides: The permittee agrees and obligates himself to perform at his own expense the relocations, closure, alteration of the permitted connection, should the Department determine that the traffic patterns, points of connection, roadway geometrics or traffic control devices are causing an undue disruption of traffic or creating safety hazards at the exiting connections. Special Provisions one through five provide: This permit application has not been reviewed for compliance with DOT standards and is issued for replacement of preexisting access by the Florida Department of Transportation. The permit is subject to the limitations in Chapter 335, Florida Statutes, to the same extent as the preexisting access. The permittee shall place signing and pavement marking, as indicated on the attached site plan, so that the connection on SR 655 is operated as ingress only. Parking layout and traffic flow will be constructed and maintained in substantially the same manner as indicated in the attached site plan. The permittee acknowledges that the attached site plan was the cure in the settle- ment in DOT vs. EDWARD M. SHAFFER, case number GC-G-91-786, Parcel 105. The permittee acknowledges that with the issuance of this permit and the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation's agreement to construct the two connections referenced in this permit, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. FIRST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, case number 93-3037 has been rendered moot. Further- more, the permittee agrees to make the appropriate filing with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. (Emphasis supplied). The permit application was signed by Dennis G. Davis as president of First Mortgage Corporation. Dennis G. Davis also signed accepting the Special Provisions attached to the permit. As to signings and pavement markings the site plan shows: a designated driveway beginning at the SR 655 connection (north end of property) and proceeding around the front of the building (east side) to the south end of the building and commencing on to the First Avenue connection; large arrows within the designated driveway indicating ingress only from SR 655 and one-way traffic around the front of the building to a point on the south end of the building where stop signs are to be located; stop signs on each side of the one-way driveway where the one-way driveway intersects a designated two-way driveway; to the south of the stop signs, arrows indicating that the one-way traffic is to move into the south side parking lot or move into the south-bound lane of the two-way driveway that exits onto First Avenue; arrows indicating that incoming traffic from First Avenue is to move into the south side parking lot only; a No Right Turn sign on the east side of the one-way driveway just south of the stop signs where the one-way driveway intersects the two-way driveway; a No Left Turn sign on the southwest side of the south side parking lot where the south side parking lot intersects the outgoing lane of the two-way driveway that exits onto First Avenue; a stop sign just south of the southeast corner of the south side parking lot to the west of the outgoing lane of the two-way driveway just before First Avenue; and a No Exit sign on each side of the one-way driveway facing the opposite direction of the traffic flow in the one-way driveway at the northeast corner of the building. As to the parking layout, the site plan shows: two parallel parking spaces running north to south in front of the building along the west side of the one-way driveway; six perpendicular parking spaces running south to north abutting the south side of the building, and eight perpendicular parking spaces running north to south abutting the south side of the property west of the two-way driveway. The Department constructed the connection on SR 655 for ingress to the property from SR 655 and the connection on SR 555 for ingress to the property from SR 555 and egress to SR 555 from the property sometime in June 1993, which was before the expiration of one year after the date of issuance of the permit. Respondent started to comply with the signings and pavement markings of the site plan attached to the permit as early as December 16, 1993. Respondent has complied with the signings and pavement markings for traffic flow and parallel parking as shown on the site plan attached to the permit beginning at the connection to SR 655 and up to and including the two stop signs at the south end of the one-way driveway where it intersects the two-way driveway. The Respondent has maintained these signs and pavement markings during the construction on SR 555 by restriping the pavement and replacing signs that were torn down. However, due to the wear on the striping caused by construction traffic the pavement markings for the parallel spaces and traffic flow are dim and need painting. Due to a misunderstanding as to the Department's jurisdiction over First Avenue, Respondent has not completed the signings and pavement markings from the stop signs where the one-way driveway intersects the two-way driveway over to First Avenue or over to the parking lot. The Respondent has not completed the striping for the south to north perpendicular parking spaces abutting the south end of the building where there is pavement which would allow such striping. A segment of a chain link fence abuts the south end of the building preventing any further perpendicular parking abutting the south end of the building without going inside to the grassed area (green area) enclosed by the chain link fence. However, instead of parking perpendicular to the south end of the building, customers are parking east to west, perpendicular to the existing chain link fence. At the time the permit was issued, a chain link fence surrounded the green area on the south end of the property. Respondent removed the middle section of the chain link fence on the east side of the green area to provide additional parking inside the green area. Respondent has not placed signs or pavement markings around or at the entrance to the green area so that customers are made aware that the green area is available for parking. However, some customers are using the green area for parking. Although the parking layout of the site plan includes delineated parking spaces in the green area, nothing in the permit, including the site plan, specifically requires the green area to be paved. Although Respondent has indicated a willingness to stripe the designated parking spaces in the green area as shown on the site plan, striping the green area is neither feasible nor is it required under the permit. While all of the parking spaces have not been delineated by striping, there was no evidence that there were insufficient parking spaces on the site or that the lack of designated parking spaces was creating any safety or operational problem on SR 555. Although the site plan does not indicate by signings or pavement markings that the connection to SR 555 is an ingress and egress connection, the permit specifically provides for ingress and egress at the SR 555 connection and nothing on the site plan prohibits such access. On occasions customers park perpendicular to the front of the building ignoring the delineated parallel parking spaces in front of the building. Respondent has agreed to place a solid concrete curb along the building side (west side) of the parallel parking spaces and remove the yellow concrete stop blocks now in place that may be unintentionally inviting customers to park perpendicular to the building. The Department's expert, Michael Tako, testified that perpendicular parking in front of the building could result in vehicles on SR 555 having to slow down for vehicles that are backing out of those perpendicular parking spaces onto SR 555, creating a hazard on SR 555 known as stacking. However, there was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that stacking actually occurred or that there was any safety or operational problem being created on SR 555 by customers parking perpendicular to front of the building rather than parking in the two parallel parking spaces in front of the building. There was no engineering study presented that had been conducted subsequent to the issuance of the permit substantiating any safety or operational problem on SR 555 resulting from the failure of the Respondent to comply with signings and pavement markings of the site plan or any of the special provisions of the permit or from customers parking perpendicular to the building rather