Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00450 is for a consumptive use permit from 10 wells located in Hillsborough County, to be used for public water supply for the City of Temple Terrace. The permit seeks to withdraw 2.028 million gallons a day average annual withdrawal and 4.564 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal. The sought for withdrawal may affect other wells by drawdown of an average of 1" in a surrounding well. Such a drawdown will not seriously and adversely affect the surrounding wells. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of a type acceptable to the district on all withdrawal points covered by the permit. That the applicant shall record the pumpage on a weekly basis and shall submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly beginning January 15, 1977. All individual connections supplied by withdrawals permitted will be metered. Records of meter readings will be made available to the district upon request. That the permit shall expire on December 31, 1980.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017- 108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments To Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits” was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. To promote affordable housing in Florida, Florida Housing offers a variety of programs to distribute housing credits. (Housing credits, also known as tax credits, are a dollar-for-dollar offset of federal income tax liability.) One of these programs is the State Apartment Incentive Loan program (“SAIL”), which provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers. SAIL funds are available each year to support the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low- income individuals and families. See § 420.5087, Fla. Stat. Additional sources of financial assistance include the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond program (“MMRB”) and non- competitive housing credits. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funds, nontaxable revenue bonds, and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive application process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). The Request for Application at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-108, entitled “SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments to Be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt Bond Financing and Non-Competitive Housing Credits.” Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-108 on August 31, 2017. Applications were due by October 12, 2017.6/ The purpose of RFA 2017-108 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing intends to award approximately $87,000,000 for proposed developments serving elderly and family demographic groups in small, medium, and large counties. RFA 2017-108 allocates $46,279,600 to large counties, $32,308,400 to medium counties, and $8,732,000 to small counties. RFA 2017-108 established goals to fund: Two Elderly, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; Three Family, new construction Applications located in Large Counties; One Elderly, new construction Application located in a Medium County; and Two Family, new construction Applications located in Medium Counties. Thirty-eight developers submitted applications in response to RFA 2017-108. Of these applicants, Florida Housing found 28 eligible for funding, including all Petitioners and Intervenors in this matter. Florida Housing received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-108, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67- 48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. RFA 2017-108 provided that applicants were scored based on certain demographic and geographic funding tests. Florida Housing sorted applications from the highest scoring to the lowest. Only applications that met all the eligibility requirements were eligible for funding and considered for selection. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to review and score each application. On November 15, 2017, the Review Committee announced its scores at a public meeting and recommended which projects should be awarded funding. On December 8, 2017, the Review Committee presented its recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors for final agency action. The Board of Directors subsequently approved the Review Committee’s recommendations and announced its intention to award funding to 16 applicants. As a preliminary matter, prior to the final hearing, Florida Housing agreed to the following reassessments in the scoring and selection of the applications for funding under RFA 2017-108: SP Lake and Osprey Pointe: In the selection process, Florida Housing erroneously determined that SP Lake was eligible to meet the funding goal for the “Family” demographic for the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. (SP Lake specifically applied for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Consequently, Florida Housing should have selected Osprey Pointe to meet the Family, Medium County, New Construction Goal. Osprey Pointe proposed to construct affordable housing in Pasco County, Florida. Florida Housing represents that Osprey Pointe is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (While Osprey Pointe replaces SP Lake in the funding selection for the “Family” demographic, SP Lake remains eligible for funding for the “Elderly” demographic.) Sierra Bay and Northside II: In the scoring process, Florida Housing erroneously awarded Sierra Bay proximity points for Transit Services. Upon further review, Sierra Bay should have