The Issue This is an appeal from a resolution of the Monroe County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") granting the application of Barry J. Mankowitz, M.D., for a variance from the off-street parking requirements of the Monroe County Code. The appeal was transferred from the Planning Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article XIV, Monroe County Code, the Hearing Officer Appellate Article. The issue presented in the appeal is whether Resolution No. P33-97 of the Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed, or modified.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Paradise One Realty, discriminated against Petitioner, Yanira Santoni, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act; and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact On May 1, 2014, Petitioner rented an apartment in Kissimmee, Florida, for a one-year term. The apartment Petitioner rented is owned by James and Marcela Stanislau (the “Owners”). Paradise One served as the management company for the property and was in charge of leasing the unit. Paradise One is owned by Beverly Simmons-Henry (“Ms. Simmons”), who is a licensed real estate agent. Ms. Simmons handled the rental transaction for the apartment Petitioner rented. Petitioner first approached Ms. Simmons seeking to rent an apartment in April 2014. At that time, Paradise One was attempting to sell the Owner’s apartment. Paradise One had not been successful in attracting a buyer. Therefore, the Owners were amenable to allowing Paradise One rent the apartment until a buyer could be found. Petitioner rented the apartment through HUD’s Section 8 program. Under Section 8, HUD assists qualified participants pay for housing. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. To rent a dwelling using Section 8 funds in Kissimmee, Florida, the participant applies through the Osceola County Human Services office (the “Housing Authority”). Using Section 8 funds, the Housing Authority pays most of the monthly rent on a leased unit directly to the landlord. The program participant pays the balance of the rent. Lizette Pagan works as a Section 8 Program Coordinator for the Housing Authority. Ms. Pagan assisted Petitioner secure a housing voucher from Section 8 to rent the apartment from Paradise One. Ms. Pagan testified that the maximum housing allowance Petitioner could receive through the Section 8 program in 2014 was $729 a month. If the property owner/landlord agreed to rent to the participant, they must accept the housing allowance calculated by Section 8 and no more. The property owner/landlord’s agreement to rent to a Section 8 participant is completely voluntary. In 2014, Paradise One had listed the rental price for the apartment at $775 a month. However, Ms. Simmons agreed to lease the apartment to Petitioner through Section 8 for the reduced rate of $729 a month. Of the $729 rental amount, Section 8 paid $559. Petitioner paid the balance of $170.00. Per Section 8 policy, Petitioner could only enter a one-year lease for the apartment. Petitioner conceded that she could not have rented the apartment without the assistance of the Section 8 program. Ms. Pagan further explained that if a landlord desired to renew the lease at a higher rental amount following the first lease term, Section 8 would conduct a reasonableness study to ensure that the new lease amount was reasonable within the market area. Ms. Pagan stated that the payment standard for a one- bedroom apartment in Osceola County in 2015 would have been approximately $794.00, including utilities. If, however, Section 8 found the new rental amount unreasonable, Section 8 would reject the lease, and the landlord would be free to either renew the lease at the “reasonable” amount or not participate in the Section 8 program. Ms. Pagan was not aware of any legal obligation for a property owner/landlord to renew a Section 8 lease beyond the first year.2/ Ms. Simmons testified that the Owners were not pleased to learn that Paradise One had rented their property through the Section 8 program because they had had problems with Section 8 leases in the past. Therefore, the Owners instructed Ms. Simmons to keep their apartment unit on the market for sale. The apartment remained for sale during the year Petitioner rented the property. Before signing the lease agreement, Petitioner expressed to Ms. Simmons that she desired a two-year lease. Ms. Simmons informed Petitioner that the Owners would only rent the apartment for one year because they still desired to sell the unit. Therefore, Petitioner signed a one-year lease that ran from May 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. However, Petitioner testified that Ms. Simmons told her that if she complied with all the rules and regulations of her housing assistance program, she could stay in the apartment for two years. Petitioner practices Santeria. Petitioner described the Santeria religion as similar to Catholicism, but presented in “an African way.” Petitioner expressed that she believes in the same God and Jesus as the Catholic Church. As described in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 524, 113 S. Ct. 2217, 2222 (1993): [T]he Santeria religion . . . originated in the 19th century. When hundreds of thousands of members of the Yoruba people were brought as slaves from western Africa to Cuba, their traditional African religion absorbed significant elements of Roman Catholicism. The resulting syncretion, or fusion, is Santeria, "the way of the saints." [Those who practice Santeria] express their devotion to spirits, called orishas, through the iconography of Catholic saints, Catholic symbols are often present at Santeria rites, and Santeria devotees attend the Catholic sacraments. * * * The Santeria faith teaches that every individual has a destiny from God, a destiny fulfilled with the aid and energy of the orishas. The basis of the Santeria religion is the nurture of a personal relation with the orishas . . . . Petitioner stated that her religion was passed down to her from her mother and grandmother. Santeria encourages its adherents to maintain certain religious objects throughout their homes. These items assist one in prayers to God and the orishas (saints), as well as cleanse the house from evil spirits. True to her faith, shortly after moving into the apartment, Petitioner arranged a number of religious artifacts throughout her dwelling. Next to her front door, she placed a coconut. The coconut represents “Eleggua,” the most important “saint” who opens doors to conduct one to the right spot in their journey through life. Eleggua allows good to pass into a home and keeps harm out. Petitioner also located a pot in her living room that she used to pray to Eleggua. In addition, Petitioner displayed an Indian (Native American) figure on a table in her living room. Petitioner also propped machetes on either side of her front door, in all the corners of her front room, and in the form of crosses on her walls. The machetes served to cut negative energy from coming inside her home. Petitioner sat a rag doll in a rocking chair and leaned a stick against a wall to represent her guardian angels. Petitioner set out dozens of cups of water throughout the apartment. The water served to refresh angels who visited her home, as well as to absorb negative energy. Petitioner also lit candles to the Santos (saints) as part of her prayers. The specific discriminatory act about which Petitioner complains is that Paradise One (through Ms. Simmons) refused to renew her lease to the apartment beyond the first year. Despite Petitioner’s belief that Ms. Simmons promised that she could rent the apartment for two years, in a conversation before her lease term ended, Ms. Simmons announced to Petitioner that Paradise One was not going to rent the apartment to her any longer. During this conversation, Petitioner heard Ms. Simmons make several questionable comments about her religious practices. Petitioner concluded that Ms. Simmons’ denial of her request to renew her lease was based on her religion. Petitioner testified that she did not tell Paradise One or anyone else at the apartment complex that she practiced Santeria. Therefore, Petitioner surmised that the only way Ms. Simmons knew about her religion was if someone had disclosed this fact to Paradise One, or if they had seen the inside of her apartment and observed her religious objects. At the final hearing, Petitioner described an event that occurred in June 2014, when a maintenance man entered her apartment to perform repairs. During his visit, the maintenance man became nervous upon seeing all of her religious artifacts. Following this visit, Petitioner expressed that Ms. Simmons’ attitude towards her completely changed. Although she did not know for sure, Petitioner believes that the maintenance man reported what he saw to Ms. Simmons.3/ Following this incident, Petitioner believes that Ms. Simmons reached unfounded and unjustified conclusions regarding her religious beliefs. Petitioner believes that when Ms. Simmons learned that she practiced Santeria, Ms. Simmons decided not to allow her to remain on the property or to renew the lease to the apartment. Petitioner asserts that Ms. Simmons did not appreciate or understand Santeria and believed that she worships the devil and practices witchcraft. At the final hearing, both parties described a notable encounter between Petitioner and Ms. Simmons involving mustard seeds. In March or April 2015, Petitioner and a male companion visited the Paradise One office hoping to talk to Ms. Simmons. Petitioner intended to ask Ms. Simmons if she could renew her lease for the apartment. Ms. Simmons was not present in the office at that time. Therefore, Petitioner left shortly thereafter. Upon returning to her office, Ms. Simmons detected small seeds scattered across the lobby floor. Ms. Simmons later viewed a video recording of the lobby which appeared to show that Petitioner’s companion, while sitting in the lobby, reached into his pocket, pulled out a handful of some substance (the seeds), and tossed it discreetly onto the floor. After examining the seeds, Ms. Simmons believed they were mustard seeds. Ms. Simmons called Petitioner to discuss the incident. During this phone call, Ms. Simmons informed Petitioner that she would not be offered the opportunity to renew her lease for a second year. Ms. Simmons told Petitioner that the Owners were selling the property. Petitioner testified that during their conversation, Ms. Simmons called her a “witch.” Petitioner further claimed that Ms. Simmons accused her of practicing voodoo and that she had evil artifacts and demonic saints displayed throughout her apartment. Ms. Pagan of the Housing Authority recalls a similar conversation with Ms. Simmons in March 2015. Ms. Pagan had called Ms. Simmons after Petitioner complained that Paradise One had wrongfully retained a portion of her security deposit.4/ Ms. Pagan testified that Ms. Simmons told her that Petitioner was practicing witchcraft in her unit and that such activity violated her apartment lease. Ms. Pagan also relayed that Ms. Simmons told her that a pregnant employee of Paradise One, who was supposed to perform a move-out inspection of Petitioner's unit, was afraid to go into the apartment for fear of the safety of her unborn child. Ms. Simmons recalled talking to both Petitioner and Ms. Pagan about the mustard seed incident. However, she denied making any statements to them about Petitioner’s religion. Ms. Simmons testified that the only thing she discussed with Ms. Pagan was the return of Petitioner's security deposit. Despite the comments she alleges Ms. Simmons made, Petitioner stated that no one from Paradise One prevented her from practicing Santeria while she rented the apartment. Neither was she instructed to remove her religious items from the property. At the final hearing, Ms. Simmons denied refusing to renew Petitioner’s lease agreement based on her religion. Ms. Simmons stated that she had never been inside Petitioner's apartment to see her religious objects. Ms. Simmons denied ever discussing Santeria with Petitioner. Ms. Simmons testified that she had no knowledge of Petitioner's religious beliefs until around April 2015. Ms. Simmons further denied ever agreeing to allow Petitioner to remain in the property for two years. Ms. Simmons explained that Paradise One did not offer Petitioner the opportunity to renew her lease because the Owners desired to sell the apartment. Ms. Simmons relayed that the Owners had purchased the property as an investment. The Section 8 rental price, however, adversely affected their ability to sell or lease the property. The reduced rental price made it difficult for the Owners to justify their desired sale price or a higher lease amount. It did not make financial sense to potential buyers to purchase the property if the prospective return on the investment was only the Section 8 rental amount. Ms. Simmons asserted that the Owners, not she, made the ultimate decision not to renew the lease with Petitioner for a second year. Ms. Simmons expressed that she notified Petitioner in January 2015 that the Owners did not intend to re-rent the apartment to Petitioner. Petitioner acknowledged the Owners’ decision in a letter she wrote to the Housing Authority, dated February 2, 2015. However, Petitioner explained that when she authored the letter, she was under the impression that the Owners had already sold the property. On February 20, 2015, Ms. Simmons prepared a letter officially notifying Petitioner that her lease would not be renewed. Ms. Simmons represented that she delivered the letter to Petitioner. Petitioner denied receiving this letter. After leaving the apartment at the end of April 2015, Petitioner continued in the Section 8 program in another county and located another apartment to rent. On May 1, 2015, Paradise One re-rented the apartment for $800.00 to a non-Section 8 renter. The same tenant renewed the lease in 2016 for $825.00. As of the date of the final hearing, despite Ms. Simmons’ representation to Petitioner that the Owners were selling the apartment, the unit remains unsold and is, in fact, being advertised for rental. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, Petitioner did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence that Paradise One discriminated against her based on her religion in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Paradise One, did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner, Yanira Santoni, and dismiss her Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 25th day of January, 2017.
The Issue Whether the construction activity was begun within the 45 day period within which the issuance of the permit by the city could have been challenged and was not in compliance with local codes and ordinances.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Community Affairs is the state land planning agency empowered to enforce the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. (Section 380.031-.032, F.S.). Billy Marlar owns and operates the Rainbow Motel, located at 123 Water Street, Apalachicola, Florida. (R. 9) Petitioner Marlar is the record title holder of wharf lots 13 and 14 in the City of Apalachicola according to the map or plat commonly used. Lots 13 and 14 are held in the name of Rainbow Motel and Marina. Lots 13 and 14 are located within the Riverfront District, as identified in the Land Development Code of the City of Apalachicola. (R. 57) Old plats reflect that the dimensions of wharf lots 13 and 14 are 206.54 feet wide and approximately 70 feet deep, or 14,250.75 square feet. Over the years, sand has accreted to the eastern boundary of these wharf lots and for the past 35 years there have been improved structures on the eastern boundary of the property. Although the Franklin County tax rolls reflect wharf lots 13 and 14 as being approximately 200 feet wide by 180 feet deep, the Rainbow Hotel is built on pilings over water or land which is tidal. Inspection of the property reveals that the water line of the Apalachicola Bay lies approximately at the western edge of the main portion of the hotel. On May 13, 1988, Billy Marlar applied for a permit to construct a concrete parking lot on wharf lots 13 and 14 in the City of Apalachicola. (Rainbow Exhibit 2) On May 16, 1988, the Apalachicola Planning and Zoning Commission considered Mr. Marlar's application at a special meeting, and granted the permit application. (Rainbow Exhibit 9). On May 25, 1988, Permit No. 1172 was forwarded to the Department of Community Affairs for consideration as a development order. (Rainbow Exhibit 2). Prior to the permit being forwarded to DCA, construction of the parking lot commenced. A portion of the parking lot was poured on May 23, 1988, and the remainder of the parking lot was completed within 2 - 3 weeks of that date. (R. 50-51, 53). The Land Development Code provides that lot coverage within the Riverfront District shall contain a minimum of 50 percent pervious surface. The term "pervious surface" means that water will percolate through that surface that covers the earth. (R. 59). The concrete parking lot constructed by Billy Marlar on wharf lots 13 and 14 is not a pervious surface. (R. 70). The dimensions of the portion of the parking lot on lots 13 and 14 are 78 feet along the northern boundary, 205 feet along the eastern boundary, 78 feet along the southern boundary and 205 along western boundary. There is a planter in the southwestern corner which has approximately 704 square feet. The proposed finding submitted by the Department states that the parking lot contains 12,589.87 square feet, which will be the area used. (DCA Exhibit 1 and R. 71). The dimensions of the pervious surface of the property are based upon the area of the non-tidal portion of the two lots. The dimensions of the non- tidal area of the two lots are determined from resolution of the conflicts in the testimony and evidence presented and an examination of the property. The western boundary is 215 feet; northern boundary is 112 feet; eastern boundary is 215 feet; and southern boundary is 122.5 feet. The total non-tidal area of the two lots based upon these dimensions is 25,208 square feet. (Rainbow Exhibit 3). Although the records of the Franklin County Property Appraiser's Officer indicated the dimensions of wharf lots 13 and 14 were 200 feet wide by 180 feet deep, a substantial portion of the eastern boundary of that area is submerged. (Rainbow Exhibit 3 and 5, R. 32). Conflicting evidence was presented as to the dimensions of the non-tidal property from the street frontage to the mean high water line. The drawings show a meander line along the mean high water line; however, observation revealed water under the majority of the hotel, particularly on the northeast corner. Based upon those observations, the eastern boundary on non-tidal land is computed as a straight line parallel to the western edge of the longest portion of the hotel and five (5) feet to the east of longest portion of the hotel running from southern boundary to the northern boundary. See pencil additions to Rainbow Exhibit 3 made by fact finder after observation of the property pursuant to motion. A portion of the Rainbow Motel and the Pot Restaurant extend over the water. (R. 32 and Rainbow Exhibit 3). A portion of the hotel approximately 21.9 feet by 17.3 feet and 5 feet by 136.32 feet is located on the pervious surface of lots 13 and 14. Approximately 33% of the restaurant, the dimensions of which are 47 by 46 feet, is located on the pervious surface of lot 13. The buildings cover a total of 1,781 square feet. The total impervious surface on lots 14 and 13 is 14,371 square feet. The total non-tidal area of the two lots is 25,209 square feet. The impervious surface must be reduced by 1767 square feet. (R. 76).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring Billy Marlar and Rainbow Hotel to bring the project into compliance within 30 days by removal of 1767 square feet of impervious surface from the non-tidal portions of lots 13 and 14. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August, 1989. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1989. ANNEX A Consideration of Proposed Findings of Fact The proposed findings of the Department of Community Affairs were read and considered as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted. Paragraph 11 The proposed dimensions are rejected as being contrary to the best evidence of the dimensions of the non-tidal area of the two lots. Paragraphs 12 & 13 Adopted. The proposed findings of Marlar and Rainbow Hotel were read and considered as follows: Paragraphs 1 & 2 Adopted. Paragraph 3 The existence of non-tidal land to a depth of 180 feet is rejected as contrary to the best evidence. Paragraph 4 & 5 Substantially adopted. Paragraphs 6 & 7 Rejected as a finding, although included as portions of the conclusions of law or statement of case. Paragraph 8 Some land has accreted; however, that the accretion is all pervious surface is rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 9 The stormwater management plan is irrelevant to how much of the pervious area of the two lots is covered with impervious structures. Paragraph 10 The city map is rejected as the best evidence of the area of the non-tidal area of the two lots. COPIES FURNISHED: L. Kathryn Funchess, Esquire David L. Jordan, Esquire C. Laurence Keesey, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Deborah Hardin-Wagner, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 J. Ben Watkins, Esquire 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32 320 J. Patrick Floyd, Esquire 408 Long Avenue Post Office Drawer 950 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Honorable Jimmy Nichols Mayor, City of Apalachicola Post Office Box 10 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Apalachicola Planning and Zoning Commission Post Office Box 10 Apalachicola, Florida 32320