than in the parallel parking spaces. Construction on SR 555 had not been completed as of the date of the hearing. However, Respondent agreed that construction was at the stage where the driveway and parking area could now be resurfaced and restriped without substantial damage to the striping, pavement markings and signings due to construction activity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order requiring the Respondent to: comply with the placement of signs as shown on the site plan attached to the permit including those signs required for the First Avenue connection; (b) comply with the pavement markings for traffic flow as shown on the site plan attached to the permit, including those necessary for the First Avenue connection and direction for entrance to the green area; (c) pave any surface necessary to comply with the pavement markings provided for in (b) above, including that necessary for the First Avenue connection and to allow necessary pavement markings for traffic flow into the green area but not to include the green area; (d) restripe the parallel parking spaces in front of the building and place a solid curb on the immediate west side of the parallel parking to replace the curb stops now in place; (e) stripe the perpendicular parking spaces that abut the south end of the building where pavement presently exists; (f) place the necessary signs at the entrance to the green area so that customers will be aware of the additional parking inside the fenced green area and; (g) remove whatever portion of the chain link fence is necessary to allow reasonable entrance to and exit from the green area. It is further recommended that Respondent be allowed sufficient time to complete the above, not to exceed 60 days unless the Respondent wishes to resurface the entire driveway area including the First Avenue connection and any parking area that is presently paved. In that event, it is recommended that Respondent be allowed 90 days. It is further recommended that Respondent not be required to pave any area that is to be used for parking including the green area and that adjacent to the green area that does not already have existing pavement. RECOMMENDED this day 12th of October, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 12th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0673 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-7, 10-13, 16-18, 20, and 21 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 21 of the Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8 and 9 are covered in the Preliminary Statement. Proposed findings of fact 14, 22 and 24 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed findings of fact 19 and 23 are rejected as being argument rather than findings of fact. Proposed finding of fact 15 goes to the weight to be given to Tako's testimony and is not a finding of fact per se. The Respondent Proposed Findings of Fact. The first two sentences of Respondent's introductory paragraph under "Findings Of Fact" are covered in the Preliminary Statement. The balance of the introductory paragraph and unnumbered paragraphs 2 - 6 are presented as restatements of Tako's and Davis' testimony and not as findings of fact. However, this testimony has been adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 - 21 of the Recommended Order and where it has not been so adopted it is rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Francine M. Fflokes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Stephen W. Moran, Esquire Moran & Tileston 1738 East Edgewood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33803
Findings Of Fact Appellant owns the property located at 1430 Palmetto Street, Clearwater, Florida. The area is zoned RS-50, a zoning for single family residents. The house located thereon is a three-bedroom, two-bath home with a garage and carport. Appellant proposes to enclose the garage to provide two additional bedrooms and a bath. The lot on which this house is sited contains 13,000 square feet. The minimum lot size for RS-50 zoning is 5,000 square feet. The structure exceeds all setback requirements of the Code. Most of the homes in this neighborhood have driveways to the garages while Appellant's property has a circular drive in front of the house. The structure meets the City of Clearwater's fire code and to be licensed as an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) must meet all requirements of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Appellant has a housekeeper on the premises at all times to prepare the meals and take care of the residents. Appellant's son manages the property and the son's wife visits the premises daily to do the necessary shopping, take the residents to doctor appointments, shopping, or for outings. Only one automobile remains at the premises on a 24-hour basis. Some residents do not have any family locally and visitors average one every two weeks per resident. Use of this property as an ACLF is reasonably compatible with the neighborhood. Excessive traffic will not be generated by use of this property as requested and the requirements for on-site parking is satisfied. Although an ACLF is a business, it is operated similar to a home in that business hours are not such that any disturbance of the neighborhood will occur and insignificant additional traffic will be generated as a result of granting this special exception. Neighbors generally have no complaints regarding the operation of the existing ACLF with a total of five residents but strongly oppose any increase in the number of residents. As grounds for opposing the increase these witnesses cited expected decrease in property values, anticipated increase in traffic and traffic hazards to the elderly residents of the ACLF who may walk along the street, excessive numbers of vehicles at the premises for which off-street parking is not available, a general dislike for any business activity conducted in the neighborhood, their opinion that an ACLF is incompatible with the neighborhood, and that Appellant will reap a financial bonanza if the special exception is granted. No statistical evidence was presented to support any of these contentions.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, as alleged in the Housing Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on or about October 9, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, since March 2015, has been a resident at Respondent’s facility. Respondent is a private residential condominium association, which operates and maintains three condominiums in Osprey, Florida. Each condominium unit has its own designated parking space. Petitioner’s assigned parking space, number 364, lies between parking spaces 362 and 366. The respective parking spaces are next to each other, with parallel lines dividing the same. Each parking space has a concrete tire-stop that has painted on it the corresponding condominium unit number so that when a vehicle turns into a space the driver is able to discern the corresponding unit number. All parking spaces and road surfaces relevant to this dispute are paved. If one is positioned such that the painted numbers on the tire-stops are visible, then to the left of space 362 is an unassigned space (unassigned space #1) and to the right of space 366 is an area containing shrubbery. From the photographs admitted into evidence, the dimensions of unassigned space #1 appear to be essentially the same as parking spaces 362, 364, and 366. However, unassigned space #1 differs from the others in that on either side of the parallel lines that demark the interior boundaries of the parking space, there are pathways which provide more space for pedestrian traffic. Although neither party offered evidence of the dimensions of the parking spaces, photographs of the area demonstrate that unassigned space #1, when considering the usable pathways, is wide enough to allow for reasonable entry to and exit from a mid-sized sedan while the vehicle’s occupant is being assisted by a walker or wheelchair. In order to access the parking spaces discussed in the preceding paragraph, motorists must use a one-way road which requires them to turn to the right when they are parking their vehicles such that the front tires are closest to the concrete tire-stops. Approximately 20 feet from unassigned space #1, on the other side of the one-way road used to access the parking area, is another unassigned parking space (unassigned space #2). Unassigned space #2 is perpendicular to unassigned space #1 and spaces 362, 364, and 366. Accordingly, motorists parking in