received zero proximity points. Consequently, Sierra Bay’s application is ineligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. By operation of the provisions of RFA 2017-108, Florida Housing should have selected Northside II (the next highest ranked, eligible applicant) for funding to meet the Elderly, Large County, New Construction Goal. Florida Housing represents that Northside II is fully eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. Harbour Springs: Florida Housing initially deemed Harbour Springs eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108 and selected it to meet the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal. However, because Harbour Springs and Woodland Grove are owned by the same entity and applied using the same development site, under rule 67-48.004(1), Harbour Springs is ineligible for funding. (Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove for funding for the Family, Large County, New Construction Goal, is not affected by this determination.) The sole disputed issue of material fact concerns Liberty Square’s challenge to Florida Housing’s selection of Woodland Grove to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Liberty Square and Woodland Grove applied to serve the same demographic population under RFA 2017-108. If Liberty Square successfully challenges Woodland Grove’s application, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, will be selected for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal instead of Woodland Grove. (At the hearing on December 8, 2017, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors awarded Woodland Grove $7,600,000 in funding.) The focus of Liberty Square’s challenge is the information Woodland Grove provided in response to RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” Liberty Square argues that Woodland Grove’s application is ineligible because its Development Location Point, as well as the locations of its Community Services and Transit Services, are inaccurate. Therefore, Woodland Grove should have received zero “Proximity” points which would have disqualified its application for funding. RFA 2017-108, Section Four, A.5.d(1), states, in pertinent part: All Applicants must provide a Development Location Point stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. RFA 2017-108 set forth scoring considerations based on latitude/longitude coordinates in Section Four, A.5.e, entitled “Proximity.” Section Four, A.5.e, states, in pertinent part: The Application may earn proximity points based on the distance between the Development Location Point and the Bus or Rail Transit Service . . . and the Community Services stated in Exhibit A. Proximity points will not be applied to the total score. Proximity points will only be used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference ” In other words, the Development Location Point identified the specific location of an applicant’s proposed housing site.7/ Applicants earned “proximity points” based on the distance between its Development Location Point and selected Transit and Community Services. Florida Housing also used the Development Location Point to determine whether an application satisfied the Mandatory Distance Requirement under RFA 2017-108, Section Four A.5.f. To be eligible for funding, all applications had to qualify for the Mandatory Distance Requirement. The response section to Section Four, A.5.d., is found in Exhibit A, section 5, which required each applicant to submit information regarding the “Location of proposed Development.” Section 5 specifically requested: County; Address of Development Site; Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites?; Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Proximity; Mandatory Distance Requirement; and Limited Development Area. Section 5.d. (Latitude and Longitude Coordinates) was subdivided into: (1) Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place In its application, Woodland Grove responded in section 5.a-d as follows: County: Miami-Dade Address of Development Site: NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032. Does the proposed Development consist of Scattered Sites? No. Latitude and Longitude Coordinate; Development Location Point Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 25.518647 Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place: 80.418583 In plotting geographic coordinates, a “-” (negative) sign in front of the longitude indicates a location in the western hemisphere (i.e., west of the Prime Meridian, which is aligned with the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, England). A longitude without a “-” sign places the coordinate in the eastern hemisphere. (Similarly, a latitude with a negative value is south of the equator. A latitude without a “-” sign refers to a coordinate in the northern hemisphere.) As shown above, the longitude coordinate Woodland Grove listed in section 5.d(1) did not include a “-” sign. Consequently, instead of providing a coordinate for a site in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Woodland Grove entered a Development Location Point located on the direct opposite side of the planet (apparently, in India). At the final hearing, Florida Housing (and Woodland Grove) explained that, except for the lack of the “-” sign, the longitude Woodland Grove recorded would have fallen directly on the address it listed as its development site in section 5.b., i.e., the “NE corner of SW 268 Street and 142 Ave, Miami-Dade, FL 33032.” In addition to the longitude in section 5.d., Woodland Grove did not include a “-” sign before