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' application for site plan approval for a proposed renovation and addition to their restaurant should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this local land use dispute, Petitioners, Ypapanti and Sevasti Alexiou, who operate a restaurant under the name of Frenchy's Rockaway Grill, have appealed a decision by the Community Development Board (Board) to deny an application to renovate and expand their restaurant located at 7 Rockaway Street, Clearwater Beach, Florida. The Board, which is made up of seven local residents, acts as the local planning agency for Respondent, City of Clearwater (City). Although the City staff supports the project, the City is technically opposed to the application since the Board failed to approve the project by a 3-3 tie vote. In denying the application, the Board rejected the City staff's recommendation that the application be approved. Intervenor, Hunter Hotel Company, owns and operates a hotel known as Clearwater Beach Hotel which is contiguous to, and south of, Petitioners' property. It objects to the application on the grounds that "the criteria for the flexible development approval were not met nor proved, [and] that the relief requested [by Petitioners] is of such a magnitude that it is not warranted and cannot be allowed under the Code." As further clarified by Intervenor, the City's parking shortage in the Beach area is the "core issue on this appeal." Until the City solves the parking problem, Intervenor suggests that there should be a moratorium on development in the Beach area. Petitioners own and operate a popular and successful one-story restaurant and bar on a 0.38-acre lot at 7 Rockaway Street, Clearwater Beach, which fronts directly on the Gulf of Mexico. The property is zoned as a part of the City's Tourist District and is bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west, a municipal parking lot to the north, a motel on the east, and the Clearwater Beach Hotel on the south. Due to the small size of their lot, Petitioners seek to vertically expand their restaurant by adding a second story consisting of 3,487 square feet, including an approximately 2,300 square foot open deck and 1,200 square feet of enclosed area. Both sections will accommodate bar patrons and diners. Petitioners also intend to remove and replace a 945 square foot storage room attached to the south side of the building which is structurally unsound. To accomplish these changes, Petitioners will need "flexibility" in meeting setback and parking requirements. Because more than 95 percent of the City is now "built out," and very little land is vacant, the City has adopted comprehensive infill criteria for non-conforming structures, such as Petitioners' restaurant. The criteria which apply to Petitioners' project are found in Section 2- 803C. of the City of Clearwater Redevelopment Code (Code) and allow flexibility in promoting redevelopment and infill throughout the City, including the Clearwater Beach area. As pointed out by City staff, infill projects are often used on Clearwater Beach because there are so many non-conforming structures in that area. In determining whether a project should be given flexibility as an infill project, the City evaluates the proposed project against its infill criteria. Strict compliance with all criteria is not required, but rather the criteria are weighed or balanced collectively. If a project cannot meet a "significant number of [criteria], or a significant one in a meaningful way," then an applicant "would have problems [with gaining approval]." Once a project qualifies as an infill project, an applicant may then use flexible development standards for setbacks, height, size, and minimum off-street parking. In this case, Petitioners seek flexibility for setback and off-street parking requirements. As noted earlier, the main concern raised by Intervenor centers around item 9. of the criteria, which reads as follow: 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Intervenor contends that this criterion was not satisfied, and thus the project cannot qualify as an infill project. In addition, in its Proposed Final Order, the City contends that Petitioners have failed to satisfy items 1. and 5., which read as follows: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. Table 2-803 of the Code establishes minimum off- street parking requirements of 7 to 15 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for restaurants in the Tourist District. Therefore, a restaurant of Petitioners' size (that was not an infill project) would be required to have at least 47 off- street parking spaces. In actuality, Petitioners have only 13, due to a variance having been previously granted. Since Petitioners intend to add around 3,400 square feet through the second floor addition, the Code would normally require a minimum of 24 additional parking spaces, or a total of 71. However, these off-street standards do not apply to infill projects. Instead, another provision in Table 2-803 of the Code provides that minimum off-street parking for infill projects shall be "[d]etermined by the community development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE [Institute of Transportation Engineers] Manual standards." Therefore, using the guidelines in the foregoing provision, the community development coordinator determines the number of additional off-street parking spaces, if any, that an infill project will require. Because the City staff concluded that a parking study would assist it in analyzing the specific use of the property, it requested that Petitioners perform a parking study. The study was conducted by Robert Pergolizzi, a certified planner, who has performed a number of parking studies during his career. The Code does not describe any criteria for a parking study for an infill project. Therefore, the staff looked at other sections of the Code in arriving at a methodology to be used for the study. More specifically, it first considered Section 2-803J.6.a., which provides in part that off-street parking requirements can be relaxed if "the physical characteristics of the proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required." Because the restaurant sits directly on the beach, the staff believed that the primary destination of many of the customers was the beach, and not the restaurant, and that the visit to the restaurant was a side trip by the customers. Thus, the parking study methodology was designed, in part, to confirm or disaffirm that assumption. Section 2-803J.6.c. also provides flexibility in off-street parking requirements if "adequate parking is available on a shared basis as determined by all existing land uses within 1,000 feet of the parcel proposed for development, or parking is available through any existing or planned and committed parking facilities." The staff used this section of the Code to determine that 1,000 feet was an appropriate distance to analyze available parking for a restaurant. Therefore, Pergolizzi was directed by the staff to analyze available parking within 1,000 feet of the restaurant. Pergolizzi conducted his study on August 25 and 26, 2000, the Friday and Saturday which preceded the Labor Day holiday weekend. It is undisputed, and the parties have stipulated, that Pergolozzi conducted the study entirely consistent with the agreed methodology. The study confirmed that the primary destination of 49 percent of the restaurant's customers was the beach, and not the restaurant. In other words, the expansion would not affect the parking demand generated by almost one-half of the customers. The study also confirmed that there was available parking within 1,000 feet of the restaurant to accommodate not only the existing business, but the proposed expansion as well. As noted above, Table 2-803 of the Code required that the community development coordinator determine the minimum off-street parking after consideration of the specific proposed use and/or the ITE Manual standards. Here, the City staff looked at the specific use, the ITE Manual standards, and the parking study to determine the minimum off-street parking required for the restaurant. It concluded that there was available parking within 1,000 feet of the restaurant and that no additional parking spaces were required. The community development coordinator concurred with the results of the study and analysis and likewise determined that the minimum off-street parking for the project were the existing 13 spaces. This determination was wholly consistent with the requirements of the Code. In recommending to the Board that the project should be given flexibility as an infill project, the staff's report contained the following conclusion: The proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for flexible development approval, with maximum development potential, requirements of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects, and with all applicable standards of the Community Development Code. A more detailed analysis of how each of the ten criteria were satisfied is found in Petitioners' Exhibits 9 and 14 received in evidence. At the hearing on March 27, 2001, the City's assistant planning director also established that the proposed expansion and renovation complied with all applicable standards of the Code. Intervenor's expert witness, Gail Easley, a certified planner, questioned whether the methodology used by Pergolizzi complied with the Code. More specifically, she contended that the City was required to determine minimum off- street parking for infill projects in the manner described in Section 2-803C.9. That section provides that "[a]dequate off- street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development." If this contention were true, however, it would render meaningless the provision in Section 2-803C.8., which provides that "[f]lexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole." In other words, there would be no flexibility for off-street parking as permitted by that section. This would be contrary to the very purpose of infill projects. Witness Easley's interpretation is also inconsistent with Table 2-803, which states that "minimum off-street parking will be determined by the community development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards." Under her interpretation of the Code, the community development coordinator would have no right to determine minimum off-street parking for infill projects based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards, despite clear language in the Code to the contrary. More importantly, the criteria in Section 2-803C., including item 9., are used to determine whether a project should be considered an infill redevelopment project under the Code. Item 9. is simply one of those criteria, and it does not establish minimum off-street parking requirements for an infill project. Witness Easley also opined that it was inappropriate for the parking study to consider on-street parking. However, the Code does not prohibit the community development coordinator from requesting a parking study which includes on- street parking. It only requires that he consider the specific use and/or ITE manual standards when determining off- street parking for an infill project. Other contentions that the methodology was flawed, including a concern about the date and time of the study and the use of 1,000 feet as a measuring stick for available parking, have been considered and found to be without merit. A contention was also made that certain other infill criteria were not met. However, there was no evidence to support these contentions, and the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that all criteria have been satisfied, and that Petitioners qualify as an infill project. The undersigned has also considered the testimony of the owners of two competing restaurants who object to the project. While they contended that the lack of parking motivated their opposition to the application, it is fair to infer from their testimony that they object mainly because they fear that Petitioners may capture some of their business through an expansion of their restaurant. Finally, in its Proposed Final Order, the City has contended that Petitioners have failed to satisfy a general standard contained in Section 3-913A.6., which requires that an applicant ensure that: [t]he design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. Given the modifications agreed to by Petitioners in the following Finding of Fact, the requirements of this section have been met. In the nature of an affirmative defense, Petitioners have raised the issue of equitable estoppel and contend that Intervenor should be estopped from opposing the application. The facts underlying this argument are as follows. On November 21, 2000, the Board heard testimony and considered the application for the first time. At that meeting, Intervenor's counsel represented to the Board that "my client's concern is not the parking. My client's concern is because of proximity of noise and light intrusion." In light of these concerns, counsel for Petitioners and Intervenor reached an agreement wherein Petitioners agreed to limit the addition to the northern one-half of the existing building, construct an 8-foot concrete block wall on the south property line between the restaurant and the hotel, close the upstairs addition at 10:00 p.m. on week nights and 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, place no outside speakers and allow no live music on the upstairs addition, and direct upstairs lighting away from the hotel. With these accommodations, counsel for the hotel represented to the Board that "if [the Board] approve[s] this, you have addressed our primary areas of concern." After the close of public comments, the Board voted to approve the application by a 3-2 vote. Because four votes are required to approve an application, and one member was absent from the meeting, the matter was continued to the next meeting on December 12, 2000. By letter sent to Petitioners' counsel on December 5, 2000, Intervenor's counsel identified the "commitments at the preceding hearing, which [Petitioners were] willing to make to the Clearwater Beach Hotel." Upon receipt of that letter, Petitioners advised the City by letter that they were in agreement with Intervenor's counsel that "these are the conditions agreed to at the last CDB meeting, which shall be binding upon my client." Notwithstanding earlier representations, by letter dated December 7, 2000, counsel for Intervenor indicated that "the owners of Clearwater Beach Hotel have instructed us to object to the pending application. Upon further review, prompted by the renderings, the magnitude of this project is simply too great for the size of the property." The letter further stated that it was to be considered "as withdrawal of our prior letter and position of 'no objection,'" and that Intervenor would attend the December 12 hearing "to formally object." Petitioners have further contended that Board member William Johnson had ex parte communications with some of his neighbors concerning the merits of this application, and this constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Section 4-206D.2. of the Code provides that "no member of the community development board or the city commission shall engage in any ex parte communications with any person in regard to the substance of a quasi-judicial matter which is to be considered by the board or commission, as the case may be." If such communications occur, Section 4-206D.3.a. requires that a member disclose these communications at the meeting. There is no record of any disclosure being made. At the first Board meeting on November 21, 2000, member Johnson had moved for approval of the application. Without any explanation, at the second meeting on December 12, 2000, he voted against the application. Member Johnson did not testify at hearing to confirm or deny Petitioners' allegation of wrongdoing. However, witness Pergolizzi testified that he spoke with member Johnson just after the December 12 meeting, at which time member Johnson allegedly admitted that he had such conversations with his neighbors and was sorry for his change of vote. But the out-of-court statements of member Johnson are hearsay in nature, do not supplement or explain any other competent evidence on this issue, and they cannot form the basis for a finding of fact.
The Issue There are two issues presented by Petitioner, as follows: Was the bid of Intervenor, BDC Deland Ltd., responsive? Was the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), decision to award the bid in this case arbitrary and capricious?