unassigned space #2 enter the space by veering to the left off of the one-way road and driving head-on into the parking space (essentially a parallel parking space). There is no evidence of record as to the exact dimensions of unassigned space #2, but in comparing the photographic evidence, this space is comparable in size to the handicapped parking space near the condominium complex clubhouse. Additionally, unassigned space #2 is situated such that no other vehicles can park in front of, behind, or on either side of a vehicle parked in the space, and there is no curbing that would serve as barrier to accessing one’s vehicle while parked in the space. Although each unit is assigned one designated parking space, Petitioner recalls that when she initially moved in, she parked her vehicle by straddling the line between parking spaces 364 and 366. According to Petitioner, she was able to use both spaces because the respective tire-stops for the spaces were each marked “364.” Petitioner stopped parking her vehicle in this manner after the association re-painted all of the tire- stops; which included refreshing the unit numbers painted on the same so as to make it clear that there were not two parking spaces for unit 364. Also, Petitioner testified that her vehicle was vandalized once while parking her car in spot 364. After Petitioner’s car was vandalized and Respondent re-painted the tire-stops, Petitioner, during the weeks leading to June 2015, began occasionally parking her vehicle in the designated handicapped parking space located at the condominium clubhouse parking lot. Petitioner asserts that because of issues related to her physical disability, it is necessary that she be able to park her car, without restriction, in the handicapped parking space designated by Respondent for use by visitors and residents at the condominium complex clubhouse. The handicap parking space is several hundred feet from Petitioner’s condominium unit, and in order to access the handicap parking space, Petitioner utilizes a pathway constructed of dirt and crushed seashells. There is no record evidence indicating that Petitioner has difficulty traversing the seashell pathway or walking from her condominium unit to her car, and vice versa. Petitioner’s designated parking space is considerably closer to her unit (less than one hundred feet) than the handicapped parking space, but, according to Petitioner, her designated parking space is inadequate because it does not provide her with sufficient space to enter and exit her vehicle. Respondent does not dispute this fact. Petitioner suffers from a physical disability which requires her to ambulate with the occasional assistance of either a walker or wheelchair. Petitioner drives a late model, mid-size four-door Mercedes Benz. Petitioner’s vehicle is not equipped with any special assistive devices, such as a ramp, which would add to the amount of space needed for vehicle ingress and egress. When Petitioner is either entering or exiting her vehicle while using her walker or wheelchair, she requires additional space beyond the swing path of her car doors. Petitioner did not offer evidence of the amount of space required for her to enter or exit her vehicle when using either her walker or wheelchair. Petitioner also did not offer evidence regarding the dimensions of her vehicle, or the dimensions of either her designated parking space or any of the other parking spaces at issue. Nevertheless, Respondent concedes that Petitioner’s designated parking space, when cars are parked on either side of her in spaces 362 and 366, does not afford Petitioner adequate space to reasonably access her walker or wheelchair when entering and exiting her vehicle. In June 2015, Petitioner, as she often did, parked her car overnight in the handicapped parking space at the clubhouse. When Petitioner arrived at her vehicle, she noticed that a note from Respondent had been placed on the car, which reads as follows: Overnight parking in this clubhouse lot must have approval of the Pine Run Board of Directors. Approval is normally awarded for stays of no more than one week. In addition, this handicapped space is reserved for residents or visitors to the pool or clubhouse, not for general resident parking. We discourage resident parking in this lot if not for these reasons. However, if on rare occasion, you wish to park a car in this lot during the day when you are not using the pool or clubhouse, please use an unassigned space on the pond side. This minimizes the chance that you will interfere with our maintenance crew, or the delivery of a large quantity of materials. Within a few days of receiving the note, Petitioner explained to Respondent that she has a handicapped parking decal and should therefore be able to park in the handicapped parking space without restriction. Under the circumstances, Petitioner’s statement is reasonably interpreted as a request to Respondent that her physical disability should be accommodated by allowing her to park in the handicapped space. Respondent took no immediate action regarding Petitioner’s request for accommodation. Respondent did, however, allow Petitioner to continue to park in the handicapped space whenever Petitioner desired to do so. On August 27, 2015, Petitioner sent an email to Respondent and stated therein the following: We are formally informing you again, since our encounters with Mrs. and Mr. Foley, that we do indeed, have a disabled tag, and need and expect accommodations for ours and others, disabled individuals, owners, lessees and visitors, with any parking accommodations, walkers, chairs, etc., and their vehicles and equipment and with regards to any and all entrances to, and any and common areas, we should have easy access to. The circumstances leading up to, and including, Petitioner’s correspondence of August 27, 2015, make clear that Petitioner continues to seek a parking accommodation. At 4:51 p.m. on October 5, 2015, a letter from Petitioner’s attorney, Ms. Jennifer Daly, was sent to Respondent’s representative Jim Kraut. The missive from Ms. Daly states: As you are aware, this firm represents Ms. Valerie Collier [Walters] and I am contacting you to notify you and the Association that she will be parking in the handicapped parking spot tomorrow due to a surgery she is having. Please notify the Board of Directors to ensure no threats of towing are made and no notes are left on her car during her recovery. Upon receipt of the email from Ms. Daly, Mr. Kraut immediately conveyed the request to Mrs. Foley, who at the time was president of Respondent’s board of directors. In response to Petitioner’s request, Mrs. Foley, at 5:02 p.m. on October 5, 2015, sent the following email message to Mr. Kraut: Jim, Since the handicapped spot by the Club House is a considerable distance from her unit could you suggest that she just pick a spot in front of her unit that is much closer? We would have no problem identifying a handicapped spot closer to her unit. Mr. Kraut conveyed Mrs. Foley’s suggestion to Petitioner’s attorney Ms. Daly, who at 5:21 p.m. on October 5, 2015, responded via email as follows: Jim, Thank you for your rapid response and Ms. Foley’s suggestion; however, please let her know that choosing a different spot near her unit will not address our client’s needs. Rather, the problem is when the Association repainted the parking lot, the parking spots were made too small. From what we have been advised, all the spaces in close proximity to our client’s unit are only slightly bigger than the width of a sedan and offer no additional space for the opening of doors, much less the further space needed for someone who requires the assistance of a walker or wheelchair in addition to other equipment. Mrs. Foley, in response to Ms. Daly’s email, stated the following: I note your reply concerning Mrs. Valerie Collier [Walters]. Please be advised that the Association has not changed either the size or assignment of any parking spaces in the even 300’s on Pine Run Drive. All of the spaces have been repainted if the numbers were not visible or the curbs required repair in the entire Association. The size of the spaces ha[s] never changed. We would be very willing to accommodate Mrs. Collier’s [Walters] need for a handicapped space closer to her unit if she requested such. My suggestion was the quite large parallel space next to the grass island [unassigned space #2]. There is no curb there and no vehicle could park beside her. Another suggestion would be to swap her space for the adjacent space for #366. This is the same size but an end space, however I think she would have more room with the parallel space just behind her assigned space. Petitioner’s reaction to Respondent’s suggested parking accommodations was to file, on or about October 9, 2015, a charge of housing discrimination. Additionally, Petitioner parked her car in the handicap space without incident following her surgery. As noted in Ms. Daly’s email of October 5, 2015, Petitioner rejected the parking spaces offered by Respondent because the spaces are “too small.” Petitioner offered no standard by which to determine the appropriateness of the offered parking spaces other than her own subjective opinion. Additionally, Petitioner testified that both unassigned spaces are unacceptable because they are too close to the condominium unit of a neighbor she dislikes. Petitioner testified that what she now wants is to park in space 366, if Respondent widens the space by removing the hedges to the immediate right and paving the newly-cleared area. Petitioner offered no credible evidence establishing that this proposed accommodation is equal to, or more reasonable than the accommodations offered by Respondent.