the longitude coordinates for its Transit Services in section 5.e(2)(b) or for any of the three Community Services provided in section 5.e(3). Again, without a “-” sign, the longitude for each of these services placed them in the eastern hemisphere (India) instead of the western hemisphere (Miami-Dade County). In its protest, Liberty Square contends that, because Woodland Grove’s application listed a Development Location Point in India, Florida Housing should have awarded Woodland Grove zero proximity points under Section Four, A.5.e. Consequently, Woodland Grove’s application failed to meet minimum proximity eligibility requirements and is ineligible for funding. Therefore, Liberty Square, as the next eligible applicant, should be awarded funding for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108.8/ Liberty Square asserts that a correct Development Location Point is critical because it serves as the beginning point for assigning proximity scores. Waiving an errant Development Location Point makes the proximity scoring meaningless. Consequently, any such waiver by Florida Housing is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to competition. At the final hearing, Woodland Grove claimed that it inadvertently failed to include the “-” sign before the longitude points. To support its position, Woodland Grove expressed that, on the face of its application, it was obviously applying for funding for a project located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, not India. In at least five places in its application, Woodland Grove specified that its proposed development would be located in Miami-Dade County. Moreover, several attachments to Woodland Grove’s application specifically reference a development site in Florida. Woodland Grove attached a purchase agreement for property located in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 8). To satisfy the Ability to Proceed requirements in RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove included several attachments which all list a Miami-Dade address (Attachments 9-14). Further, Woodland Grove submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form executed on behalf of the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which committed Miami-Dade County to contribute $1,000,000.00 to Woodland Grove’s proposed Development (Attachment 15). Finally, to qualify for a basis boost under RFA 2017-108, Woodland Grove presented a letter from Miami-Dade County’s Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, which also referenced the address of the proposed development in Miami-Dade County (Attachment 16). In light of this information, Woodland Grove argues that its application, taken as a whole, clearly communicated that Woodland Grove intended to build affordable housing in Miami-Dade County. Nowhere in its application, did Woodland Grove reference a project in India other than the longitude coordinates which failed to include “-” signs. Accordingly, Florida Housing was legally authorized to waive Woodland Grove’s mistake as a “harmless error.” Thus, Florida Housing properly selected the Woodland Grove’s development for funding to meet the Family, Large County Goal. Florida Housing advocates for Woodland Grove’s selection to meet the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017- 108. Florida Housing considers the omission of the “-” signs before the longitude coordinates a “Minor Irregularity” under rule 67-60.002(6). Therefore, Florida Housing properly acted within its legal authority to waive, and then correct, Woodland Grove’s faulty longitude coordinates when scoring its application. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s current Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process; although, she did not personally participate in the review, scoring, or selection decisions for RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button initially explained the process by which Florida Housing selected the 16 developments for funding under RFA 2017-108. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. The Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored their assigned portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. Ms. Button further explained that applicants occasionally make errors in their applications. However, not all errors render an application ineligible. Florida Housing is authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities.” As delineated in RFA 2017-108, Section Three, A.2.C., Florida Housing may waive “Minor Irregularities” when the errors do not provide a competitive advantage or adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 60.002(6) and 67-60.008. Such was the case regarding Woodland Grove’s application. Heather Green, the Florida Housing staff member who scored the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, waived the inaccurate longitude coordinates as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green then reviewed Woodland Grove’s application as if the proposed development was located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Florida Housing assigned Ms. Green, a Multifamily Loans Manager, as the lead scorer for the “Proximity” portion of RFA 2017-108, which included the Development Location Point listed in Exhibit A, section 5.d. Ms. Green has worked for Florida Housing since 2003 and has scored proximity points for Request for Applications for over ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Green. In her deposition, Ms. Green testified that she is fully aware that, to be located in the western hemisphere (i.e., Miami-Dade