Findings Of Fact HRS issued an invitation to bid (ITB) competitively for Lease No. 590:2438 for approximately 17,568 square feet of office space in Deland, Florida. A three percent variance in the amount of space offered was permitted. The ITB required that all bidders attend a pre-proposal conference because valuable information and explanations would be provided to interest bidders at the conference which were to be complied with by the bidder. Paris and Procacci attended. The requirements included providing 140 assigned (reserved) parking spaces by the bidder for the office's use. See Bid Submittal Form, Page 9 of 25. The requirements contained two provisions directly relating to parking requirements, Paragraphs 11d and 21, and one which is tangentially related concerning compliance with zoning, Paragraph 6. Paragraph 11d provides as follows: Section 11: As part of the bid submittal, bidder are to provide: * * * (d) A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, config- urations and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between the Department an lessor to meet the needs of the Department. (Emphasis supplied.) Paragraph 21 provides as follows: Section 21: Parking: For this facility the Department has determined that a minimum of 140 parking spaces are required to meet its needs. This parking is to be under the control of the bidder, off street, suitably paved and lined. This parking is to be provided as part of the lease cost to the Department. Lessor will grant to the lessee an exclusive right to use 140 parking spaces. Lessor shall submit with this bid submittal a letter certifying that the lessor agrees to the requested number of parking spaces on site, states the number of parking spaces per square foot of space as required by the local zoning jurisdiction and provides a site plan of the parking lot identifying the number of parking spaces assigned to specific other tenants. The purpose of this submittal is to assure parking spaces conform to local jurisdiction requirements of number and size, and that the number of parking spaces requested in this invitation can be achieved without infringing on or combining with the parking requirement of other tenants. (Emphasis supplied.) * * * Bidder Response: Parking Being Bid Exclusive spaces available on site. See attached site plan. Non-exclusive spaces available on site. Exclusive spaces off site located from the proposed facility (Distance) Bidder must provide recent evidence of control of all parking spaces being proposed. Permis- sion to park is not control. The provisions of Section 21 were included in the lease because HRS had previously had bad experiences with parking availability. Parking, as evidenced by the requirement for a site plan and certificate to be submitted with the proposal, was an important and material provision of the lease. Both Paris and Procacci submitted bid proposals, including site plans, which were deemed responsive by HRS. HRS considered the proposals of both Paris and Procacci, and performed site visits to both properties. In addition, the evaluators were familiar with both properties. Paris's bid was evaluated to be the lowest and best bid, and HRS noticed the bidders of its intent to award the bid to Paris. At that point, Procacci asserted to HRS that Paris' proposal was deficient because it did not meet the parking requirements in terms of the quantity of parking spaces Paris could provide based upon its submittal because of the zoning requirements and impact of the "out parcels" indicated on the site plan which had been submitted. After being contacted by Procacci, HRS inquired of Paris, pursuant to the terms of the RFP, if it was sure it could provide the parking as required and comply with local zoning. HRS also inquired about the status of the out parcels. Paris advised that, although it had intended to try and develop the areas marked as out parcels, it did not have contracts to develop these areas, and that Paris understood that it could provide the number of parking spaces required to HRS and current and future tenants within the local zoning provisions. HRS, through its counsel, checked with the local zoning official, and was advised that Paris had enough space on site to provide parking spaces complying with local codes for HRS, current tenants, and future tenants. The zoning official's estimates were based upon general assumptions about the nature of the future tenants which affected the space required for parking; however, these assumptions were generally consistent with Paris' development plan. HRS was also advised that in developing the out parcels, Paris would have to comply with existing codes including the provisions for parking. Paris was the owner in fee simple of the site upon which the proposed leasehold and parking lot were located. At the time the bid was submitted, the property contained 168,000 gross square feet of leasable space, of which, 66,000 gross square feet were leased to Belk Lindsey, Dollar General, Community Dialysis, a coin laundry, the DeMarsh Theatre, and the Department of Labor. The property had vacant 101,000 gross square feet of which 18,005 gross square feet were being offered to HRS. The existing leases included governmental uses, commercial uses, medical uses, and a theater. The total area of medical uses is limited to medical clinic and the Dialysis Center which had 5,184 square feet. (Only the portion of the Health Department which is clinic is treated as medical office space, and the remainder is treated as governmental use. See Volume IV, Page 568, line 4. The larger figure (5,184) for the clinic's area stated in Petitioner's Exhibit 9 is utilized for the volume of the clinic instead of Paris' figure of 4,200 square feet.) The total area of governmental uses is 71,336 square feet and includes the Department of Labor (5,000), HRS (18,000), Volusia County Environmental Health (22,277), and Volusia County Health Department (26,059). The total area of commercial uses is 49,016 square feet including Belks (41,490) and Dollar General (7,526). There was a total of 31,624 square feet vacant which Paris planned to lease for government offices. Under city code, the net square area was divided by a factor to arrive at the required parking for each type of use. The factor for the various uses are as follows: Governmental-200 square feet; Commercial-250 square feet; and Medical-100 square feet. The theater would require one space for every two seats and 5 for staff. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Utilizing the areas given above and the code's parking factors given above, the governmental offices less HRS would require 267 parking spaces. HRS would require 140 parking spaces. The clinic/dialysis center would require 52 parking spaces. The commercial uses would require 196 parking spaces, and the 232 seat theater would require 166 parking places. It is inferred that the vacant space was to be rented to governmental activities pursuant to the landlord's plan, and would require 188 parking spaces. A total of approximately 1,010 parking spaces would be required for the entire facility computed on gross areas assuming no future changes in the existing leaseholds and the lease of all the vacant space for government offices. The city code utilizes net area to compute parking excluding rest rooms, halls, etc. However, the estimation using gross figures results in a maximum estimate. Paris certified that the parking spaces were controlled by the bidder, that the parking spaces were on site and in the area indicated on the site plan submitted with the bid, and that 980 parking spaces could be accommodated. Paris' site plan also indicated the area in which the 140 parking spaces for HRS would be located. Other tenant parking was not indicated on the site plan; however, none of the other tenants had assigned parking. Paris calculated that a total of 840 spaces were required using the known data for current leases, 140 spaces for HRS, and a factor of one parking space for every 200 square feet of remaining vacant space. The building official opined that the completely leased facility would require between 750 and 1050 parking spaces, and that there was enough space on site to accommodate the required parking. Other competent evidence was received that between 880 and 1,077 parking spaces meeting code requirements could be placed on the site. Estimates by qualified, knowledgeable people varied based upon assumptions about occupancy and use, whether the lot could be "grandfathered in" and how the parking lot was laid out. There were enough spaces to provide parking for the HRS lease and all of the existing tenants at the time of submission of the bid proposal. However, under the existing code provisions, 140 parking spaces could not be accommodated in the rectangle indicated on Paris' site plan. This is not considered to be a material deviation from specifications because Paris had agreed to provide 140 spaces, the final arrangement and placement of the parking for HRS was subject to further negotiation, and the entire parking lot was subject to being relined. If spaces meeting code requirements would not have fit in the rectangle, Paris would have been required to adjust the size of the rectangle or design of the parking until they did fit. This was relatively easy because the other tenants did not have assigned parking. The RFP provided that the successful bidder would have time to remodel the property and to bring it into compliance with existing codes. This would include the parking facilities as well as the building. The HRS staff made a site visit, and were familiar with the property. They concluded that there was sufficient parking, and that Paris had made a valid, supportable offer. Their conclusion was reasonable given the opinion of the local building official and their personal knowledge of the property. The RFP calls for a performance bond, and permits HRS to cancel the contract if the successful bidder cannot perform under the terms of the bid. Minor deficiencies in the proposals of Procacci and Paris, which are not at issue in this case, were waived. The RFP contained no "fatal" deficiency provisions. The ITB stated that HRS reserved the right to waive minor informalities or technicalities, and seek clarification of bids received.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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, 1995. APPENDIX All of the parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 Irrelevant. Paragraph 3 Paragraph 5,6. Paragraph 4 Argument and conclusions. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7. Paragraph 6 First sentence is contrary to best evidence. Second sentence subsumed in other findings. Third sentence is contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 7,8 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 Irrelevant. Paragraph 10 Subsumed in Paragraph 6, and Conclusions of Law. Paragraph 11 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 12 No confusion exists. The terms of the RFP are clear. Paragraph 13 Rejected. There is no requirement to indicate on the site plan "existing" parking, unless it is assigned to an existing tenant. There was no assigned parking for existing tenants. Paragraph 14 Rejected. Paris' letter is based upon assumptions regarding future occupancy and uses; however, the site plan is not based upon those assumptions. Paragraph 15 Irrelevant. Paragraph 16 See comments to Paragraph 14. Paragraph 17 It was confusion for Paris to include parking spaces in areas marked "Future out parcels" on his site plan; however, this was clarified by HRS in its discussions with Paris, which indicated that there were no planned uses for those areas. Paragraph 18 The figure of 937 spaces is not mentioned on either of the two pages referenced. See discussion in Paragraph 19, Findings of Fact. Paragraph 19 Paris did not certify 980 "existing" spaces. He certified that the parking lot could accommodate 980 parking spaces. Paragraph 20 Contrary to facts. The 813 figure was not "identified" by HRS. Further, it is unclear from the reference to what the figure referred. Paragraph 21 Subsumed in Paragraph 9 et seq. Paragraph 22 See discussion of Paragraph 17, above. Paragraph 23 Subsumed in Paragraph 9 et seq., and Paragraph 13-18. Paragraph 24 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 25 Rejected as argument. Use of gross figures increases the number of required spaces; therefore, is not misleading in making estimates of future needs. Paragraph 26 Rejected as argument, and contrary to facts which indicates that HRS did conduct site visits, was familiar with the facilities, and checked challenged information with city building officials. Paragraph 27-29 Irrelevant, and subsumed in Paragraph 8. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2,3,4 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 4. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 7 Irrelevant. Paragraph 8 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,13,19. Paragraph 9 Subsumed in Paragraphs 4,5. Paragraph 10 Subsumed in Paragraph 7. Paragraphs 11,12 Subsumed in Paragraphs 5,19. Paragraphs 13,14 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 15,16 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 17 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 18-21 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 22-24 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,23. Paragraph 25 Subsumed 22,24. Paragraphs 26-28 Subsumed in Paragraph 6. Paragraph 29 Subsumed in Paragraph 2. Paragraphs 30,31 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,19. Paragraph 32-34 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraph 34 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 35 Irrelevant. Paragraph 36,37 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 38 Subsumed in Paragraph 15. Paragraph 39 Subsumed in Paragraph 11. Paragraphs 40-42 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 43,44 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraphs 45,46 Subsumed in Paragraphs 23-24. Paragraph 47 Paragraph 18. Paragraphs 48,49 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 50,51 Under the terms of the RFP, Paris had the opportunity to bring the facilities into code compliance. Failure to do so was a basis for terminating the contract. See Paragraph 20. Paragraph 52 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 53-60 Subsumed in Paragraphs 10-12. Paragraph 61 Paragraph 19. Paragraph 62 Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 63,64 Conclusions of Law. Intervenor's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-4 Paragraphs 1-4 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 2 6,7 Not necessary to determination of issues. Paragraphs 8i-vii Subsumed in Paragraphs 5,6,8,10,19,21. Paragraph 9 Paragraph 13. Paragraphs 10i-viii, 11i-iv,12i-vi Paragraphs 13-17,21 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 13i-ii Ir-relevant. Paragraph 13iii Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 13iv,v Irrelevant. Paragraphs 15-15iii Paragraphs 8,23. Paragraphs 16i-ii,17 Paragraph 8. Paragraph 18 Paragraph 9. Paragraphs 19,20 Paragraphs 10-12. Paragraphs 21i-v Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 22i-vii Conclusions of Law. Paragraphs 23i-iv Paragraph 19. Paragraph 24 Irrelevant. Paragraph 25 Conclusions of Law. Paragraph 26i-viii Paragraph 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker, and Varkas 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, FL 33432 Ellen Phillips, Esquire HRS District 12 Legal Office 210 North Palmetto Avenue, Suite 412 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Robert W. Morrison, Esquire Wells, Allen, Lang and Morrison 340 North Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Department of Corrections' proposed award of Lease No. 700:0710 to Melstine Corporation was proper.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, Region Four (Department), issued a request for proposals for approximately 7,500 square feet of office space in Dade County which was designated as Lease No. 700:0710 (RFP). The office space was to be used as offices for the professional and support staff who were providing probation and parole supervision. Petitioner Wharton Little River (Wharton), Intervenor Green East #2, Ltd. (Green East), and Melstine Corporation (Melstine) submitted proposals to the Department. The Department's evaluation committee evaluated the three proposals, and their evaluation included a site visit to each of the proposed locations. Melstine Corporation received the highest number of points followed by Wharton Little River. The Department notified all bidders of its intent to award the lease to Melstine. On March 15, 1995, Wharton filed a notice of intent to protest the Department's decision to award the lease to Melstine. Wharton filed its formal written protest on March 14, 1995. The RFP set forth the requirements for submitting a responsive proposal and the criteria to be used in evaluating the proposals. The bidders were required to provide 55 offstreet parking spaces for the exclusive use of the Department's employees and clients at no additional cost to the Department. This provision is interpreted to mean that the bidder could propose 55 exclusive parking spaces plus or minus one to two percent. The RFP provided spaces in which the bidders were to indicate whether they were proposing onsite or offsite parking. The RFP also provides: Federal, state, county, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that in any manner affect the items covered herein apply. Lack of knowledge by the bidder will in no way be a cause for relief from respon- sibility. This provision is interpreted to include applicable zoning codes. Both Melstine and Wharton proposed to provide 55 exclusive parking spaces onsite. Green East proposed 40 exclusive spaces and 20 nonexclusive spaces. The evidence did not establish whether Green East's spaces were onsite or offsite. The evaluation criteria assigned a maximum number of points a bidder could receive for specific criteria. The maximum points totaled 100. The criteria for evaluating parking was the "[p]roximity of adequate parking area to the building. Must be well lighted." The maximum number of points that could be awarded to a bidder for parking was 10. Melstine received 10 points for parking. The space proposed by Melstine is located on the ground floor of a six-story building with approximately 87,000 square feet. The building is currently vacant. Melstine is actively seeking to lease other portions of the building. In its proposal Melstine stated that its intention was to market the remaining space on the ground floor to the banking industry as a banking location. There are 54 onsite parking spaces on the property proposed by Melstine. There is additional space onsite that could be converted to 20 parking spaces, bringing the total parking spaces available on the Melstine property to There are approximately 50 offsite parking spaces available in a lot across the street from the building proposed by Melstine. Melstine provided a map in its proposal showing that the located property was located in a C-1, limited commercial, zone. By letter dated February 21, 1995, Phillip J. Procacci, advised the Department that he felt that the Melstine proposal did not meet the requirements of the RFP because the parking spaces did not meet the zoning code requirements of the City of Miami. Department staff contacted the City of Miami zoning officials and were advised that the parking proposed by Melstine was acceptable under the City of Miami's zoning regulations. The Department relied on the representations from the City of Miami that the Melstine property would be in conformance with the zoning code. By letter dated April 17, 1995, Juan C. Gonzalez, Acting Zoning Administrator, advised Melstine's agent that the parking on the Melstine site would be acceptable as meeting the zoning requirements for the City of Miami for office use without the need of providing additional spaces for existing office square footage. By letter dated April 24, 1995, Mr. Gonzalez further clarified the City of Miami's position on parking spaces assigned to individual tenants. While the code does mandate a certain amount of spaces to be provided on site for individual uses, the code is silent on how the parking will be assigned, therefore, the city does not become involved or regulates assignment of existing parking spaces. Region Four of the Department has not experienced a problem with lessors not providing adequate parking in the past. Melstine's proposal met the parking requirements of the RFP and complied with the City of Miami's zoning ordinance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the bid protest of Wharton Little River, Investment, Inc. by Procacci Commercial Realty, Inc. be dismissed and that Lease No. 700:0710 be awarded to Melstine Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 20th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1839BID To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Proposed Recommended Order After Reopening of Hearing) Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance as it refers to the parking criteria. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: Accepted to the extent that Wharton received the second highest number of points. Paragraphs 7-11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. There was no evidence that access to the parking lot from the Melstine property is owned by Melstine. Paragraphs 13-22: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-23: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 24-25: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 26-28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Accepted. Paragraph 30: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 31: Accepted. Paragraphs 32-34: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 35-41: Accepted in substance. Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact. (The paragraphs are unnumbered. Each paragraph will be addressed in the order it appears under the section entitled, "The Computation of Error.") Paragraph 1: The first three sentences are accepted in substance. The fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The remainder is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 2: These adopted paragraphs are addressed above under Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 3-4: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 5: Rejected as a conclusion of law. Paragraph 6: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 John R. Beranek, Esquire 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida Harry K. Singletary, 2601 Blairstone Road 32302 Jr., Secretary Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether a land development regulation adopted as City of Key West Ordinance 98-31, and approved by a Final Order of the Department of Community Affairs, DCA Docket No. DCA98-OR-237, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the City of Key West Area of Critical State Concern set forth in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. All of the Petitioners in Case No. 99-0666GM, except Neal Hirsh and Property Management of Key West, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Abbe Petitioners"), are all involved in the rental of real property in Key West, Monroe County, Florida. No evidence was presented concerning the identity of Mr. Hirsh or Property Management of Key West, Inc. The Abbe Petitioners are involved in the rental of Key West real property as owners or as rental managers of residential properties which are rented to tourists for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month (hereinafter referred to as "Transient Rentals). None of the properties used as Transient Rentals by the Abbe Petitioners constitute the Abbe Petitioners' primary residences. Petitioner in Case No. 99-0667GM, Jerry Coleman, owns residential property located in Key West. Mr. Coleman rents the residential property owned by him to tourists for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month. Mr. Coleman also resides in Key West. Petitioner in Case No. 99-1081DRI, John F. Rooney, failed to present any evidence in support of his case or his standing. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the approval or rejection of the comprehensive growth management plan, plan amendments, and land development regulations adopted by the City of Key West. Intervenor, the City of Key West (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Consistent with the requirements of Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the City has adopted a comprehensive growth management plan, the City of Key West Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan"). The City's Plan became effective in 1993. The City's Plan consists of twelve elements: (a) Land Use; (b) Historic Preservation; (c) Traffic Circulation; (d) Housing; (e) Public Facilities; (f) Coastal Management; (g) Port Facilities; (h) Conservation; (i) Open Space and Recreation; (j) Intergovernmental Coordination; (k) Capital Improvements; and (l) General Monitoring and Review. Data Inventory and Analysis in support of the City's Plan was compiled by the City. The City has been designated as an area of critical state concern (hereinafter referred to as the "City ACSC"), pursuant to Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, since 1974. Rule 28-36.001, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. As an area of critical state concern, all comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the City must be reviewed by the Department for consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles"), set out in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Principles were adopted by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, in February 1984. Intervenors, Henry and Martha duPont, reside at 326 Whitehead Street, Key West, Florida. The duPonts reside in an area known as the "Truman Annex." The properties on both sides of the duPonts' residence are used as Transient Rentals. Key West History and Tourism. The City is located primarily on the southern-most bridged island of the Florida Keys, a chain of islands, or keys, which run in a generally southwesterly direction from the southeastern tip of the Florida peninsula. The City, like the Florida Keys, is bounded on the west by the Gulf of Mexico and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City is connected to the Florida peninsula by a series of bridges which connect the keys. The road which runs the length of the Florida Keys is designated U. S. Highway 1. It is approximately 112 miles from the Florida mainland to the City. Prior to the early 1970s, the two most significant components of the City's economy were commercial fishing and the military. Tourism also played a role, but not to the extent that it does today. Toward the middle and end of the 1970s the military presence in the City was significantly reduced and the fishing industry was on the decline. To replace the fading fishing and the lost military components of the City's economy, the City turned to tourism. The City's efforts began in earnest during the 1980s and have continued through the present. The City is now a major tourist destination. The City's most attractive features include its historic character, especially the area of the City designated as "Old Town," its warm climate, its extensive shoreline, and its water resources, including coral reef systems. Approximately two-thirds of the City's economic base is now associated with tourism. While the City shares many of the characteristics of most tourist-resort destinations, it also features certain unique characteristics not found in other destinations. Those features include its geographic remoteness and its limited size. The island where the City is principally located is only approximately eight square miles. Currently, approximately 6.82 million tourists visit the City annually. Approximately 62 percent, or 4.25 million visitors, stay overnight in the City. Approximately 480,000 tourists, or about 11 percent of the overnight guests, stay in Transient Rentals. Tourism in the City represents, directly and indirectly, approximately 66 percent of the economic base of the City. The City's economy in turn represents approximately half of the economy of Monroe County. Approximately 15,000 of the 23,000 jobs in Monroe County and Key West are associated with the tourist industry. Of those jobs, 54 percent of all retail sales jobs are involved in the tourist industry. Approximately 50 percent of the estimated $187 million of Monroe County-wide personal income comes from the tourist industry. The tourist industry should continue to prosper in the City as long as the natural environmental characteristics of the City (the climate, surrounding waters, and tropical features of the Keys) and the unique historical and "community" character of the City remain vibrant. It is the natural environment, the climate, and local community character in combination with the historical and cultural attractions of the City that create a diverse mix of attractions which make the City a unique vacation destination. The City's mixture of attractions must be served by a mixture of tourist accommodation services, including hotels, motels, guest houses, and Transient Rentals. Those accommodations are currently available. There are approximately 3,768 hotel/motel rooms available in the City. There are also approximately 507 residential properties with 906 units which are licensed as Transient Rentals in the City and approximately 647 unlicensed residential properties used for Transient Rentals. The loss of the availability of unlicensed Transient Rentals will not have a lasting adverse impact on tourism in the City. The City's Plan recognizes the importance of tourism. Objective 1-1.3, "Planning for Industrial Development and Economic Base," of the land use element of the City's Plan provides, in pertinent part, the following: . . . . Tourism is the most significant component of the City of Key West economic base. The City of Key West is a major tourist destination. It's principal attributes are its historic character, warm climate, extensive shoreline, water resources, the coral reef system, abundant water related and water-dependent activities, and the ambiance of Old Town. The historic district contains many old structures which do not comply with the City's size and dimension regulations since many structures pre-date these local regulations. Realizing the significant contribution of Old Town, especially the unique character of its structures and their historic and architectural significance, and realizing the substantial impact of tourism to the economic base, the City shall direct considerable attention to its growth management decisions to maintaining the historic character of Old Town and preserving tourism as a major contributor to the City's economic base. Similarly, the City shall carefully consider supply and demand factors impacting tourism and the local economy to ensure the long term economic stability. The two policies adopted to implement Objective 1-1.3, Policies 1-1.3.1, "Mandatory Planning and Management Framework for Industrial Development," and Policy 1- 1.3.2, "Pursue Nuisance Abatement Standards and Criteria," provide for measures to deal with industrial development and not tourism. Reliance upon Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan by Petitioners' witnesses is misplaced. While the Objective does reflect the importance of tourism in the City, it does not provide any guidance concerning appropriate land uses which may be allowed throughout the City. There is no direction in the Objective concerning land uses which the City must maintain. Land uses are considered and dealt with in other provisions of the City's land use element. Additionally, the reliance upon Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan fails to give adequate weight to other provisions of the Plan. The Historic Significance of the City and "Old Town." The importance of the City's history is recognized throughout the Plan. Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan quoted, supra, points to the City's history and the role it plays in tourism. An area of the City has been designated as the Key West Historic District. The area is described in the Data Inventory and Analysis as the "physical manifestation of the 170 year existence of [the City]." Page 1A-11 of the Data Inventory and Analysis. Objective 1-2.3 of the Future Land Use Map Goal of the City's Plan deals with the importance of the Key West Historic District and an area which is largely located within the historic district known as "Old Town": OBJECTIVE 1-2.3: MANAGING OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. Areas delineated on the Future Land Use Map for historic preservation shall be planned and managed using a regulatory framework designed to preserve the form, function, image, and ambiance of the historic Old Town. The City's Historic Architectural Review Commission (HARC), in addition to the Planning Board, shall review all development proposals within the historic area designated by the National Register of Historic Places. The land development regulations shall be amended upon plan adoption to incorporate design guideline standards recently adopted by HARC. Development in any area of Old Town within and outside the HARC review area may impact the historic significance of Old Town. Any development plans for these areas shall be subjected to site plan review and shall be designed in a manner compatible with historic structures within the vicinity. While Objective 1-2.3 makes reference to the preservation of the "function" of Old Town, the Objective does not require that any particular "land use" which may exist in Old Town be preserved in perpetuity. The Objective and other provisions of the City's Plan addressing the historic significance of the City evidence a concern for the overall character of the area, not particular land uses. That character is described in, and adopted as part of, the Future Land Use Map of the City's Plan. See Policy 1-3.4.1 and Objective 1-3.4 of the City's Plan. Objective 1-1.5 of the Land Use element emphasizes the importance of maintaining and enhancing the appearance of gateway corridors into the City and the "major activiy centers such as Old Town." The Historic Preservation Element of the City's Plan, Chapter 1A, deals with historic resources, structures, and sites. No particular land use of these resources, structures, and sites, other than "housing," is mentioned. Throughout the history of the City, residents have to varying degrees rented their residences or parts of their residences on a short-term basis to tourists and other guests to the City. Most of the rentals involved the rental of portions of a residence while the owner of the property continued to reside in the rest of the property. Monroe County Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey, Joe Crusoe, Robert Lastres, Vincent Catala, and Olivia Rowe, all long-term residents of the City, all testified about such rentals. The evidence failed to prove, however, that the types of rentals historically undertaken in the City constitute a part of the significant "history" of the City, at least not in the context of the historical significance of the City addressed in the City's Plan. Nor were the historical rentals testified to during hearing of the scale and scope of the rentals that now exist in the City. Additionally, to the extent that Transient Rentals are considered to be part of the significant "history" of the City, nothing in the land development regulation which is the subject of this proceeding absolutely prohibits such rentals. In fact, Transient Rentals of property for which a transient rental license has been obtained are not impacted by the land development regulation. Transient Rentals will, therefore, continue in the City. Nothing in the City's Plan dealing with the historical significance of the City requires that the City allow Transient Rentals of residential property to continue unregulated in the City. Regulation of the extent and location of Transient Rentals in the City does nothing to harm the historical significance of the City. In suggesting that Transient Rentals constitute part of the "history" of the City, and in particular, a part of the history of Old Town, the Abbe Petitioners have relied upon Policy 1-2.3.9, which provides, in part, the following: Policy 1-2.3.9: Retention of Historic Character and All Permanent Single Family Housing Units. The City desires to retain in perpetuity the existing character, density, and intensity of all historic sites and contributing sites within the historic district; and shall protect all the City's permanent single family housing stock citywide which was legally established prior to the adoption of the plan or a legal single family lot of record. Therefore, the City shall protect and preserve these resources against natural disaster, including fire, hurricane, or other natural or man-made disaster, by allowing any permanent single family units within the City, or other structures located on historic sites or contributing sites, which are so damaged to be rebuilt as they previously existed. . . . The reliance upon Policy 1-2.3.9 is misplaced. First, this Policy deals with all permanent single-family housing stock of the City and not just housing used for Transient Rentals. Secondly, the Policy does not provide for the protection of any particular use of single-family housing stock; it provides for the protection of the structures used as single-family housing. It recognizes the unique, historical construction of homes in the City and provides for their continued protection. The Impact of the City's Limited Land Mass and the City's Effort to Control Transient Rentals. As a relatively small island, the City has a limited land area and little opportunity for expansion without significantly altering the traditional character of the City. Because of the limited land area, maintaining adequate housing, including affordable housing, is a significant concern in the City. Residential property in the City has been used by tourists for accommodations for many years, long before the tourist boom now being experienced in the City. Transient uses of residential property were less organized and were less available than they are today, however. Often times, transient uses of residential property consisted of people renting out rooms in their residences to tourists. While the extent to which residential property has been used historically for tourist accommodations was not accurately quantified by the evidence, the evidence did establish that the use of residential property for Transient Rentals has significantly increased since the 1980s. As tourism has increased since the 1980s, there has been an increasing demand for tourist accommodations of all types. This demand for tourist accommodations, especially the demand for Transient Rentals, has adversely impacted the need and demand for residential housing in the City. In an effort to address the problem the Key West City Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "City Commission"), adopted a Growth Management Ordinance in 1985 mandating a ratio of Transient Rentals to residential units for the City. The intent of the 1985 Growth Management Ordinance was to maintain a suitable balance between tourist accommodations and housing for permanent residents of the City. In 1993 the City Commission adopted a dwelling unit allocation ordinance, or the "rate of growth ordinance," which was designed, at least in part, to achieve a balance between the demand for tourist accommodations and the need for permanent housing, including affordable housing. The 1993 rate of growth ordinance was subsequently incorporated into the City's Plan as Objective 1-3.12. Pursuant to the City's Plan, Transient Rentals are not to exceed 25 percent of single family units permitted annually. Note 2 to Policy 1-3.12.3 of the Plan provides that "[t]he number of transient units reflect a preference for preserving housing opportunities for permanent residents as opposed to transient residents since historical trends indicate an erosion of the permanent housing stock which is largely attributed to conversion of permanent housing units to transient housing." The City's Failure to Control Transient Rentals; The "50% Rule." In 1989, the City required that an occupational license be obtained by property owners using their property for both long-term rentals and Transient Rentals. These occupational licenses were not subject to review by the Department for consistency with the City's Plan and land development regulations. Occupational licenses are essentially a revenue raising requirement. The issuance of an occupational license does not constitute a zoning decision or otherwise constitute the approval of a land use. By the time the City adopted the 1993 rate of growth ordinance and the City's Plan, the number of occupational licenses issued for Transient Rentals had already exceeded the allocation of Transient Rentals which are allowable in the City. As a consequence, owners of residential property who desired to use their property for Transient Rental purposes have been unable to obtain an occupational license for such use. The lack of allowable Transient Rentals under the City's Plan did not, however, actually stop individuals from using their property for Transient Rentals. In addition to licensed Transient Rentals, there are approximately 647 unlicensed Transient Rental properties in the City. Properties owned by the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman are among these unlicensed Transient Rentals. The Abbe Petitioners who own Transient Rentals rather than manage them have occupational licenses issued by the State of Florida and Monroe County, but not a Transient Rental occupational license issued by the City. Mr. Coleman has a "nontransient" license issued by the City and occupational licenses issued by the State and Monroe County, but not a Transient Rental occupational license from the City. The number of unlicensed Transient Rental properties in the City has been contributed to, in part, by an interpretation of a former definition of "tourist and transient living accommodations" found in the City's land development regulations. The definition was adopted in 1986. Accommodations meeting this definition were prohibited in a number of zoning districts in the City. Accommodations which did not come within the definition were not prohibited in those districts. The 1986 definition of "tourist and transient living accommodations" (hereinafter referred to as the "Former Transient Definition"), was as follows: Tourist and transient living accommodations. Commercially operated housing principally available to short-term visitors for less than twenty-eight (28) days. Pursuant to this definition, any property used "principally" for visitors for less than 28 days constituted a tourist or transient living accommodation. There were some who advocated that the term "principally" meant that a residence had to be used as a 28-day short-term visitor accommodation for at least 50 percent of the year. Pursuant to this definition, any residence used at least 50 percent of the year for 28-day or less rentals is considered to constitute a "tourist and transient living accommodation." Conversely, if a residence was used less than 50 percent of the year for 28-day or less rental the property is not considered