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 Respondent, Pine Run Association, Inc., did not commit unlawful housing discrimination as alleged by Petitioner, Valerie Walters, and denying Petitioner’s Housing Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 17th day of June, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cindy Hill, Esquire Hill Law Firm, P.A. 456 South Tamiami Trail Osprey, Florida 34229 (eServed) Gary Parker, Esquire Legal Aid of Manasota 1900 Main Street, Suite 302 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Sharon S. Vander Wulp, Esquire Sharon S. Vander Wulp, P.A. 712 Shamrock Boulevard Venice, Florida 34293 (eServed) Scott H. Jackman, Esquire Cole, Scott and Kissane, P.A. Suite 400 4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent has committed unlawful housing discrimination against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Waterford Crossing is a development comprising 80 townhomes in Broward County, Florida. Respondent is a homeowners' association consisting of the owners of the 80 townhomes. Respondent is governed by the homeowners and their elected Board of Directors and the officers appointed by the Board. At all relevant times, William Shaw has been the Vice President of Respondent. Diana Arguinzoni del Toro is a female who purchased a townhome at Waterford Crossing in 1997 and has lived there continuously since that time. At all relevant times, Mr. Shaw resided in a townhome across the street from the townhome of Ms. del Toro. Parking is limited at Waterford Crossing. Illegally parked cars, which may consist of vehicles parked outside of marked parking areas or vehicles in marked parking areas, but without the appropriate permit, pose a serious problem. At times, emergency vehicles have been unable to access parts of Waterford Crossing due to illegally parked vehicles. From time to time, Respondent hires a towing company to tow illegally parked vehicles from Waterford Crossing. Immediately after so-called "towing nights," residents and guests tend to comply with applicable parking rules, but, over time, compliance lessens. When the number of parking complaints rises sufficiently, Respondent hires a towing company to conduct another "towing night." It is unnecessary to consider in detail the parking rules of Waterford Crossing. On the evening of March 24, 2004, Ms. del Toro's car was legally parked, as the parking rules have been applied, in a guest space near her townhome. This happened to be a "towing night," although this fact was unknown to Ms. del Toro. As is its practice, Respondent's Board of Directors advised an employee of its property manager to conduct a towing night, and the property manager requested the towing company to tow illegally parked vehicles from Waterford Crossing that night. The diligence and care exercised by the towing company in conducting towing nights left something to be desired. Routinely, the company would tow fewer than all of the vehicles illegally parked at Waterford Crossing, as it proceeded to other sites to serve the towing needs of more profitable customers. From time to time, the company would tow a legally parked vehicle, such as a vehicle parked in a marked space and bearing a suitable parking permit. On the evening in question, towing company's lack of diligence and care combined to result in the towing of Ms. del Toro's car, despite the fact that it bore a suitable parking permit and was legally parked, and in the failure to tow other vehicles that were illegally parked. The removal of Ms. del Toro's car resulted from the failure of the tow truck operator to notice her parking sticker. The failure to remove illegally parked vehicles resulted from the operator's decision to begin and end towing night with the removal of Ms. del Toro's car. Ms. del Toro attributed the improper towing of her car to Mr. Shaw because, in the summer of 2002, he had made an unwelcome sexual advance to her while in her home. At that time, while they were alone, Mr. Shaw twice pulled the front of her blouse, in the vicinity of her breasts, in an apparent attempt to embrace or kiss her. Ms. del Toro firmly rebuffed him, and she and Mr. Shaw, who had previously maintained a neighborly relationship, no longer spoke to each other. Ms. del Toro subsequently perceived another instance of discriminatory treatment in the maintenance of her landscaping, but the evidence provides no basis to attribute this to Mr. Shaw. The evidence does not link Mr. Shaw to any shortcomings in the maintenance of vegetation on Ms. del Toro's lot, as compared to the maintenance of vegetation on the lots of other owners. Similarly, there is no more basis to attribute the towing incident to Mr. Shaw than to the incompetence of the tow truck operator, which was later fired by the property manager due to its inability to tow sufficient vehicles on "towing nights." Mr. Shaw was at work at Miami International Airport on the night of the towing incident. Additionally, the passing of nearly two years between the unwelcome sexual advance and the claimed retribution--without earlier proved instances of retribution by Mr. Shaw--militates strongly against the interpretation of the towing incident offered by Ms. del Toro and shared by Petitioner. However, Mr. Shaw's longtime status as an officer of Respondent, his unwelcome sexual advance, and his personal involvement in at least one previous "towing night," coupled with the incompetence of the towing company in improperly removing Ms. del Toro's car, constitute a reasonable basis in law and fact supporting the theory of Ms. del Toro and Petitioner that Mr. Shaw had discriminated against Ms. del Toro, Although their theory proved unsupported by the evidence, Petitioner's commencement of this proceeding was substantially justified, so as to preclude the award of attorney's fees against Petitioner.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2006, 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 13th day of January, 2006. 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 Vicki Denise Johnson Attorney for Petitioner Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas F. Luken Attorney and Counselor at Law 1290 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner has standing to bring this action; and if so, (2) whether Respondent properly denied his application for a driveway/connection permit.