County), a longitude coordinate should be marked with a negative sign or a “W.” Despite this, Ms. Green felt that the longitude coordinates Woodland Grove used without negative signs, particularly its Development Location Point, were clearly typos or unintentional mistakes. Therefore, Ms. Green waived the lack of a negative sign in front of the longitude coordinates in section 5.d. and section 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Green understood that she was authorized to waive “Minor Irregularities” by rule under the Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Green felt comfortable waiving the inaccurate longitude coordinates because everywhere else in Woodland Grove’s application specifically showed that its proposed housing development was located in Miami-Dade County, not India. Accordingly, when scoring Woodland Grove’s application, Ms. Green corrected the longitude entries by including a negative sign when she plotted the coordinates with her mapping software. Ms. Green then determined that, when a “-” was inserted before the longitude, the coordinate lined up with the address Woodland Grove listed for the Development Location Point. Therefore, Woodland Grove received proximity points and was eligible for funding under RFA 2017-108. (See RFA 2017-108, Section Five.A.1.) However, Ms. Green acknowledged that if she had scored the application just as it was presented, Woodland Grove would not have met the required qualifications for eligibility. Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing fully accepted Ms. Green’s decision to waive the missing negative signs in Woodland Grove’s response to section 5.d. and 5.e. as “Minor Irregularities.” Ms. Button opined that Woodland Grove’s failure to place a “-” mark before the longitude was clearly an unintentional mistake. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing did not believe that scoring Woodland Grove’s development as if located in the western hemisphere (instead of India), provided Woodland Grove a competitive advantage. Because it was evident on the face of the application that Woodland Grove desired to develop a housing site in Miami-Dade County, Ms. Green’s decision to overlook the missing “-” sign did not award Woodland Grove additional points or grant Woodland Grove an advantage over other applicants. Neither did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. However, Ms. Button also conceded that if Ms. Green had scored the application without adding the “-” sign, Woodland Grove would have received zero proximity points. This result would have rendered Woodland Grove’s application ineligible for funding. Ms. Button also pointed out that Ms. Green waived the omission of “-” signs in two other applications as “Minor Irregularities.” Both Springhill Apartments, LLC, and Harbour Springs failed to include negative signs in front of their longitude coordinates. As with Woodland Grove, Ms. Green considered the development sites in those applications as if they were located in Miami-Dade County (i.e., in the western hemisphere). Ms. Green also waived a mistake in the Avery Commons application as a “Minor Irregularity.” The longitude coordinate for the Avery Commons Development Location Point (section 5.d(1)) was blank. However, Ms. Green determined that Avery Commons had placed the longitude in the blank reserved for Scattered Sites coordinates (section 5.d(2)). When scoring Avery Commons’ application, Ms. Green considered the coordinate in the appropriate section. According to Ms. Button, Florida Housing felt that this variation did not provide Avery Commons a competitive advantage. Nor did it adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Finally, Ms. Button explained that the application Florida Housing used for RFA 2017-108 was a relatively new format. In previous Request For Applications, Florida Housing required applicants to submit a Surveyor Certification Form. On the (now obsolete) Surveyor Certification Form, Florida Housing prefilled in an “N” in front of all the latitude coordinates and a “W” in front of all the longitude coordinates. However, the application used in RFA 2017-108 did not place an “N” or “W” before the Development Location Point coordinates. Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, Liberty Square did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to Woodland Grove for the Family, Large County Goal, under RFA 2017-108 was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Florida Housing was within its legal authority to waive, then correct, the missing “-” sign in Woodland Grove’s application as “Minor Irregularity.” Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to select Woodland Grove for funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-108.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by Liberty Square. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation rescind the intended awards to Sierra Bay, SP Lake, and Harbour Springs, and instead designate Northside II, Osprey Pointe, and Pembroke Tower Apartments as the recipients of funding under RFA 2017-108.10/ DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2018, 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 19th day of April, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Procedural History This matter has a long history. The full itinerary of this matter's arduous journey through the Administrative Procedure Act and the appellate courts may be glimpsed from the opinions of the District Court of Appeal in Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., 418 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., 442 So.2d 966, reh. granted, 442 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and Grove Isle, Ltd. v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 454 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). These cases may be referred to as Grove Isle I, Grove Isle II, and Grove Isle III, respectively. In 1978 Grove Isle submitted its initial application to DER for construction of the marina which is now the subject matter of this proceeding. Grove Isle's initial application was challenged by the same Petitioners who now challenge Grove Isle's "reapplication." In the first case the hearing officer, applying Class III standards for water quality, entered an order on February 22, 1980, recommending that the permit be issued. DER remanded the case to the hearing officer to determine whether the standards of the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) rule, Rule 17- 4.242(1)(a), F.A.C., should apply, and if so, whether Grove Isle had satisfied those requirements. On remand, the hearing officer entered a recommended order finding that the OFW rule did apply, that Grove Isle had provided reasonable assurances that the proposed marina would not lower existing ambient water quality, and that the proposed marina was not clearly in the public interest. Accordingly, the hearing officer recommended that the permit be denied. On December 29, 1980, DER entered a final order denying the permit because the project was not "clearly in the public interest" and it was uncertain whether ambient water quality would be lowered. DER found that, unless a "restricted mixing zone" was applied for, ambient water quality was to be measured within the project site, not in the small cove in which the marina was to be located as found by the hearing officer. On appeal, the court affirmed DER's denial of the permit. While DER's denial was affirmed because Grove Isle had failed to establish that the project was "clearly in the public interest," the court found that DER had failed to establish a record foundation which would permit it to substitute its conclusion that ambient water quality should be measured within the project site, as opposed to the small cove as found by the hearing officer. Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., supra. On May 18, 1981, while Grove Isle I was pending in the appellate court, Grove Isle filed the "reapplication" which is the subject matter of this case. The design and location of the marina were identical to Grove Isle's initial application. However, in an effort to satisfy the OFW rule Grove Isle proposed to add riprap and plant mangrove seedlings in an effort to satisfy the public interest criteria, and requested a mixing zone in conformity with DER's final order in Grove Isle I. DER initially entered a final order denying the application because: This project was reviewed previously... and was determined not to be clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. No further evidence, upon resubmittal, has been provided to clearly demonstrate that this project is in the public interest. Furthermore, the requested mixing zone exceeds that allowable pursuant to Section 17-4.244,F.A.C., and can be applied only during the con- struction period, pursuant to Section 17.4.242, F.A.C. During the operation of this facility ambient water quality is expected to be degraded in violation of Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. Thereupon, Grove Isle filed a petition for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Fla.Stat., and sought a default permit. The hearing officer entered a recommended order that the default permit issue, and DER entered a final order granting the default permit. On appeal the court reversed and remanded the case to DER for further proceedings. The predicate for its remand was: Even though Grove Isle was not entitled to a default permit, it does not follow that DER was justified in entering its earlier ... (order denying the applica- tion) ... without first informing Grove Isle that it had found its application to be deficient, specifying such deficiencies and allowing time for corrections.... Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., supra, at 975. Appellant Doheny had asserted that Grove Isle's reapplication could not be further considered by reason of the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment. This was, essentially, DER's position in its denial of the "reapplication." The court held, however: Inasmuch as this Court affirmed the denial of Grove Isle's first application on the grounds of the applicant's failure to show that the proposal was clearly in the public interest and since it was determined that the first application was properly denied even though the applicant satisfied the other criterion regarding ambient water quality, it would appear that the reapplication should be denied unless the applicant could demonstrate some change or modification which would show that the project was clearly in the public interest. However ... I am of the view that it would be premature for us to hold that Grove Isle's second application is barred by either doctrine. Whether Grove Isle, after a Rule 17-4.07(2) notification by DER as contemplated above, would be able to remedy the existing deficiency in its present application remains to be seen. New facts, changed conditions or additional submissions by the applicant may materially affect the ultimate applicability of res judicata or estoppel by judgment. Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., supra, at 975. While Grove Isle's "reapplication was pending on remand before DER, Grove Isle filed a rule challenge contesting the validity of Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C. The hearing officer upheld the validity of the rule, but the appellate court held that the "public interest" requirement was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Grove Isle, Ltd. v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, supra. Following the decision of Grove Isle III, Grove Isle's attorney, by letter dated March 21, 1984, responded anew to DER's June 18, 1981, completeness summary. That letter provided, in pertinent part: With regard to water quality, that issue has been determined in a prior proceeding and is res judicata on the parties. In response to your request for additional information the enclosed information is submitted. Permit application DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order of February 22, 1980 DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order on Remand of November 20, 1980 DER's Final Order of December 29, 1980 Decision in Grove Isle v. Bayshore Homeowners Associ- ation, 418 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) The decision in David A. Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., and the State of Fla., DER, Case NO. AM476 This submittal contains the necessary information on which to determine com- pliance with the applicable water quality standards and criteria. On June 25, 1984, DER issued its Notice of Intent to Issue the permit. The notice provided, in pertinent part: The Department intends to issue the permit for the following reasons: No significant immediate or long term negative biological impact is anticipated and State water quality standards should not be violated as a result of the pro- posed construction. This intent is based on information supplied by the applicant that the proposed project will not violate existing ambient water quality standards and on the cases of Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners Association, 418 So.2d 1046(Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., 442 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(sic). Petitioners timely filed their Petition for Administrative Hearing pursuant to Sections 120.57(1), Fla.Stat. The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 84-2639. The Marina The permit sought by Grove Isle would allow it to construct six concrete fixed piers, five "T" shaped, one "L" shaped, with a boat docking capacity of 90 pleasure boats. The piers will extend a maximum of 165 feet offshore from an existing concrete bulkhead on the west side of Grove Isle. The width of the piers will be eight feet from the bulkhead to a point 41 feet offshore, and then increase to a width of 10 feet. A sewage pumpout facility is also proposed. DER's June 25, 1984, Letter of Intent proposed to issue the permit subject to the following conditions: Adequate control shall be taken during construction so that turbidity levels beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area do not exceed 50 J.C.U.'s as per Sec- tion 24-11 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. During construction, tur- bidity samples shall be collected at mid-depth twice daily 50 feet upstream and 50 feet downstream of the work area. The contractor shall arrange to have turbidity sample results reported to him within one hour of collection. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be sub- mitted weekly to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management (MDCERM). If turbidity exceeds 50 J.C.U.'s beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area, turbidity curtains shall be placed around the work area and MDCERM notified immediately. Tur- bidity samples shall be collected as per specific Conditions No. 2 no later than one hour after the installation of the turbidity cur- tains. If turbidity levels do not drop below 50 J.C.U.'s within one hour after installation of the curtain, all construction shall be halted. Construction shall not be resumed until the contractor has received authorization from MDCERM. No liveaboard vessels (per- manent or transient) shall be docked at this facility unless direct sewage pumpout connections are pro- vided at each liveaboard slip. A permanent pumpout station shall be installed and maintained for the removal of sewage and wastes from the vessels using this facility. Compliance with this requirement will entail the applicant contacting the Plan Review Section of MDCERM for details con- cerning connection to an approved sewage disposal system. Boat traffic to the shallow 30 foot wide dense seagrass area which parallels the shoreline shall be restricted by the placement of wooden piles on six foot centers along the entire shoreline facing the marina. The channel from this marina to deeper water in Biscayne Bay shall be marked to prevent boats from straying into adjacent shallow areas. This will prevent habitat destruction. A chemical monitoring program shall be established to determine the affect of this marina on the water quality of this section of Biscayne Bay. Surface and mid-depth samples shall be collected at three points in the project area and at one back- ground station. Parameters shall include, but not be limited to, dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, tempera- ture, total coliform and fecal coliform, and fecal streptococci bacteria, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand and turbidity. Background samples shall be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. In addition to the chemical monitoring program, a bethnic community monitoring program