to constitute a tourist or transient living accommodation. This interpretation of the Former Transient Definition has been referred to as the "50% Rule." Pursuant to the 50% Rule, the owner of residential property in the City could rent the property for periods of less than 28 days without obtaining an occupational license for the property as long as the property was not rented more than half of the year. This rationale was assumed to apply regardless of where the property was located; even in land use districts where Transient Rentals were prohibited. The developer of Truman Annex, an area formerly owned by the Navy located to the immediate south of Old Town, advocated the 50% Rule in his dealings with the City in the early 1990s. The City's licensing department also issued "non- transient" licenses for residences which met the 50% Rule. Code enforcement citations against owners of residences used as Transient Rentals for less than 50 percent of the year without an occupational license were withdrawn. Despite the foregoing, the evidence at hearing in these cases failed to prove that the 50% Rule became an official "policy" of the City Commission. What the evidence proved was that the City took no action to adopt or reject the 50% Rule as an official position. The City simply failed to take any action to reject the 50% Rule and interpret the definition of tourist and transient living accommodations in a more reasonable manner. Given the City's efforts to limit Transient Rentals through the adoption of the 1985 Growth Management Ordinance, the 1993 rate of growth ordinance, and the City's Plan, it is clear, however, that reliance upon the 50% Rule is not reasonable. See findings of fact 39 through 45 of the Department of Community Affairs and City of Key West's Joint Proposed Recommended Order, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Finally, even if the 50% Rule did constitute the legislative intent of the City Commission in adopting the Former Transient Definition, it was eliminated by the City Commission in 1997 by the adoption of City Ordinance 97-20. City Ordinance 97-20 was adopted September 16, 1997, and was approved by Final Order of the Department dated November 19, 1997. The new definition of transient living accommodations adopted by City Ordinance 97-20, and still in effect today, is as follows: SECTION 5-21.2: DEFINITION OF TERMS TRANSIENT LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS. Any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is 1) rented for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less; or which is 2) advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to transients. (Emphasis added). The current definition of transient living accommodations has eliminated the reference to properties "principally" used as a Transient Rental. The new definition includes any residence rented for any period of time, even once a year, as long as the rental is for a period of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. The Former Transient Definition and, consequently, the 50% Rule, was also superceded by the adoption of the City's Plan. The City recognized the foregoing history in the ordinance which is the subject of this proceeding. In rejecting the notion that the City had adopted the 50% Rule as City policy, the City stated the following in the ordinance: . . . . In 1986, the City enacted former zoning code Section 35.24(44) which provided the following definition of a transient living accommodation "Commercially operated housing principally available to short-term visitors for less than twenty-eight (28) days." (This definition shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Former Transient Definition.") Some property owners and developers interpreted the Former Transient Definition to mean that an owner could rent his or her residential dwelling for less than half the year without the dwelling losing its residential status, and therefore without the need for City-issued transient license . . . . This interpretation went unchallenged by the City. . . . . . . . Therefore, the City of Key West intends by these regulations to establish a uniform definition of transient living accommodations, and to halt the use of residences for transient purposes in order to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods. . . . Based upon the foregoing, any reliance by Petitioners in these cases upon the 50% Rule as City policy is rejected. The City's Adoption of Ordinance No. 98-31. During 1997 and 1998 the City conducted workshops and held public meetings to consider and develop an ordinance regulating Transient Rentals. The workshops were conducted by City staff and were attended by representatives of essentially all those interested in the Transient Rental issue. An effort was made to achieve consensus on the issue. During these workshops, the 50% Rule and the history of Transient Rentals in the City were fully considered. In addition to the workshops conducted by the City, the City hired Frank Pallini with PRG, Real Estate Research and Advisory Services, Clearwater, Florida, to conduct an analysis of the economic impact of an ordinance limiting Transient Rentals. The report prepared by Mr. Pallini (hereinafter referred to as the "Pallini Report"), was submitted to the City on August 28, 1998. The Pallini Report and, consequently, the negative economic impact of the ordinance at issue in this proceeding was fully considered by the City when it adopted the ordinance. On June 2, 1998, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 98-16, which amended the definition of "transient living accommodations" in the City's land development regulations. Unlicensed short-term Transient Rentals were expressly prohibited by Ordinance 98-16 with the exception of four specified City land use districts. Those districts, referred to during the hearing as "gated communities," are all single, contiguous zoning district areas of the City with controlled access and which are governed by homeowners' or condominium associations. Truman Annex was one of the four excluded gated communities. Ordinance 98-16 was found by the Department to be inconsistent with the Principles on July 29, 1998, by Final Order DCA98-OR-135. The Department concluded that Ordinance 98- 16 was inconsistent with the Principles because it allowed the use of residential property as Transient Rentals in areas where, according to the Department, such rentals were prohibited under the City's Plan. The City initially challenged the Department's decision, but subsequently withdrew its challenge. The City subsequently repealed Ordinance 98-16. On November 10, 1998, the City adopted Ordinance 98-31 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"), which is the subject of this proceeding. The Ordinance contains the same provisions, except the exception for gated communities, that had been contained in Ordinance 98-16. The Ordinance is a "land development regulation" as defined in Section 380.031(8), Florida Statutes. It is, therefore, subject to review for consistency with the Principles by the Department. During the process of adopting the Ordinance the City recognized the confusion that the 50% Rule had caused concerning the intent of the City's Plan with regard to Transient Rentals. The City expressly dealt with the 50% Rule and rejected it as policy of the City. In particular, the Ordinance provides that the City's purpose in enacting the Ordinance was to phase out unlicensed transient uses of residential properties in land use zoning districts in which they are not permitted. This goal is accomplished by further modifying the definition of "transient living accommodations" adopted in 1997 in Section 5-21.2 of the City's land development regulations: Sec. 5-21.2 Definition of terms. Transient Living Accommodations. Or Transient Lodging. Any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is 1) rented for a period or periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less; or which is 2) advertised or held out to the public as a place rented to regularly regularly rented to transients. , regardless of the occurrence of an actual rental. Such a short-term rental use of or within a single family dwelling, a two family dwelling or a multi-family dwelling (each also known as a "residential dwelling") shall be deemed a transient living accommodation. (Words struckstruck through were eliminated from the definition and underlined words were added). The Ordinance also adds Section 2-7.21 to the City's land development regulations explaining its action in modifying the definition of transient living accommodations and expressly prohibiting unlicensed Transient Rentals of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. The Ordinance does not provide for a complete ban on Transient Rentals. On the contrary, Transient Rentals of properties for which transient occupational licenses have been issued by the City are expressly allowed by the Ordinance. The City estimated that 507 residential properties containing a total of 906 transient units hold such licenses. Under the Ordinance, these units may continue to be used as Transient Rentals. The Department's Review of the Ordinance. On November 24, 1998, the City transmitted a copy of the Ordinance to the Department for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted its review of the Ordinance following its customary procedures for review of land development regulations that impact an area of critical state concern. The review included a consideration of Chapter 28-36, Florida Administrative Code, including the Principles, the City's Plan, and the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The Ordinance was directed to Kenneth Metcalf, the person in the Department responsible for supervision of the City ACSC. Mr. Metcalf reviewed the ordinance and assigned it to the Department's Field Office with directions as to which issues the Field Office should address during its review. Following staff review, an evaluation was prepared addressing the Ordinance's consistency with the Principles. The evaluation was reviewed by Mr. Metcalf. After receipt and review of the evaluation, it was discussed at a meeting of Department staff. As a result of the meeting, it was recommended that the Secretary of the Department find the Ordinance consistent with the Principles. On January 5, 1999, the Department entered a Final Order, DCA98-OR-237, finding that the Ordinance was consistent with the Principles. The Department caused notice of the Final Order to published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Petitioners' Challenge to the Ordinance. The Abbe Petitioners, Mr. Coleman and over 200 other owners of property in Truman Annex, and Mr. Rooney all timely filed petitions challenging the Department's Final Order pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to the Department's Final Order approving the Ordinance. The petitions were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Department. The petitions were designated Case Nos. 99-0666GM, 99-0667GM and 99-1081DRI, respectively. Following dismissal of the petitions in all three cases, amended petitions were filed. Mr. Coleman's amended petition, filed on or about June 14, 1999, named Mr. Coleman as the only Petitioner remaining in that case. Standing. The parties stipulated to certain facts relating to the standing of the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman. In addition to stipulating to the facts found, supra, concerning the ownership and use of real property by the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman in the City, it was agreed that the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman have transient occupational licenses issued by the State of Florida and Monroe County for their City real property. The Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman suggested in their proposed orders that it had been stipulated during the hearing that they have standing to initiate, and participate in, this proceeding. A close reading of the stipulation of the parties, however, fails to support this contention. What the Department, City, and the duPonts stipulated to were certain underlying facts; they did not stipulate to the ultimate finding. The Department, City, and duPonts did not stipulate to whether the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman will suffer an immediate injury as a result of the Ordinance. The evidence proved that, the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman do not have the legal right to use their properties as Transient Rentals. Neither a reasonable interpretation of existing land development regulations nor the 50% Rule legalizes such use. As a consequence, the Ordinance cannot have the effect of preventing the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman from using their properties for Transient Rental purposes because that is not a purpose for which they are legally authorized to use the properties anyway. The evidence also proved, however, that the City has allowed the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman to continue to use their properties as Transient Rentals, legally or not, and that, without the City's taking some action, the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman would continue to do so. As a consequence, the Ordinance will have the practical and real effect of preventing the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman from continuing to use their properties as Transient Rentals, to their economic detriment. The Abbe Petitioners, other than Neal Hirsh and Property Management of Key West, Inc., and Mr. Coleman have proved that they have standing to institute and participate in this proceeding. The duPonts proved that they have standing to participate in this proceeding. The City proved that its substantial interests were determined by the Department's decision in this matter. The City has standing to participate in this proceeding. Mr. Hirsh, Property Management of Key West, Inc., and Mr. Rooney failed to prove that they have standing to institute or participate in this proceeding. The Principles. Rule 28-36.003, Florida Administrative Code, contains the Principles: Strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development; Protection of tidal mangroves and associated shoreline and marine resources and wildlife; Minimize the adverse impacts of development of the quality of water in and around the City of Key West and throughout the Florida Keys; Protection of scenic resources of the City of Key West and promotion of the management of unique, tropical vegetation; Protection of the historical heritage of Key West and the Key West Historical Preservation District; Protection of the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities, Sewage collection and disposal facilities, Solid waste collection and disposal facilities, Key West Naval Air Station, The maintenance and expansion of transportation facilities, and Other utilities, as appropriate; Minimize the adverse impacts of proposed public investments on the natural and environmental resources of the City of Key West; and Protection of the public health, safety, welfare and economy of the City of Key West, and the maintenance of Key West as a unique Florida resource. In determining whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, the Principles should be considered as a whole. No specific provision should be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. The Ordinance has little or no impact on those Principles that relate to the natural resources of, and public facilities in, the City. Those Principles include Rule 28- 36.003(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (g), Florida Administrative Code. Those Principles are considered neutral in the determination to be made in these cases. The determination of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles is limited to a balancing of the Principles listed in Rule 28-36.003(1)(a), (e), and (h), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as "Principles A, E, and H," respectively). Principle A: The Ordinance Strengthens the City's Capabilities for Managing Land Use and Development. In order for the Ordinance to be considered as strengthening the City's capabilities for managing land use and development, the Ordinance must be consistent with the City's Plan. The evidence proved that it is. The City's Plan contains various land use districts, all of which have certain allowable and prohibited uses. The districts established in the City's Plan and the relevant prohibition of transient lodgings are as follows: Coastal Low Density Residential Development district: prohibits "transient lodging and guest homes." Single Family Residential Development district: prohibits "transient accommodations" and "transient rental housing." Medium Density Residential Development district: prohibits "transient lodging and guest homes." Mixed Use Residential/Office: prohibits "transient lodging." Limited Commercial Development: Prohibits "transient residential land use activities." Historic High Density Residential Development and Historic Medium Density Residential Development districts: prohibit "transient residential uses, including guest homes, motels, or hotels." Historic Residential Commercial Core 2: prohibits "transient residential uses." Historic Residential/Office district: prohibits "transient lodging or guest houses" unless previously licensed. Conservation, Military, and Public Services districts: prohibit transient uses. The following districts established by the City Plan allow Transient Rentals: Salt Pond Commercial Tourist: allows "motels, [and] limited scale tourist facilities." General Commercial Development: allows "transient lodging including hotels and motels, timesharing or fractional fee residential complexes, and other transient quarters." Mixed Use Planned Redevelopment and Development districts: uses are determined, not by the City's Plan, but the land development regulations and development approvals for these large scale development districts. Historic Residential Commercial Core 1 and 3 districts: allow "transient residential accommodations" and "tourist accommodations." Historic Neighborhood Commercial: allows "transient rental accommodations" in HNC-1 and HNC-3 districts as long as they do not displace permanent resident housing and "transient accommodations" in HNC-2 districts. Historic Commercial Tourist: allows "hotels, motels, and/or transient lodging facilities." The most reasonable interpretation of the restricted and allowable land uses for the land use districts established under the City's Plan is that references to "transient rental accommodations," "transient residential uses," "transient rental housing," and "transient lodging facilities" are intended to include Transient Rentals. One other district is established by the City's Plan which is relevant to this matter: Historic Planned Redevelopment and Development districts (hereinafter referred to as "HPRD" districts). Land uses allowable in an HPRD district are to be established by land development regulations. The only HPRD district in the City is currently the Truman Annex. Truman Annex was being developed at the time the City's Plan was adopted. While the City's Plan provides that the specific requirements for any HPRD district is to be provided by land development regulations, Policy 1-2.3.4 of the City's Plan does provide, among other things, that the regulations are to "[a]void replacement of permanent housing stock with transient lodging." The Ordinance, and its application to Truman Annex, is consistent with this direction of the City's Plan. Truman Annex was developed as a development of regional impact, or "DRI." As a DRI and HPRD district, land uses in Truman Annex are subject to development agreements between the City and the developer of Truman Annex. Those agreements have been amended 12 times. The Truman Annex development agreements allow the development of "housing units," which included both transient and non-transient uses. "Housing units" were further broken down into the following types: "affordable," "hotel transient housing units," "time share transient housing units," and "other residential housing units." "Affordable" and "other residential housing units" are intended to be "residential" development in the context of the Truman Annex development agreements; "hotel transient housing units" and "time share transient housing units" are intended to be Transient Rentals in the context of the Truman Annex development agreements. Given the distinction between "transient" housing units and other uses in the Truman Annex development agreements, no approval of Transient Rentals of "affordable" or "other residential housing units" was contemplated or allowed by the City. The Truman Annex development agreements and the HPRD district land development regulations do not authorize the use of "affordable" or "other residential housing units" in Truman Annex as Transient Rentals. The Ordinance is, therefore, consistent with the Truman Annex development agreements and the HPRD district land development regulations. The Ordinance, if nothing else, clarifies the state of the law with regard to which Transient Rentals are allowed and which are prohibited in the City. The Ordinance eliminates any lingering confusion caused by the failure of the City to reject the 50% Rule in all circumstances and to properly interpret the Former Transient Definition. The suggestion of the Abbe Petitioners that the 50% Rule was adopted as a part of the City's Plan because it existed when the City's Plan was adopted is not supported by the evidence. Again, the 50% Rule was never adopted as the official policy of the City; it simply went unchallenged by the City. In fact, the 50% Rule was allowed to be advanced by some despite the adoption of the City's Plan and its prohibition against Transient Rentals in the land use districts described, supra. Nor does Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan support the Petitioners' position in these cases. That Objective does not require that any particular land use be continued in the City. Nor do those provisions of the City's Plan dealing with the historic significance of the City detract from the conclusion that the Ordinance is consistent with the City's Plan. The provisions dealing with the historic significance of the City are concerned with the significance of structures which have been a part of the history of the City's existence. The City's Plan also evidences a desire to preserve historically significant housing, not any particular use of those structures. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal A. Principle E: Protection of the Historic Heritage of the City and the Key West Historical Preservation District. Principle E requires a consideration of significant events in the history of the City, famous visitors and residences of the City throughout its history, the architectural history of the City, and other aspects of the City's character. This conclusion is supported, in part, by Rule 28-36.003(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code: (e) Historic Resource Protection. A management and enforcement plan and ordinance shall be adopted by the City of Key West providing that designs and uses of development reconstruction within the Key West Historical Preservation District shall be compatible with the existing unique architectural styles and shall protect the historical values of the District. The City of Key shall maintain an architectural review board established pursuant to Section 266.207(2), Florida Statutes. . . . . The evidence in these cases proved that the Ordinance will preserve and ensure the preservation of the City's historical significance. It will do so by limiting the destruction of the character and community of the City, as discussed, infra. Principle E does not support a conclusion, as argued by Petitioners, that Transient Rentals have played such a large part in the history of the City that they should not be regulated in the manner the Ordinance provides for. Petitioners' argument also fails because the Ordinance only regulates Transient Rentals, it does not eliminate historical Transient Rental uses. The City's Plan also fails to support Petitioners' argument. The City's Plan does not address, or require, the continuation of "historical" land uses such as Transient Rentals. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, it is concluded that the Ordinance is consistent with Principal E. Principle H: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare and the Economy of the City. Principal H requires a consideration of the public health, safety, and welfare, and the economic viability of the City. These factors are inextricably tied to the tourist industry of the City. Without the tourist industry, the City's economy would likely falter to the detriment of the public health, safety, and welfare. A large part of what makes the City attractive, to tourist and residents alike, is the unique community atmosphere and the historical character of the City. The health of the tourist industry in the City is, in part, caused by the City's vibrant and viable communities. An essential characteristic of that vibrancy is the fabric of the people that inhabit the City and the interactions of those inhabitants among themselves and with tourists. As long as tourists continue to enjoy the unique character of the City, they will continue to enjoy their experience and will continue to come back to the City. If that unique character is significantly diminished or lost, so too will be the tourist industry. A number of factors threaten the quality of the tourist experience in the City and, therefore, the continued viability of the tourist industry. Those factors include the shortage of available and affordable housing, a shortage of labor to serve the tourist industry, crowding, and conflicts between tourist and residents of the City. All of these factors are related and must be adequately addressed in order to protect the economic viability of the City. Left unchecked, tourism in the City will likely be seriously impacted. Tourism requires a large labor force to provide the services which tourist expect. The labor force must provide lodging, food, retail sales, amusements, and other services. Indirect services, such as fire protection, police, and others must be provided for also by the labor force. The labor force necessary to serve a tourist industry must be provided with adequate housing. The ability to meet this need must be balanced with the need to provide adequate accommodations to the tourists who visit a destination. The need to balance these competing interests is an even greater challenge in the City because of the existing shortage of available residential property in the City and the lack of viable measures which can be taken to address the shortage. The City's shortage of residential property is caused by the fact that the supply of available land in the City is so restricted it simply cannot meet the demand. The problem caused by the lack of available land is exacerbated by restrictions on development, including those imposed by the rate of growth ordinance and the City's Historic Architectural Review Commission. Actions of the City's Historic Architectural Review Commission cause increases in the cost of redeveloping property and limits the types of redevelopment that may be pursed. Alternatives, like housing the labor force some distance from a tourist destination and providing transportation to bring the labor force into the destination, cannot be utilized in the City to meet the demand for housing for its labor force. The unavailability of adequate land is a problem throughout the length of the Florida Keys. Tourist are now demanding a variety of accommodations. The national trend has seen a increase in the demand for accommodations other than the traditional hotel or motel. Many tourists desire accommodations that include multiple rooms, including kitchen facilities. Transient Rentals have become increasingly available in order to meet part of this demand. Hotels and motels have also begun to offer efficiency- like units. Transient Rentals have also increased because of 1986 changes in federal income tax laws. Those changes have resulted in more owners of vacation housing turning their properties into Transient Rentals in order to offset the cost of the properties. The availability of Transient Rentals has significantly increased in scope and magnitude over what was historically experienced in the City. In addition to the impact on the types of accommodations desired by tourist and the tax benefits of converting property to Transient Rental use, tourism itself has increased dramatically during the past 30 years, further increasing the demand for tourist accommodations. According to a report on housing in the City known as the "Shimberg Report," from 1990 to 1995 the number of housing units decreased from 12,221 to 11,733, a decrease of 488 units. Despite this decrease, the number of households in the City during the same period increased from 10,424 to 11,298, an increase of 874. Economically, a commercial-type use, such as Transient Rentals, will usually be more profitable than a residential use of the same property. The City has experienced this economic impact. As a result of the higher economic value of using a residence as a Transient Rental, tourist use of residential property have in many cases displaced the residential use of property. The demand for Transient Rentals and the need to provide for housing for the labor force necessary to serve the City's tourist industry involve competing and inconsistent goals. In order to meet the need for Transient Rentals in the City, it has been necessary to convert housing formerly used to house the City's residents, including those who make up the labor force. The resulting decrease in residential housing and the increase in Transient Rentals also result in crowding, with members of the labor force in the City being required to share available space with tourists. Crowding results in unacceptable densities of use and increased user conflict. The resulting decrease in residential housing caused by the increase in Transient Rental use in the City has not only resulted in permanent residents leaving the City's communities, but in their departure from the City and the Florida Keys altogether. In addition to the negative impacts on housing, a tourist destination can become so popular that the very quality of the location is negatively impacted or even destroyed. John Pennekamp State Park, located in the northern part of the Florida Keys, has been so successful at attracting visitors that it has been negatively impacted. Although tourism has not reached a point where it is destroying the unique character of the City, the very thing that attracts many visitors to the City, it has the potential of reaching that stage without adequate planning by the City. Shopping by residents in the "downtown" area of the City has already been displaced by shopping areas located away from Old Town. Dr. Virginia Cronk testified during the hearing of these cases concerning what can happen to a community's identity if tourism becomes too dominate. The City is already showing some signs of the negative impact tourism can have on a community. As more stress from overcrowding is placed on the City's communities, the very base of the City's tourist industry is impacted. Not only will the labor force be moved out, the community atmosphere of communities that is so attractive in the City may be diminished or even destroyed. As in many other tourist destinations, the activities of tourists and permanent residents the City are often incompatible. This is especially true in the City because much of what attracts tourists to the City is associated with the City's residential neighborhoods. Part of the tourist destination of the City is its neighborhoods. The type of visitors attracted to the City over the last decade has changed significantly. Many tourists now come to "party" on Duval Street, often late into the night and the early morning hours. The partying often continues back to, and at, the accommodations that the tourists utilize. Many tourists make every effort to maximize their "fun time" by staying up late and playing hard. Because tourists are on vacation, they are not as concerned about when they go to sleep and when they enjoy the City. They are not required to keep any particular schedule, so they are more at liberty to stay up into the early morning hours. Because tourists are only in the City for a short time, they are also less concerned with getting along with their neighbors. They want to have a good time and assume that everyone around them is there for the same reason. Permanent residents of the City are much like permanent residents everywhere. The adults are employed during the day and their children attend school. They go to bed and rise earlier than tourists generally do. Because of the differences in the goals of tourists and permanent residents, inevitable conflicts arise when tourists and residents mix. Unless those conflicts are controlled in the City, permanent residents will be forced out, threatening to end one of the very features that has made the City so attractive to tourists: the unique community atmosphere and historical character of the City. Dr. Cronk explained the different social forces which impact the behavior of tourists and residents. Tourists are simply not subject to the same informal social controls that residents are. As a result, the behavior of tourists often comes into conflict with the behavior normally associated with a true community neighborhood. Because the behavior of tourists is not subject to the same informal social controls as residents, residents must turn increasingly to more formal social controls such as the police and private security forces. These controls often do not work and are more expensive than the informal social controls normally associated with neighborhoods. Witnesses during the hearing of these cases gave examples of clashes between permanent residents and tourists. Those incidents are fully reported in the transcript of the hearing of this matter and are summarized in the proposed orders filed by the Department and City, and the duPonts. The need to resort to more formal social controls, such as the police and private security was also explained by these witnesses. The credible testimony of Ms. Rowe, Margaret Domanski, and Martha duPont accurately describe the types of conflicts the Ordinance is intended to reduce. The impact which the conversion of residential properties to Transient Rentals has on affordable housing in the City is difficult to measure. The Department has suggested that it is significant. Petitioners argue that there is no impact and that, even if there were some impact, affordable housing is not one of the Principles and, therefore, should play no part in the review of the Ordinance. The principles which apply to Monroe County require that Monroe County "make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." Section 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes. This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(d), Florida Statutes, that a local government provide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys. The Principles applicable to the City ACSC do not contain a principle specifically requiring that affordable housing be maintained. The lack of a specific requirement concerning affordable housing does not, however, support a conclusion that affordable housing should be ignored when applying the Principles to land development regulations adopted by the City. On the contrary, Principle H is broad enough to require a consideration of affordable housing. After all, any consideration of the "public health . . . welfare, and economy" of the City, necessarily must include a consideration of affordable housing. Without adequate housing for all sectors of the City's population, the public health and welfare of the City cannot be maintained. Nor can the economy of the City survive without adequate housing for all segments of the work force. "Affordable housing" does not mean housing for the poor. "Affordable housing" is defined in terms of the percentage of a household's income spent on housing which is considered "affordable" by very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income persons. What is considered affordable is based upon the median household income of a community's very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income population. The approximate median household income of City residents is $49,000.00. In order for the City to be considered to have adequate "affordable housing," persons making between 80 and 120 percent of the median household income, or $39,000 to $59,000, should be able to afford a house. The average value of a single-family house in the City, however, is $300,000, well above the price affordable to persons with a household income of between $39,000 and $59,000. Because of the disparity between the average price of homes and the low median household income of City residents, an enormous burden is placed on residents to fund any type of housing. As much as 30 percent of residents' income must be spent on housing. The number of residents spending at least 30 percent of their income on housing increased significantly between 1990 and 1995. That number is likely to continue to increase. As the cost of residential property increases, the economic burden on residents for housing continues to increase. The cost of residential property is increasing, and will continue to increase, because of the conversion of residential property to Transient Rentals. If the City takes no action with regard to balancing tourist accommodations, particularly Transient Rentals, and housing for its residents, the ability of residents to afford any housing will continue to be negatively impacted. Even though it is doubtful that the Ordinance will increase the ability of residents to actually own their own home, there is no doubt that their ability to afford any housing will continue to be negatively impacted if Transient Rentals continue to displace the use of property for residential purposes. In adopting the Ordinance, the City recognized the negative impact that tourism is having on the City: . . . the transient use of residential dwellings has had deleterious consequences in the residential neighborhoods of Key West; and . . . the increase in the conversion of residential dwellings to transient use is, in part, responsible for the affordable housing shortage in Key West, a shortage confirmed in a study of the City by the Shimberg Center of the University of Florida . . . The finding concerning affordable housing is consistent with the City's Plan. Objective 3-1.1 and Note 2, Policy 1-3.12.3 of the City's Plan. In adopting the Ordinance, the City took a reasonable step to address the problems associated with tourism. The Ordinance, while causing an initial negative impact to the economy, will promote the protection of residential neighborhoods from unnecessary intrusion, promote affordable housing, and ultimately ensure the continued viability of the tourist economy of the City. By limiting the intrusion of Transient Rentals into most residential neighborhoods in the City, the Ordinance will limit the intrusion of negative tourist activities into those neighborhoods. Those negative impacts testified about by Ms. Rowe, Ms. Domanski, and Ms. duPont will be, in most cases, prevented or at least reduced. The reduction of tourist intrusions into neighborhoods will also ensure that the unique community character of the City remains viable. The Ordinance will go a long way in keeping the charm of the City's neighborhoods intact for tourists and residents both. The Ordinance goes a long way in planning for tourism in the City. Reducing economically competitive uses of property in the City, such as the use of property for Transient Rentals, will ensure that the scarce supply of residential property is not further reduced. Stabilizing the supply of residential property, while not eliminating cost increases, will at least eliminate the increase in housing costs associated with the conversion of residential property to Transient Rental use. Eliminating the unlicensed use of Transient Rentals, which the Ordinance will do, will have the effect of actually returning some residential property to the supply of property available to residents. By prohibiting the use of residential properties as Transient Rentals, the total properties in the City available for housing, including for long-term rentals, for permanent residents, will increase. As supply increases, the demand for all housing, including to a very limited extent affordable housing, will be better met. By reducing the drain on residential properties in the City, the strain on the work force necessary to serve the tourist economy of the City will also be reduced. The City recognized and accepted the fact that the Ordinance will have an initial negative impact on the economy of the City. The Pallini Report was commissioned by, and considered by the City Commission. There will be an immediate reduction in revenues from unlicensed Transient Rentals that comply with the Ordinance and the income associated with providing services to those Transient Rentals. Some tourists who would otherwise select the City as their vacation destination will go elsewhere. Unlicensed Transient Rentals (taxed and untaxed), however, make up no more than ten percent of the total accommodations available in the City. It is estimated that the Ordinance will result in a loss in gross sales of $31 million, a loss in personal income of $9 million, and a loss in City revenues annually of $260,000. It is also estimated that there will be a loss of approximately 500 jobs associated with unlicensed Transient Rentals. These estimates are the "worst case" scenario figures. Actual losses will likely be somewhat less. The losses associated with the Ordinance will, however, not be long-term. Gradually, the tourist industry will adjust to the decrease in tourist accommodations and the negative impact on the economy. Some tourists will adjust the time of year they come to the City, resulting in greater tourist business during traditionally slower times. Persons who experience unemployment as a result of the Ordinance will also very likely find other employment relatively quickly because of the tight labor market in the City. The negative economic impacts to the City caused by the Ordinance should not last longer than three to five years. After that time, the economy will adjust. The overall impact of the Ordinance will be to help balance the need to provide tourist accommodations and the need to protect the charm of the City and the ability of the City to provide a work force. Protection of residential neighborhoods in the City comes within the City's responsibility to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and is a necessary consideration in providing for the economic well- being of the City. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal H. Truman Annex. It has been argued by Mr. Coleman that the application of the Ordinance to the Truman Annex supports a conclusion that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles. The evidence failed to support this contention. Truman Annex is located within walking distance of most tourist destinations in the City. The character and atmosphere of Truman Annex makes it an attractive tourist destination in itself. The "Little Whitehouse," a house utilized by President Harry Truman, is located within Truman Annex as is a tourist destination itself. While the Truman Annex is located in an area conducive to use as tourist accommodations, nothing in the City's Plan or land development regulations, the development orders associated with Truman Annex, the historic use of Truman Annex, the public health, safety and welfare, or the continued economic viability of the City depends upon such use. Truman Annex consists of residential housing and tourist accommodations, as well as some commercial facilities. Those activities are, however, largely buffered from each other. Most of the commercial activities are located in the western portion of Truman Annex. The residential housing is located primarily in the eastern portion of Truman Annex. Truman Annex without Transient Rentals constitutes appropriate planning by the developer of Truman Annex and the City. The Ordinance, even when applied to Truman Annex, constitutes an appropriate effort of the City to manage land uses and development. The Ordinance, even when applied to Truman Annex, will protect the historic heritage of Truman Annex and, more importantly, the City. Finally, the evidence proved that the application of the Ordinance to Truman Annex will not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare, or the long-term economy of the City. Consideration of the Principles as a Whole. The evidence in these cases supports a conclusion that the Ordinance has no or little impact on most of the Principles, except Principles A, E, and H. The evidence proved that the Ordinance is neutral with regard to the other Principles. When Principles A, E, and H are considered individually and together, the evidence proved that the Ordinance is consistent with Principles A, E, and H. The Ordinance constitutes an effort of the City to manage land uses and development in the City, consistent with Principal A. The Ordinance will also help to protect the historic heritage of the City by preserving the character of the City's neighborhoods and, as a result, will preserve the tourist industry, consistent with Principal E. Just as clearly, the Ordinance will enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of the City. Finally, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal H because it will benefit the public health, safety, and welfare of the City by protecting neighborhoods from the intrusion of tourists, reducing the impact of the conversion of residential housing for Transient Rentals, and ensuring the continued character of the City. While there will be an initial negative impact on the economy of the City as a result of the Ordinance, ultimately the Ordinance will have a positive impact on the economy of the City due to the positive impact on the City's tourist industry which will result from the regulation of Transient Rentals. Abbey Petitioners' Rule Challenge, Constitutional Issues, and Other Issues. In the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Petition") filed by the Abbe Petitioners, the Abbe Petitioners attempted to challenge pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, portions of the Final Order of the Department as an unpromulgated rule. The Amended Petition was not, however, filed consistent with the requirements of Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes. This challenge was required to be filed in a separate petition filed solely with the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the "Division") and not through an amendment to a petition originally filed with the Department which was subsequently filed by the Department with the Division with a request that the Division hear the matter. Additionally, even if the issue were properly before the Division, the evidence in this case failed to prove that the statements in the Final Order have any application other than to the Ordinance. Therefore, those statements are not "agency statements of general applicability." The statements are not, therefore, "rules" as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. The Abbe Petitioners also raised issues in the Amended Petition other than the consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles. Other than the question of the consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles, the evidence failed to support the Abbe Petitioners' argument that the issues raised in the Amended Petition are relevant to this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order approving City of Key West Ordinance 98-31 as consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development of Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey M. Bell, Esquire Ritter, Chusid, Bivona & Cohen, LLP 7000 West Palmetto Park Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Coleman, Esquire Post Office Box 1393 Key West, Florida 33041 John F. Rooney 208-10 Southard Street Key West, Florida 33040 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Robert Tischenkel, City Attorney City of Key West Post Office Box 1409 Key West, Florida 33041 David J. Audlin, Jr., Esquire Eaton Street Professional Center 524 Eaton Street, Suite 110 Key West, Florida 33040 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol A. Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner because of handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioner Shelley M. Wright ("Wright") was a graduate student at Florida International University ("FIU") in Miami, Florida. Wright has a physical disability that affects her mobility, and, as a result, she uses a wheelchair or scooter to get around. There is no dispute that Wright falls within a class of persons protected against discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act ("FFHA"). Respondent Servitas Management Group, LLC ("SMG"), manages Bayview Student Living ("Bayview"), a privately owned student housing community located on FIU's campus. Bayview's owner, NCCD — Biscayne Properties, LLC, leases (from FIU) the real estate on which the project is situated. Bayview is a recently built apartment complex, which first opened its doors to students for the 2016-2017 school year. On November 20, 2015, Wright submitted a rental application for a single occupancy efficiency apartment in Bayview, fitted out for residents with disabilities. She was charged an application fee of $100.00, as were all applicants, plus a "convenience fee" of $6.45. Much later, Wright would request that SMG refund the application fee, and SMG would deny her request, although it would give her a credit of $6.45 to erase the convenience fee on the grounds that it had been charged in error. Wright complains that this transaction was tainted with unlawful discrimination, but there is no evidence of such, and thus the fees will not be discussed further. Wright's application was approved, and, accordingly, she soon executed a Student Housing Lease Contract ("First Lease") for a term commencing on August 20, 2016, and ending on July 31, 2017. The First Lease stated that her rent would be $1,153.00 per month, and that the total rent for the lease term would be $12,683.00. Because Wright was one of the first students to sign a lease, she won some incentives, namely $500.00 in Visa gift cards and an iPad Pro. The First Lease provided that she would receive a $200.00 gift card upon lease execution and the balance of $300.00 upon moving in. As it happened, Wright did not receive the gift cards in two installments, but instead accepted five cards worth $500.00, in the aggregate, on August 20, 2016. There were two reasons for this. One was that SMG required lease holders to appear in-person to take possession of the gift cards and sign a receipt acknowledging delivery. Wright was unable (or unwilling) to travel to SMG's office until she moved to Miami in August 2016 to attend FIU. The other was that SMG decided not to use gift cards as the means of paying this particular incentive after integrating its rent collection operation with FIU's student accounts. Instead, SMG would issue a credit to the lease holders' student accounts in the amount of $500.00. Wright, however, insisted upon the gift cards, and so she was given them rather than the $500.00 credit. Wright has alleged that the untimely (or inconvenient) delivery of the gift cards constituted unlawful discrimination, but the evidence fails to sustain the allegation, which merits no further discussion. In May 2016, SMG asked Wright (and all other Bayview lease holders) to sign an amended lease. The revised lease made several changes that SMG called "improvements," most of which stemmed from SMG's entering into a closer working relationship with FIU. (One such change was the aforementioned substitution of a $500.00 credit for gift cards.) The amended lease, however, specified that Wright's total rent for the term would be $13,836.00——an increase of $1,153.00 over the amount stated in the First Lease. The explanation was that, in the First Lease, the total rent had been calculated by multiplying the monthly installment ($1,153.00) by 11, which did not account for the 12 days in August 2016 included in the lease term. SMG claimed that the intent all along had been to charge 12 monthly installments of $1,153.00 without proration (even though the tenant would not have possession of the premises for a full 12 months) and thus that the First Lease had erroneously shown the total rent as $12,683.00. As SMG saw it, the revised lease simply fixed this mistake. Wright executed the amended lease on or about May 10, 2016 (the "Second Lease"). Wright alleges that this rent "increase" was the product of unlawful discrimination, retaliation, or both. There is, however, no persuasive evidence supporting this allegation. The same rental amount was charged to all occupants of the efficiency apartments, regardless of their disabilities or lack thereof, and each of them signed the same amended lease document that Wright executed. To be sure, Wright had reason to be upset about SMG's revision of the total rent amount, which was not an improvement from her standpoint, and perhaps she had (or has) legal or equitable remedies available for breach of lease. But this administrative proceeding is not the forum for redressing such wrongs (if any). Relatedly, some tenants received a rent reduction through the amended leases SMG presented in May 2016, because the rates were reduced therein for two- and four-bedroom apartments. As was made clear at the time, however, rates were not reduced on the one-bedroom studios due to their popularity. Wright alleges that she subsequently requested an "accommodation" in the form of a rent reduction, which she argues was necessary because she leased a more expensive studio apartment, not by choice, but of necessity (since only the one- bedroom unit met her needs in light of her disabilities). This claim fails because allowing Wright to pay less for her apartment than every other tenant is charged for the same type of apartment would amount to preferential treatment, which the law does not require. Wright makes two claims of alleged discrimination that, unlike her other charges, are facially plausible. She asserts that the handicapped parking spaces at Bayview are unreasonably far away for her, given her limited mobility. She further asserts that the main entrance doors (and others in the building) do not afford two-way automatic entry, and that as a result, she has difficulty exiting through these doors. The undersigned believes it is possible, even likely, that the refusal to offer Wright a reasonable and necessary accommodation with regard to the alleged parking situation, her problems with ingress and egress, or both, if properly requested, might afford grounds for relief under the FFHA. The shortcoming in Wright's current case is the absence of persuasive proof that she ever presented an actual request for such an accommodation, explaining the necessity thereof, for SMG's consideration. There is evidence suggesting that Wright complained about the parking and the doors, perhaps even to SMG employees, but a gripe, without more, is not equivalent to a request for reasonable accommodation. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of SMG's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Wright, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward Wright. There is no persuasive evidence that SMG denied a request of Wright's for a reasonable accommodation at Bayview. In sum, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that SMG did not commit any prohibited act.
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 SMG not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Wright no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 27th day of September, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent real estate broker is guilty of a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioners related to the sale and marketing of their home.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner homeowners allege that Respondent real estate broker discriminated against them by the length of the exclusive listing contract Petitioners signed with Respondent (eight months); by inferior service because Respondent showed Petitioners' home only once in the eight months the contract was in effect1/; by incorrectly stating the agreed asking price on flyers Respondent circulated; by providing an "open house" to all of Respondent's other clients, but not to Petitioners; and by asking Petitioners to remove some of their bi-racial family photographs. Petitioner Donald Smith, Ph.D., is Caucasian. He is married to Miranda Smith, a dentist, who is African-American. They have at least one child, with whom they have been photographed. This case involves a house they owned on Cressida Circle in Spring Hill, Florida, where they displayed their bi- racial family photographs. On or about January 28, 2007, Petitioners signed, as sellers, an exclusive real estate listing contract with Kathlen Hobbs, a real estate salesperson, who at that time was an independent contractor associated with Exit Realty Shoppe. Respondent Montgomery, real estate broker, is the qualifying principal of Exit Realty Shoppe. Both Ms. Hobbs and Ms. Montgomery are Caucasian. The agreed asking price was $296,900.00. The term of the contract was for eight months: January 30, 2007, to October 1, 2007. Mr. Smith interviewed two other realtors, but he selected Ms. Hobbs and Respondent's proffered contract. It is a "fill-in the blanks contract," to which Mr. Smith had input. Although she signed the contract, Mrs. Smith did not speak to either Ms. Hobbs or Ms. Montgomery concerning the sale of the house at any material time. Mr. Smith testified that Ms. Hobbs initially told him that their home was "priced to sell" at $296,900.00, but he candidly admitted that Ms. Montgomery never made that representation and never "guaranteed" that the house would sell at that price. Upon the evidence as a whole and because Mr. Smith testified at one point that the other two realtors he interviewed told him the house would sell at "$295,000.00 or $296,000.00," and also testified contrariwise that Ms. Hobbs and the other two realtors told him the house would sell at "between $292,000.00 and $298,000.00," it is found to be more probable that no one guaranteed a sale at Petitioners' asking price of $296,900.00. Petitioners seek damages of $15,000.00, without stating any specific basis for that figure. They previously have sought $40,000.00, damages based upon the alleged lowered price of the house as sold by a subsequent realtor. However, the final date of sale and final sale price are not clear on this record. Paragraph Nine of the parties' contract provided for its early termination prior to its eight-month expiration date, upon the following terms: CONDITIONAL TERMINATION: At Seller's request, Broker may agree to conditionally terminate this Agreement. If Broker agrees to conditional termination, Seller must sign a withdrawal agreement, reimburse Broker for all direct expenses incurred in marketing the Property and pay a cancellation fee of $ plus applicable sales tax. Broker may void the conditional termination and Seller will pay the fee stated in paragraph 6(a) less the cancellation fee if Seller transfers or contracts to transfer the Property or any interest in the Property during the same time period from the date of conditional termination to Termination Date and Protection Period, if applicable. (Blank space in original; emphasis supplied.) Paragraph Six of that listing contract provides, in pertinent part: 6. COMPENSATION: Seller will compensate Broker as specified below for procuring a buyer who is ready, willing and able to purchase the Property or any interest in the Property on the terms of this Agreement or on any other terms acceptable to Seller. Seller will pay Broker as follows (plus applicable sales tax) 6% of the total purchase price OR $ , no later than the date of closing specified in the sales contract. However, closing is not a prerequisite for Broker's fee being earned. (Blank space in original.) Steve Van Slyke has been an active licensed real estate broker for over 20 years. For the last few years he has done more property appraisals than real estate sales. He has regularly taught and taken continuing education courses in the real estate profession since he was admitted to the profession in 1983. He has chaired the Professional Standards Committee of the Hernando County Association of Realtors (HCAR) since 1991. In that capacity, he has presided over hundreds of contract disputes between buyers and sellers, including the one that ultimately developed between the parties in this case. See infra. According to Mr. Van Slyke, the contract in this case is one commonly used in Hernando County, in the sense of not being unusual, but there are no "average," "usual," or "industry standards" for the duration of an exclusive real estate listing contract. He further testified that to have such a generally agreed-upon provision within