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1998, Petitioner submitted a Driveway/Connection Application, Number 98A3940018 to Respondent. Petitioner's application sought a permit to construct a driveway/connection to a proposed retail sales office project for Lot 13, Block 396, Avolon Beach Subdivision, in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The site of the proposed project is located at 2996 Avolon Boulevard (State Road 281), between the I-10 exit ramp and San Pablo Street. STANDING Petitioner entered his name on the application as owner of the subject property. Petitioner signed the application as owner with title to the property. He signed the application certifying that he was familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the best of the applicant's knowledge and belief, the information contained therein was true and correct. Petitioner did not fill out a section of the application entitled, "Are You An Authorized Representative?" Respondent relied on Petitioner's certification that he was the owner of the property and processed his application. During the hearing, Petitioner initially testified that he bought the subject property in February of 1998. There was no driveway connection from Lot 13 to Avolon Boulevard in February of 1998. Petitioner did not have a copy of the deed to the subject property with him at the hearing. He admitted on the record that a deed indicating his ownership interest was not filed with the public records in Santa Rosa County. He also admitted that no such deed existed. Petitioner claims that the land was under contract but "had not gone to closing yet." Petitioner did not have a copy of the contract to offer as an exhibit at the hearing. Respondent produced copies of two deeds for the subject property at the hearing. The most recent of these deeds was recorded on July 14, 1997. It indicates that the property is owned by the George H. Moss Trust, George H. Moss, Trustee. Petitioner's post-hearing exhibit consisted of two documents. The first is a Memorandum Agreement dated February 2, 1998. The memorandum indicates that Tim Oden, Agent for 3/0 Partners, LLC, paid $500 in earnest money as a deposit for the purchase of the subject property belonging to George Moss, with the closing to take place on or before April 15, 1998, contingent on specified terms of purchase. One of the terms of purchase requires proof of legal access to San Mateo Avenue which is the subject of this proceeding and has not been fulfilled. Additionally, Petitioner did not present evidence that any of the other conditions of the contract have been fulfilled. The Memorandum Agreement is signed by Tim Oden, Agent for 3/0 Partners, LLC, as buyer and George H. Moss as seller. The second document included in Petitioner's post- hearing exhibit is a copy of a cancelled check in the amount of $500 payable to George Moss for the subject property and signed by Tim Oden. Mr. Moss endorsed the check for deposit. Petitioner's name does not appear anywhere on the Memorandum Agreement. There is no direct evidence showing Petitioner's relationship to Tim Oden or 3/0 Partners, LLC. He has not demonstrated that he has an ownership interest in the property. PERMIT APPLICATION In a Notice to Deny Permit dated March 23, 1998, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application was denied. Respondent's notice gave the following reasons for denying the application: The Limited Access Right of Way and fence were not shown on the plans. A field review found this proposed connection within the Limited Access Right of Way. This section of State Road 281 is a Limited Access Facility, in conjunction with I-10. Access to the property can not be permitted through the Limited Access Fence or across the Limited Access Right of Way. Access rights were acquired for the construction of I-10 and the interchanges. Access can not be permitted to the ramps or ramp tapers. On or about April 7, 1998, Petitioner provided Respondent with a revised Driveway Permit Drawing showing the Limited Access Right-of-Way and fence. Petitioner admitted in a telephone conversation with Respondent's permit engineer that a previous owner had been compensated for the loss of access to Avolon Boulevard when the I-10 interchange was constructed. The subject property did not have an existing driveway connection when the I-10 interchange was constructed. The Shell service station and the used car lot, which are located at the Avolon Boulevard interchange, had existing driveway connections before the interchange was constructed. Similarly, driveway sites near the intersection of Davis Highway, in Escambia County, and I-10, were in existence at the time the I-10 interchange ramps were constructed. These existing driveways were allowed to remain after construction of the ramps. New driveway connections would not be permitted at these locations. Permits will not be granted if these properties undergo a substantial change in use which requires a change in permitting. Petitioner's description of the location of the off ramp, ramp taper, and limited access area of Avolon Boulevard are erroneous. The proposed driveway for the subject property is located in the off ramp lane. Federal highway regulations require control of connections beyond the ramp terminal of an interchange for at least 100 feet in urban areas and 300 feet in rural areas. This control for connections to crossroads must be effected by purchase of access rights, providing frontage roads, controlling added corner right-of-way areas, or denying driveway permits. Petitioner's proposed driveway would be located within 300 feet from the end of the taper of the off ramp. Federal regulations prohibit the issuance of a new connection permit for a site within that area. Additionally, Petitioner's proposed driveway connection would cause a safety and operational problem on the state highway system due to its location in the off ramp of the I-10 interchange. There is no persuasive evidence that Santa Rosa County has abandoned the street which is adjacent to Lot 13 and the Shell station, 32nd Avenue. Petitioner did not establish that there is no legal access from Lot 13 to Avolon Boulevard other than by issuance of the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's appeal for lack of standing and/or dismissing Petitioner's appeal on its merits. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Hugh Allen Oden 8612 Westview Lane Pensacola, Florida 32514 James C. Myers, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s intended award of a lease for office space to a bidder other than Petitioner was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, on or about May 18, 1998, advertised and released RFP for Lease No. 800:0184 in order to procure approximately 5,000 square feet of office space in Lake City, Florida. Three timely filed proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. One of the submissions was determined to be nonresponsive and rejected. The two other proposals submitted by Petitioner and William and Willene Giles (Giles) were deemed responsive and evaluated by Respondent personnel. Site visits were made to each of the proposed sites. The sites were then evaluated using a numerical scoring system. Respondent’s initial posting of bid results on August 4, 1998, indicated a tentative award of the lease to Giles. Giles received a total score of 88.5 points. Petitioner received the maximum points with respect to cost, but was given only a total of 75.7 points. The RFP clearly requires that a bidder must provide a site layout drawn to scale which indicates the facility location and dimensions of each parking space. Also, the number of parking spaces assigned to other tenants must be identified. A bidder must agree to provide 25 parking spaces on site for use by Respondent. The site plan submitted with the Giles proposal shows five of the required parking spaces are located on property abutting the Giles property. Those five parking spaces do not currently exist on that property. No ingress or egress is shown on the site plan, although such is required by the RFP. The Giles bid should demonstrate requisite control over the adjacent property utilized in that bid. Such is not the case. Documents submitted to indicate control of the property by Giles are deficient. In addition to holders of life estates in the property, fee owners of the property must also agree to use of the property in conjunction with the lease between Giles and Respondent. The evidence does not establish that the fee owners have provided their consent. Testimony of Mary Goodman, an expert witness on behalf of Petitioner, establishes that the Giles’ bid did not demonstrate the requisite control of the property, specifically the parking area, required by the RFP at the time of bid opening. The Giles bid was not responsive. Petitioner’s bid identifies and offers for lease space in the Lake City Professional Plaza. The drawing submitted with the bid mistakenly identifies the area of the proposed lease space as “Grant Plaza.” Additionally, Petitioner’s bid did not contain a Public Entity Crime Addendum as required by the RFP. Failure to meet this requirement, by terms of the RFP, “will result in immediate disqualification of your proposal.” Other errors in Petitioner’s bid include the drawing submitted in the bid response which depicts parking. The drawing indicates that there are “new” parking spaces which are to be 10 feet wide by 19 feet deep. Under local land use regulations, new regular parking spaces must be 10 feet by 21 feet with a requirement that handicapped spaces measure 12 feet by 20 feet. Petitioner’s bid fails to comport with applicable local land use regulations. On page 2 of the RFP, Respondent reserves the right to reject any and all proposals which are not responsive. Neither the Giles’ bid nor the Petitioner’s is found to be responsive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding none of the bids to be responsive and making such other disposition as may be deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Helton, Jr., Esquire Scott C. Wright, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker and Varkas 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Calvin Ross, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Janet Ferris, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