is to be established. Samples of the bethnic seagrass community within and adjacent to the project area are to be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. Should either monitoring program detect dissimilar changes at its monitoring and control stations, DER and MDCERM shall be notified and the results of the programs(s) evaluated. The monitoring program shall be reviewed and approved by the DER and the MDCERM prior to implementation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the DER and the MDCERM and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a regular basis. Warning signs shall be posted in the marina area advising marina users that manatees frequent the area and caution should be taken to avoid collisions with them. Issuance of this permit does not relieve the applicant from securing all applicable construction permits including, but not limited to, general construction, electrical, plumbing, etc. The planting of mangroves and the placement of boulder riprap shall be generally constructed as outlined in report number THI-004-005/84 by Melvin S. Brown for Grove Isle, Inc. The mangrove/ riprap site shall be staked by the appli- cant and approved by the Department or MDCERM. Such construction shall not take place in areas vegetated by sea- grasses. Mangrove seedlings (four leaf stage or older) shall be planted with a density of approximately one plant per-square meter. Seedlings shall be replaced in order to maintain 80 percent survival until such time as the Department determines that establishment of the mangroves is reasonably assured (approximately two years). At that time the Department shall notify the permittee of the termination of the revegetation respon- sibilities. Grove Isle has agreed to comply with all the conditions established by the DER Letter of Intent and, additionally, agreed at final hearing to employ a full-time dock master, prohibit the pumping of bilges and sewage from boats docked at the marina, make the sewage pumpout facility available to the public, limit the ownership and use of the boat slips to condominium owners at Grove Isle, and provide additional channel markings from the Grove Isle marina to the Deering Channel. The location and design of the proposed marina has not changed since Grove Isle's initial application. The conditions attached to DER's Letter of Intent, with the exception of Conditions 11 and 12, are the same as previously applied to Grove Isle. The Marina Site Grove Isle is a spoil bank in Biscayne Bay located approximately 700 feet east of the Florida mainland. It is linked to the mainland by a two-lane concrete bridge. The island is currently under development for a 510-unit condominium community with associated facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, and the proposed marina. The island is surrounded by a concrete bulkhead constructed many years ago. No changes in the bulkhead line are proposed. Grove Isle proposes constructing the marina on concrete piles driven in the bay bottom from a shallow draft barge. During construction there would be some turbidity caused from the disruption of the Bay sediment. This can, however, be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. The construction will not require any filling. In the immediate marina site the most significant biota are a 20-30 foot wide bed of seagrasses running parallel to the seawall. There are no other important biota because at one time the area was extensively dredged to create the island. There are no oyster or clam beds nearby. The water depth in the area ranges from one foot near the island bulkhead to 12 feet offshore to the west of the island. This particular seagrass bed consists primarily of turtle grass (thalassia testudinum) with some Cuban Shoal Weed (Halodule Wrightii). Protection for these grasses will be provided by a buffer zone between the island and the boat slips. The grassy zone will be bordered by a row of dolphin piles to exclude boat traffic. Because the grass requires sunlight for photosynthesis and therefore life, the six piers will have grated walkways where they pass over the grass. This will allow sunlight to reach below. In addition to the small grass bed on the west of the island, there are extensive beds to the northeast, east and south of the island that extend several hundred yards from the island in water depths of three to ten feet. If boat traffic in the vicinity is markedly increased due to the existence of the marina, it is conceivable that the number of propeller scars in these shallow beds could increase. At the present time the beds are already traversed by boats, some of which are owned by Petitioners' members. There are already, for example, approximately 50 craft which operate from the nearby mainland or from Pelican Canal directly across from the island. Grove Isle's assurance that ownership and use of the boat slips at the marina will be limited to those persons who own condominium units at Grove Isle will assure that boat traffic generated by the marina will be no different in kind nor more frequent than that generated by existing craft in the area. Potential damage, from existing craft and those which will occupy the marina, to the seagrasses on the north, east, and south of the island will be eliminated or minimized by the planned installation of navigation markers by Grove Isle. These markers will channel boats into water of a navigable depth and lessen the number of groundings and near groundings which cause the scarring. There is evidence that boats by their very existence and operation are potential pollution sources. Anti-fouling bottom