the real estate industry would run afoul of the United States Fair Trade Commission's jurisdiction of, and prosecution for, "price-fixing." For the same reasons, there is no established average, usual, or industry standard for the conditional early release of a homeowner from a listing contract. Because no dollar amount for a cancellation fee had been written into Paragraph Nine of the parties’ contract herein, Mr. Van Slyke interpreted Paragraph Nine and Sub- paragraph Six (a) together, to permit Respondent broker the latitude to require payment by the sellers of six percent of Petitioners’/sellers’ asking price as a condition of early termination of the contract upon their unilateral request. Respondent submitted in evidence a similar contract dated March 5, 2007, between Respondent and a different homeowner for the duration of one year (12 months) from that date.2/ Petitioners presented no other contracts between any seller and Respondent or, for that matter, between any seller and any other realtor which specified a duration of less than eight months.3/ It is accepted that a different realtor with whom Petitioners contracted in November 2007, after their eight- month contract with Respondent had expired, filled-in “$500.00” in the equivalent Paragraph Nine, but there was no competent, credible evidence that this replacement realtor, or any other realtor for that matter, had a similar arrangement with any other sellers. Petitioners and Ms. Hobbs agreed that Ms. Hobbs would not submit Petitioners' sellers' contract on their existing home to Respondent until she got an acceptance on their offer as buyers for a new house on Rudolph Court. Accordingly, the listing contract for the Cressida Circle house in which Petitioners were living, and which contained their furniture and photographs, was not submitted to Respondent at least until January 31, 2007. Accordingly, Respondent could not begin attempts to sell Petitioners' existing home until the next day, February 1, 2007. There are 185 realty firms in Hernando County. There are four printed real property advertising booklets which are circulated in Hernando and surrounding counties. Each booklet is published every 30 days. The lead time to get a photographic advertisement of a newly listed property into each publication is three weeks. Before a photo can be published, it has to be made. On or about February 1, 2007, Ms. Hobbs photographed Petitioners’ Cressida Circle house for purposes of advertising it via websites, flyers, real estate advertising booklets, and newspapers, and placed Respondent’s "for sale" sign and lock-box on Petitioners' lawn. Respondent had admitted in evidence the first advertisements she paid for in three printed real estate booklets ("Nature Coast", March 22-April 18, 2007; "Real Estate News", April 2007; and "Sunshine Living", April 2007). Each advertisement contained a photograph and information extolling the Cressida Circle house. Each advertisement correctly quoted Petitioners' asking price of $296,900.00. Additionally, Respondent had admitted in evidence documentation showing that from March 22, 2007, until the end of her exclusive listing on September 30, 2007, she had advertised Petitioners' property repeatedly and/or consistently via newspaper, real estate advertising booklets, and/or Multiple Listing Services (MLS) websites and commercial websites. Both parties agree that Ms. Hobbs' first printed flyer stated an incomplete, and thus incorrect, selling price of "$296,90.", and that this flyer was circulated and/or placed in the lock-box tube on the "for sale" sign about February 1, 2007. (See Finding of Fact 17.) Despite Petitioners' claim that this was "inferior marketing," it is probable that most serious home seekers would have figured out how to correctly read the price as "$296,900.00", or would have asked what price was intended when phoning for an appointment to view the house. While Ms. Hobbs' flyer was never corrected, Respondent Montgomery had other, correct flyers printed, and she placed and circulated those correct flyers for the remainder of the contract period. It is customary for Exit Realty to conduct a "caravan" shortly after a contract is signed. A "caravan" involves Ms. Montgomery and all the salespeople she can round-up in her office. The entire team tours a seller's home, making notes, and then returns to Respondent's office, where a list of repairs and upgrades is compiled with each salesperson's in-put. Then the team brain-storms to develop selling techniques customized to each property listed. On February 7, 2007, the day before Caravan Day, an independent contractor with Exit Realty showed Petitioners' home to a potential buyer. Through Ms. Hobbs, the salesperson relayed to Mr. Smith that the potential buyer had remarked that the house's exterior paint was unacceptable. Mr. Smith told Ms. Hobbs that he would paint the house at his own expense if the potential buyer would make an offer, but no offer was forthcoming. Respondent's caravan viewed Petitioners' home on February 8, 2007. As a result, a list of selling suggestions was relayed by Ms. Hobbs to Mr. Smith. A day or so after Caravan Day, Mr. Smith was told by Ms. Hobbs that to best present and sell Petitioners’ home, Petitioners needed to deal with dirt and dust in an exhaust fan; replace a broken tile in a bathroom, and refinish their swimming pool. Mr. Smith also acknowledged that on the same date, or minimally later, he was told by Ms. Hobbs to remove Petitioners' large family photographs over the sliding doors opening from the house's vaulted-ceiling living room onto its screened patio and pool area. According to Ms. Montgomery, she had advised Ms. Hobbs to relay this information and additional advice, including the information that Petitioners’ house would sell better if Petitioners moved out or reduced the amount of furniture in the living room, so that potential buyers could visualize their own belongings in the room. It was not proven one way or the other whether Ms. Hobbs relayed the "move out" or "remove furniture" suggestions at that time. When Mr. Smith pressed Ms. Hobbs as to why the family photographs had to be removed, she referred him to Ms. Montgomery, who "could better explain." Mr. Smith acknowledged that Ms. Hobbs never said anything about race or discrimination. Mr. Smith testified to three versions of why he concluded that Ms. Montgomery was discriminating against Petitioners on the basis of race: first, because neither Ms. Hobbs nor Ms. Montgomery mentioned the bi-racial family photographs until after Ms. Montgomery had first seen them on Caravan Day, and Ms. Hobbs could not explain to his satisfaction the reason for removing the photographs; second, because Ms. Montgomery did not immediately return his phone calls; and third, because when Ms. Montgomery did return his phone calls, she mentioned the photographs over the sliding doors repeatedly among several other upgrades she encouraged him to accomplish, all of which upgrades Ms. Hobbs apparently had not passed along to him. Ms. Montgomery can suggest and encourage her independent contractors to pass on certain information to sellers and buyers and to pursue sales in certain ways, but she has no way to compel them. Mr. Smith conceded that at no time did Ms. Montgomery ever mention race or make any overt discriminatory statement to him and that she responded to all his letters, even though she did not agree with him in those letters. See, infra. Petitioners also agree that at no time did Ms. Montgomery or anyone associated with Exit Realty suggest that Petitioners remove tastefully framed bi-racial family photographs displayed on a bedroom dresser. Ms. Montgomery credibly testified that successfully "staging" a home for sale usually requires removing as much furniture as possible and all of the personalization, such as awards and photographs hung on the walls of all rooms. Mrs. Smith acknowledged that she was familiar with this concept from print literature and television. Ms. Montgomery demonstrated, using a photograph she had taken of the house without the wall photographs in place, that anything mounted above the living room's sliding glass doors had the potential to draw a shopper's eye away from the luxuriant sweep of the vaulted-ceiling and away from the scope and sweep of the view, through the sliding glass doors, of Petitioners' pool and patio. Petitioners accomplished the three repair suggestions (exhaust fan; tile; and swimming pool) that Ms. Hobbs passed on to them, but they remained in the Cressida Circle house and did not remove their furniture or the photographs above the sliding glass doors. In early March, Petitioners requested a reduction in the six percent commission specified in their Cressida Circle contract with Respondent. Respondent declined to consider reducing her commission until someone made an offer to buy. Petitioners closed on their new home on Rudolph Court on March 30, 2007. The Rudolph Court sale and closing in which Petitioners were buyers, was also handled by Hobbs, Montgomery, and Exit Realty. Petitioners do not claim that any racial discrimination by anybody occurred in the process of buying their new home. Closing on the Rudolph Court house left Petitioners with two houses to maintain and at least two (possibly four) mortgages to pay. Petitioners became concerned that no one had made an offer on their Cressida Circle house. Mr. Smith made several telephone calls to Ms. Montgomery. She did not immediately return those calls. When she did return Mr. Smith's phone calls, Ms. Montgomery explained to him that the Cressida Circle house needed to be "staged" better, including removing furniture and the photographs over the patio doors. Ms. Montgomery wrote Mr. Smith on April 5, 2007, to memorialize all of their April 4, 2007, conversation, giving him clear advice that a “lease/purchase procedure,” as opposed to a “lease/option to buy” arrangement which he had proposed, would be a better and safer solution for his needs. She also advised him that no home in his sub-development had been sold in the last seven months, and emphatically advised him to lower his asking price to $269,900.00, due to the competition of other similar homes for sale. It is undisputed that the parties' contract was signed during a "housing market slump" and that the housing market continued to decline during the entire term of the parties' contract. On April 9, 2007, Mr. Smith wrote Ms. Montgomery, making no reference to race or discrimination, but complaining about Exit Realty Shoppe showing his home only one time, requesting to void their contract, and closing with: If necessary we will follow thru [sic.] with a complaint to the Florida Real-estate [sic.] Commission in Tallahassee. Not unreasonably, Ms. Montgomery regarded Petitioners' foregoing letter as a threat. She responded by registered mail on April 10, 2007, setting out in detail all she had done and describing the costs she had incurred as of that date to sell the Cressida Circle house. She enclosed three printed real estate publications advertising Petitioner's house (see Finding of Fact 18); proof that the home was being advertised with the correct price April 7-13, 2007, in the St. Petersburg Times; proof that she had registered the house with the correct price on the MLS; and proof that the house was being shown in color on Exit Realty's three websites and on Ms. Hobbs' personal website with the correct price. She also reminded Mr. Smith that she had, earlier in the week, suggested that Petitioners reduce their asking price by $30,000.00, to $269,900.00. She also advised him, and included information showing, that as of that writing, there were 11 comparable listings in his sub- development, nine of which were listed at less than Petitioners' asking price. Evidence of all of Respondent's foregoing April 10, 2007, assertions was introduced in evidence by Respondent at the final hearing.4/ Respondent's April 10, 2007, letter also explained "staging," and offered to conditionally release Petitioners from their contract for six percent of their $296,900.00 asking price, as per the contract's Paragraph Six (a). Ms. Montgomery's April 10, 2007, unopened letter and supporting documentation were returned to her by the U.S. Mail as "unclaimed." Because Petitioners were still residing at the Cressida Circle address and because the post office did not mark the envelope "refused," it is probable that Petitioners simply did not go to the post office to sign-for, and pick up, Ms. Montgomery's material. However, Petitioners must have received these items because Ms. Montgomery also had the same materials delivered by messenger to Mrs. Smith’s office. Also, on April 11, 2007, Mr. Smith wrote, acknowledging receipt of Respondent's April 10, 2007, letter, refusing to reduce the asking price, and advising Ms. Montgomery that: I feel that it will be my responsibility to express this dissatisfaction in anyway [sic] I can, to as many people as I can. I will do what ever [sic.] I can do to be released from our agreement. He further threatened to contact "different government agencies" to report what he described as very poor service, but he did not mention race or discrimination. On or about April 19, 2007, Mr. Smith filed a complaint against Respondent dated April 16, 2007, with the local Better Business Bureau (BBB). His complaint alleged lack of service. Nowhere in his complaint is race or discrimination mentioned. The material in evidence shows that the BBB contacted Ms. Montgomery about the complaint, but marked it "information only," and did not pursue it at that time.5/ In early April 2007, Mr. Smith telephoned Ed Carr, Executive Director of the Hernando County Association of Realtors (HCAR). Mr. Smith said nothing to Mr. Carr about racial discrimination at that point, but said only that he wanted to get out of the listing contract with Respondent. On or about April 23, 2007, Petitioners filed a formal complaint with HCAR. HCAR's Grievance Committee met May 7, 2007, and, apparently in the mode of a probable cause panel, referred the case for a full evidentiary hearing. On June 29, 2007, the case was first noticed for hearing by HCAR. Petitioners’ HCAR complaint is not in evidence, and the evidence herein falls short of enabling the undersigned to determine whether the complaint before HCAR involved racial discrimination. However, it is certain that Ms. Montgomery perceived it that way. The HCAR hearing was first scheduled to occur August 28, 2007, but it was re-scheduled. The actual date the hearing took place and the date HCAR issued its decision are not clear in this record, but the hearing was on or after October 23, 2007. Mr. Van Slyke presided over the HCAR hearing. The HCAR decision resulted in a determination that Respondent had not violated professional real estate ethics. Despite Petitioners’ expressed dissatisfaction with HCAR's result and their claims that HCAR’s panel was prejudiced in Respondent's favor and that Respondent manipulated timing of the hearing, the HCAR process, and its deciding body, there is no competent, credible, or compelling evidence herein demonstrating the validity of such accusations or demonstrating that HCAR’s decision in Respondent’s favor was based on racial discrimination or constituted a cover-up for racial discrimination. That said, HCAR's decision is not binding here. Ms. Montgomery testified credibly that she had refused to acquiesce in any overt action, such as voluntarily letting Petitioners out of their contract without paying her commission, because to do so might make her appear to be prejudiced. Even more credible is her testimony that she did not want to let Petitioners out of their listing contract unless they paid her commission and costs, as provided in the contract, because she had already expended considerable time and money on Petitioners' behalf. Respondent continued to advertise the Cressida Circle house until the end of the eight-month contract (see Findings of Fact 19 and 40), despite Petitioners’ refusal to allow Respondent to reduce the asking price. Unfortunately, between June 14, and July 1, 2007, Respondent advertised an incorrect and lower asking price of $269,900.000, in "Nature Coast." Respondent did not know how the error occurred. The advertising for this two-week period was, as always, at Respondent's expense, and the asking price was corrected in the next issue. While signed-up with Respondent, Mrs. Smith took material prepared by Respondent for marketing the Cressida Circle property, made minor adjustments to it, and placed it on her own and others' websites. The material she posted sometimes carried Ms. Hobbs' contact information. Other times, Mrs. Smith's internet advertisements showed a reduced price for contacting Petitioners. This placed Petitioners in direct competition with Respondent's advertisements in which Petitioners required that Respondent maintain the original $296,900.00, asking price. In so-doing, Petitioners may have offended a clause of the listing contract. In placing this information on MLS websites outside of Respondent’s general geographic area, Petitioners may have exposed Respondent to liability in the professional real estate community. Respondent advised Petitioners of these problems, but there is no clear evidence that Respondent intervened to prevent Petitioners' behavior. Petitioners moved into their new, Rudolph Court house in early June 2007. When they moved, their furniture and photographs went with them. Photographic evidence shows that Petitioners allowed the Cressida Circle house to deteriorate after they moved to Rudolph Court, thereby rendering the sale property less desirable to potential buyers. Petitioners each testified credibly that between January 31, 2007, and the time they moved out, probably about June 6, 2007, Respondent gave them no advance notices that a potential buyer was coming to view the Cressida Circle house, as had been agreed upon when the house was listed. The sign-in sheet left in Petitioners’ sale house demonstrated that Exit Realty showed the house once, on August 21, 2007. Petitioners acknowledged that the home was also shown another time on the day before Caravan Day. (See Finding of Fact 22.) Respondent produced her lock-box's recorded printout showing that on February 1, 2007, Ms. Hobbs entered the house. (See Finding of Fact 17.) It shows also that Ms Hobbs entered again on June 7, 2007. On July 17, a ReMax salesman entered. On July 27, Respondent entered. On July 31, an ERA saleswoman entered. On August 10, and 11, Respondent entered. On August 21, another Exit Realty saleswoman entered. (See Finding of Fact 55.) On September 20, Clara Ward, an independent contractor with Exit Realty entered. (See Finding of Fact 58.) On October 4, 2007, Ms. Hobbs entered. Respondent acknowledged that on one or two of the foregoing occasions, she entered the sale house, not to show the property to prospective buyers, but to take photographs for the HCAR hearing (see Finding of Fact 47), but there is no credible evidence to support Petitioners' conjecture that the other visits by Ms. Montgomery and by all other real estate salespersons were not for the purposes of showing the house or for some other legitimate sales purpose. Clara Ward testified that she showed the house to a legitimate potential buyer about a month before Respondent's listing ended, and again in approximately December 2007, after Petitioners had listed it with another realtor at the reduced price of $256,900.00. Mr. Smith admitted that he never asked Ms. Hobbs for an "open house," until June 2007. The contract does not require an "open house." Ms. Montgomery testified credibly and without refutation that she did not schedule an "open house" for Petitioners because, in the past, "open houses" have not resulted in sales for her. She rarely, if ever, utilizes them for any property. Mr. Smith admitted that Petitioners had no evidence to support their allegation that every other home that Exit Realty signed in the same period was shown more than once. Petitioners also presented no evidence that every other home, besides the Cressida Circle home, which Exit Realty signed in the same period held even one open house.6/ In November 2007, Petitioners signed with another realtor who marketed the house at $269,900.00, which was $27,000.00 less than the only figure at which Petitioners would permit Respondent to market the house. If and when there was a sale is unclear.
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 dismissing the Complaint and the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2008.