Findings Of Fact Lawrence Morehouse is employed as a full time faculty member by the University of South Florida (USF). At all times material to this case, parking of vehicles on the campus is regulated by USF authorities. USF parking regulations are enforced by personnel of the USF Division of Parking Services from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday. At all other times, USF parking regulations are enforced by campus police. A campus parking regulation violation is documented by a handheld electronic ticketing device which records the information and prints a notice of the violation. The printed notice is left at the vehicle for the driver to discover. A driver who believes a citation to be unfair may immediately bring the ticket to the counter clerk at the offices of the USF Division of Parking Services. The clerk is authorized to waive the fine if the individual circumstances of the case warrant waiver. The clerk records the waiver in the Division of Parking Services database. A written notice of the waiver is provided by the clerk upon the driver's request. In addition to appeal via the counter clerk, an aggrieved driver may also meet with a University Parking Appeals Mediator to discuss the matter. The driver may also file a written appeal of the ticket. If a driver remains unsatisfied after the matter is adjudicated by the mediator or by the committee which reviews written appeals, the driver may appeal the ticket to the USF Final Appeals Committee. The committee is made up of students, faculty and staff. A late fee of $13 is added to each fine imposed if the ticket remains unpaid more than ten days after adjudication is final. On June 14, 1993, Mr. Morehouse received a ticket for parking facing the direction of the traffic, a violation of campus parking restrictions. The fine for this violation is $10. Mr. Morehouse asserts that he immediately spoke to the counter clerk about the June 14 ticket and the fine was waived. There is no documentation to support his assertion. The testimony is not persuasive. On June 20, 1993, October 6, 1993, December 8, 1993, June 2, 1994 and June 7, 1994, notices of violation were provided to Mr. Morehouse for parking without a current university tag on his car. Mr. Morehouse testified that on one of these occasions, he filed a written notice of appeal. Although a hearing was convened, Mr. Morehouse did not attend the hearing because of a scheduling conflict. He did not inform appeals committee members of the conflict or advised them that he would not attend the hearing. There is no evidence that Mr. Morehouse made any attempt to appeal the four other tickets he received for parking without a current USF tag. The six tickets remain unpaid. An additional $13 late fee has been imposed on each ticket. Delinquency notices on all the tickets were sent to Mr. Morehouse. He made no apparent effort to respond to the notices. Toward the end of 1994, the matter was referred by USF Parking Services division to the USF Division of Finance and Accounting collections manager. The collections office issued monthly bills for the sum of the fines to Mr. Morehouse for approximately six months. There is no evidence that Mr. Morehouse responded to the billing. At the close of the six month billing period, a certified letter was sent to Mr. Morehouse, stating that the amount could be deducted from his paycheck and advising of his right to a hearing. Mr. Morehouse requested a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the University of South Florida enter a Final Order deducting the lump sum of $188 from the next salary warrant issued to Lawrence Morehouse. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2718 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Castor, President Office of the President University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 241 Tampa, Florida 33620 Noreen Segrest, Esquire Acting General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620 Debra A. King, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620 Lawrence Morehouse 2610 Drumwood Place Valrico, Florida 33594
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of her disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bernice Buchanan, an 81-year-old female, lives in a condominium at 700 Seabrook Court, Unit 103, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The condominium unit was purchased by Petitioner and is within the Key West Condominiums complex. Respondent, Key West Condominium Association, Inc. ("Key West Association"), a not-for-profit corporation, is responsible for the operation of Key West Condominiums, which consists of 60 units. Petitioner has a meniscus tear in her right knee, arthritis in her right knee and right shoulder, and degenerative discs in her lumbar and cervical spine. As a result of the degenerative discs, there are no ligaments between Petitioner's bones in the affected area, thereby causing the degenerated discs to push on her muscles and nerves. Moreover, because there are no ligaments in the affected areas, Petitioner has a problem with balance and must walk very slowly. Finally, because of Petitioner's degenerative disc condition, Petitioner has severe pain when she walks, sits, or lies down. Petitioner's physician, John F. Ryan, M.D., submitted documentation which stated that Petitioner is not allowed to lift more than 15 pounds due to her degenerative discs and severe knee pain. Also, Dr. Ryan indicated that because of the severe pain in Petitioner's right knee, she is limited in walking, even moderate distances. Petitioner's degenerative disc condition and knee pain are permanent disabilities. Petitioner anticipates having surgery that may reduce or alleviate the pain caused by the degenerative discs. She is also contemplating having knee replacement surgery which should help the right knee. However, unless and until Petitioner has the surgeries, it is impossible to know if those procedures will alleviate her pain and/or otherwise improve her impaired mobility issues. While surgery may possibly improve some of Petitioner's medical conditions, that is not an option with regard to her arthritis. Petitioner is not aware of any surgery or other medical procedure that will improve and/or alleviate the pain she is experiencing due to the arthritis in her knee and shoulder. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of her physicians have recommended any such procedure. Although Petitioner's ability to walk is impaired, she does not presently use any walking devices such as a cane or walker. Petitioner's ability to drive is not impacted by her medical conditions and associated physical impairments. In fact, Petitioner regularly drives to places such as the grocery store, church, and to visit family. The Key West Condominium complex has three types of parking spaces: (1) assigned garage spaces1; (2) unassigned uncovered non-handicap parking spaces ("regular parking spaces"); and (3) unassigned uncovered handicap parking spaces ("handicapped parking spaces"). Petitioner has an assigned garage space which is located in a bank of four garages. That assigned parking space is about ten feet wide. The regular parking spaces are not assigned and may be used by homeowners, residents and visitors on a "first come, first serve basis." The handicap parking spaces are not assigned and may be used by the homeowners and residents of Key West Condominiums and their visitors who have appropriate handicap decals. There is one handicap parking space located to the left of the bank of garages where Petitioner's garage space is located. Also, there are several regular parking spaces to the right of that garage bank. Because Petitioner's assigned garage is only ten feet wide, it is difficult for her to enter and exit her small Toyota sedan when it is parked in the garage. Nonetheless, provided Petitioner does not have groceries or packages to remove from her car, the garage space is "adequate." Due to the width of Petitioner's assigned garage, when Petitioner parks her car in that space, the car doors cannot be opened wide enough to allow her to remove groceries or packages from her vehicle. Thus, when Petitioner has groceries or packages to unload from her vehicle, in order to unload them, she must park in a space other than her assigned garage space. When Petitioner has groceries and/or other packages to unload and carry into her unit, she usually parks in a regular parking space in front of and close to her condominium unit. When Petitioner parks in the regular parking spaces, it is easier for her to unload the groceries from her car and carry them to her unit. If all of the regular parking spaces in front of her building are occupied by other vehicles, Petitioner has sometimes double-parked behind those vehicles. In those instances, Petitioner would unload the groceries or packages from her car, take them into her condominium unit, and then return to her car and park it in her assigned garage. Petitioner no longer double parks behind vehicles parked in the regular parking spaces when she has groceries and/or packages to unload from her car and take to her condominium. The reason is that Petitioner found that double parking and walking behind parked vehicles to unload her groceries was dangerous. When Petitioner has groceries or packages to take into her condominium and no regular parking spaces are available, she must park across the street and wait until a space becomes available. In such instances, Petitioner reported that she sometimes had to wait for up to 25 minutes for an available space. Petitioner's decreased mobility and impaired ability to walk, even moderate distances, and her lifting restrictions significantly impair her ability to retrieve groceries and packages from her car and carry them into her unit. Petitioner's assigned garage is 47 feet and nine inches from the front door of her unit. The handicap space to the left of the garage bank is 90 feet from the front door of Petitioner's unit. The regular parking space to the right of the garage bank, which Petitioner sometimes uses, is 38 feet from Petitioner's front door. In a letter dated May 15, 2007, Petitioner requested that the Key West Association provide her with a parking space close to her unit marked "Handicapped Parking" and designated only for her. Petitioner noted that she did not need space for a wheelchair. Finally, Petitioner advised Key West Association that the request was based on medical reasons. At the time Petitioner wrote the May 15, 2007, letter, there was a handicap parking space with the painted markings of a handicap parking space. However, that handicap parking space did not have a "handicap parking" sign designating that space as such. In her May 15, 2007, letter, Petitioner advised the Key West Association that the handicap parking space referenced in paragraph 29 would not meet her needs because it was too far for her to carry her groceries. In June 2007, the Key West Association Board of Directors ("Board"), denied Petitioner's request for the regular parking space closest to her unit to be designated as a "handicap parking" space reserved for her use only.2 Instead, the Board directed Petitioner to use the handicap parking space to the left of the garage bank. The Board also notified Petitioner that it would reinstall the "Handicapped Parking" sign"3 at the above-referenced handicap parking space. The Board did not designate the handicap parking space for Petitioner's exclusive use. Therefore, it could be used by any Key West Condominium homeowner or resident or their visitors with a handicap decal. The handicap parking space that the Board made available for use by Petitioner is located between two garage banks so that the handicap space is bordered on each side by a wall of the abutting garage bank. As noted above, the handicap parking space that the Board told Petitioner to use is 90 feet from the front door of Petitioner's condominium; this is 52 feet farther than the regular parking space in front of Petitioner's building. The Board's June 2007, denial letter expressed concern about the cost of constructing the handicap parking space. Additionally, the Board noted that construction of a new handicap parking space would result in the loss of two non-handicap parking spaces. (This was because two non-handicap parking spaces were needed to construct one handicap parking space.) By letter dated September 12, 2007, Petitioner advised the Key West Association that she was still having problems with parking. Petitioner reiterated that the handicap parking space, which the Board had opened for use (by re-installing the handicap parking sign), was too far for her to carry her groceries and other items (90 feet from the front door of her unit). Petitioner also noted that she had the following problems with the handicap parking space: (1) The handicap parking space was often occupied by a vehicle with no handicap decal; (2) Petitioner was required to exit her vehicle on the side of the parking space next to the wall of the garage bank; and (3) After exiting the handicap space, she could only access the sidewalk to her unit by stepping over a curb into the grass or walking around her car to the other side.4 Based on the problems enunciated in her September 12, 2007, letter, Petitioner again requested a "handicapped parking space closest to [her] building without having to walk in between cars." Petitioner wanted the requested handicap parking space to be for her exclusive use. Along with Petitioner's letter was a note from her physician, Dr. John Ryan, which supported her request for a handicap parking space. Dr. Ryan's note stated, "[d]ue to her [Petitioner's] medical condition, I request that [Petitioner] be assigned a parking area closest to her building. She requires a handicap space." There is no evidence that the Key West Association ever responded in writing to Petitioner's September 12, 2007, request or asked for additional information about her medical condition. Reggie Caruso, the deputy building official, is the principal plan reviewer for new and large construction projects, including condominium complexes, for the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida. Mr. Caruso is familiar with the parking requirements for condominium complexes, and his office enforces the laws and regulations applicable thereto. Unless otherwise exempt, condominium complexes are required to have a certain number of handicap parking spaces. However, except for the public areas, the Key West Association has the discretion to place the handicap parking spaces wherever it chooses and/or where such spaces are needed. Section 553.5041, Florida Statutes (2008),5 regulates parking spaces for persons with disabilities (i.e., handicap parking spaces) and applies to Key West Condominiums. Subsection 553.5041(5)(c)1., Florida Statutes, provides that: (1) handicap parking spaces be no less than 12 feet wide; (2) the parking access aisle be no less than five feet wide and be placed adjacent to the handicap parking space; and (3) the access aisle be part of an accessible route to the building or facility entrance. Also see Sections 11-4.6.2(1) and 11-4.6.3, Florida Building Code.6 Subsection 553.5041(4), Florida Statutes, provides that the number of "accessible parking spaces" (handicap parking spaces) must comply with the parking requirements in Section 4.1.2(5)(a) of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") Accessibility Guidelines. These requirements have been adopted and are in Section 11-4.1.2(5)(a) of the Florida Building Code. The number of handicap parking spaces in the Key West Condominium complex complies with applicable law, if the handicap parking space discussed below that does not meet minimum legal requirements, is counted. Subsection 553.5041(4)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that "[t]he number of parking spaces for persons who have disabilities must be increased on the basis of demonstrated and documented need." In or about mid-November 2008, Mr. Caruso inspected the handicap parking space that the Board advised Petitioner to use. That inspection revealed two areas in which that handicap space and the adjacent access aisle were not in compliance with Subsection 553.5041(5)(c)1., Florida Statutes, and the Florida Building Code.7 The first area of non-compliance involves the width of the handicap parking space and adjacent access aisle. Here, the handicap parking space, including the adjacent access aisle, is tapered and has a width that ranges from 16 feet to 18 feet. Accordingly, at certain points, the handicap parking space, including the adjacent access aisle, is only 16 feet wide, not 17 feet, the prescribed minimum width. During the inspection, Mr. Caruso observed that a "fixed" building (a bank of garages) was on each side of the handicap parking space, including access aisle. Thus, Mr. Caruso determined that there is no reasonable way to change the space so that the minimum width of the handicap parking space and adjacent access aisle is 17 feet at all points as prescribed in Subsection 553.5041(5)(c)1., Florida Statutes.8 The second area of non-compliance concerns the requirement that the access aisle be connected to an accessible route. During his inspection of the handicap parking space, Mr. Caruso observed that there is no direct route from the handicap parking space's adjacent access aisle to a sidewalk. Instead, there is a five-inch high curb which obstructs the accessible route. Consequently, the access aisle is not connected to the access route (sidewalk) to the building in which is located Petitioner's unit or any other building in the complex. Mr. Caruso testified credibly that to establish an accessible route from the access aisle (adjacent to the handicap parking space), part of the five-inch high curb would have to be removed and the concrete would have to be extended from the access aisle to the sidewalk. The removal of the curb would result in compliance with the requirement in Subsection 553.5041(5)(c)1., Florida Statutes, that the access aisle connect with and is "part of an accessible route to the building." Also, the removal of the curb would make the space safe because persons using the space would no longer have to step over the five-inch high curb to get to the accessible route. Even if the curb is removed, the parking space, including access aisles, would still not be in compliance with law because the space does not meet the minimum width requirement of 17 feet prescribed in Subsection 553.5041(5)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Moreover, as noted above, because the handicap parking space is bordered on each side of a "fixed" building, it cannot reasonably be brought into compliance. Marty Boble is a planning and development review specialist for the City of Altamonte Springs. In that position, he determines compliance as it relates to the number of parking spaces on-site. In November 2008, Mr. Boble went to the Key West Condominium complex and inspected the property, including the above-referenced handicap parking space. He also reviewed the Key West Condominium plans, which showed the buildings and parking spaces in the complex. The Florida Building Code requires the Key West Condominium complex to have two parking spaces per dwelling. Key West Condominium, which counts its garage spaces as parking spaces, not only meets the requirement as to number of spaces per unit, but exceeds it by 20 spaces. To construct a new handicap parking space that complies with the legally prescribed width requires that two non-handicap parking spaces be used. Thus, the result of constructing a new handicap parking space would result in the loss of two existing regular parking spaces. Nonetheless, Key West Association would still be in compliance with the Code requirement of two parking spaces per unit because it currently has 20 more spaces than required.9 Petitioner's request for a handicap parking space near her condominium unit is reasonable. In light of her impaired ability to walk, even moderate distances, and her lifting restrictions, Petitioner is unable to retrieve groceries and other packages from her vehicle and take them to her unit. Without an accommodation for her handicap, Petitioner cannot have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy her condominium unit. In this case, Petitioner has a disability which significantly impairs her ability to walk. Thus, Respondent is required to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. As of the date of this proceeding, Respondent has not provided any accommodation to Petitioner. The reasonable accommodation that Respondent should provide is to convert non-handicap or regular parking spaces into a handicap parking space. This remedy is required due to the non-compliance issue of the handicap space which cannot be corrected.10 By converting two non-handicap or regular parking spaces to one handicap parking space, Respondent will be able to construct and provide a handicap parking space that complies with applicable law and regulations. The accommodation offered by the Key West Association and its Board is not a reasonable one. As noted above, the handicap parking space offered to Petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Subsection 553.5041(5)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Moreover, the Key West Association failed to take steps to bring that parking space into partial compliance and to make it safe for Petitioner's use, although it had more than a year to do so. Finally, even though it was clearly established that Petitioner needed a space closer to her unit, the Key West Association and its Board offered her a space that was not only unsafe and non-compliant with law, but was further away from her unit. The Declaration of Condominium for Key West provides that material alterations of common elements, such as regular parking spaces, require approval of two-thirds of the owners at a properly noticed meeting. Despite the Key West Association's position, use of two regular parking spaces to construct a handicap space is a material alteration, it never called a meeting for that purpose.
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 Respondent, Key West Condominium Association, Inc., discriminated against Petitioner, Bernice Buchanan, under the FFHA by refusing to make a reasonable accommodation for her handicap; Ordering Respondent to cease the discriminatory practice; and Ordering Respondent to provide a handicap parking space close to Petitioner's condominium unit. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 29th day of May, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Rutenberg Corporation were the only bidders on lease No. 700:0490 to provide approximately 7500 square feet of office space to Respondent. Item 7 of the bid proposal relating to parking spaces is the only portion of the Rutenberg bid proposal challenged by Petitioner. That section specifies that 60-70 off-street parking spaces must be provided by the lessor for the exclusive use of the employees and the clients of the lessee at no additional charges to the lessee. The parking spaces so provided must be under the control of the bidder and suitably paved, lined, etc. The bid response, to be completed by the bidder, provided three options for the bidder to meet the 60-70 parking spaces requirements. Rutenberg's bid was: 30 exclusive spaces available on site and no cost to the lessee; exclusive spaces available off- site at no cost to the lessee; or As An Option 133 non-exclusive spaces available at no cost to lessee. Space located adjacent to building from proposed facility. (distance) Item 7 is a standard provision of bid proposal forms utilized by State of Florida agencies in leasing office accommodations. This item provides three options for the bidder to provide parking so long as the space so provided is under the control of the bidder. These are the three listed in finding 3 above. So long as the bid proposal provides the required parking space utilizing the available options the bid is responsive. Accordingly, the bid submitted by Rutenberg is a responsive bid. Further, the Rutenberg bid was substantially below the bid submitted by Petitioner. In fact, Petitioner's bid exceeded the Respondent's budget by a considerable sum and, even if the Rutenberg bid was found to be unresponsive, it is doubtful the bid could have been awarded to Petitioner due to budgetary limitations. Here Petitioner does not contend that the bid should have been awarded to him.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Professional Center IV to have the bid of Rutenberg found to be unresponsive be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1989 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Dugger, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 James C. Hartley, Pro Se 4200 Fourth Street, North St. Petersburg, FL 33703 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