paints by their very nature leach minute amounts of metals such as copper or tin into the waters. These deposits, however, would not be measurable. Further, the marina site has adequate flushing to disperse any pollutants which may be generated by the marina operation. Petitioners also suggest that turbidity, caused by the operation of the marina, could cause a degradation of water quality and affect the biota in the area. Petitioners' assertion must be rejected for two reasons. First, this question was raised and rejected in Grove Isle I. No changed conditions or new facts which were not available at the time of final hearing in Grove Isle I were presented. Second, in the four years that have intervened since the first hearing, these waters have been extensively used by the public, including Petitioners, for such activities as waterskiing and fishing. In that time period there has been no degradation of water quality, or harm to the biota. In fact, the biota have expanded. The fueling of boats and sewage discharge are additional pollution sources generally associated with marinas. However, the proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities, and all craft docked at the marina will be prohibited from pumping bilges and sewage into the waters. The foregoing findings of fact are, without significant exception, identical to those in Grove Isle I. Grove Isle IV Only three areas of inquiry were present in this case which may not have existed in Grove Isle I. First, Petitioner asserted that Grove Isle's application was incomplete because of its failure to secure the approval of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for use of the bay bottom, and that, therefore, Part VIII, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, the "Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984" (Wetlands Act) was applicable to these proceedings. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, Grove Isle secured and exhibited its consent to use the submerged lands in question. Grove Isle received the requisite consent from DNR in connection with its first application. Pursuant to Rule 16Q-18.03(2), F.A.C., that consent to use remains binding. Further, DNR was noticed of Grove Isle's "reapplication" and evidenced no intention to withdraw its previous consent to use. Grove Isle complied with Section 253.77, Fla.Stat. Consequently, Grove Isle's application was complete prior to October 1, 1984, and the Wetlands Act is not applicable to this case. The second issue presented in this case which Petitioners assert was not present in Grove Isle I, is Grove Isle's request for a mixing zone. Although its "reapplication" did request a mixing zone in accordance with DER's Final Order of December 29, 1980, Grove Isle objected to its necessity since the proper geographic area within which to measure ambient water quality, according to it, was a subject matter of the pending appeal in Grove Isle I. The mixing zone applied for in its "reapplication" was somewhat smaller, but did not significantly differ from the area adopted by the hearing officer in Grove Isle I. In Grove Isle I the parties had differed with regard to the proper geographic area within which to measure ambient water quality. The hearing officer adopted as the appropriate geographic area that part of Biscayne Bay to the west of Grove Isle, to the north of the Grove Isle bridge, to the east of the Miami mainland, and to the immediate south of the Mercy Hospital landing facing Grove Isle. DER's Final Order of December 29, 1980, rejected the hearing officer's conclusion because Determination of compliance with water quality standards is made within the project area itself unless a mixing zone is applied for and granted by the Department. Section 17-4.242(1) (a)2b, Florida Administrative Code, specifically states that ambient water quality standards may not be lowered unless such a lowering is temporary in nature (i.e., not more than 30 days) or unless the "lowered water quality would occur only within a restricted mixing zone approved by the Department..." (EmphasisSupplied.) The record does not show that a "restricted mixing zone" was applied for by the applicant or granted by the Department. Therefore, the hearing officer was not at liberty to apply a mixing zone in this case. In Grove Isle I DER's witness, Larry O'Donnell-- Supervisor of the Dredge and Fill Section of DER's West Palm Beach office--testified that ambient water quality was to be measured within the project site--the specific area occupied by the marina circumscribed by the bulkhead line and out the length of the piers (165 feet). On appeal, the court held that DER erred in rejecting the hearing officer's conclusion, and stated DER offered no expert testimony or evidence, other than conclusory allegations, that ambient water quality must be measured within the project site rather than within the reasonably contiguous area used by the hearing officer. Absent such record foundation, DER is not free to substitute its conclusions for those of the hearing officer. Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners' Assoc., Inc., supra, at 1049. In the instant case the testimony of Mr. O'Donnell was clear that DER accepted the opinion of Grove Isle I as demonstrating satisfaction of ambient water quality under the OFW rule. Consequently, DER has acceded that ambient water quality is to be measured not only within the project site but also within a reasonably contiguous area of the project site, as found by the hearing officer in Grove Isle I. Petitioners took exception to DER's decision. To support their position, Petitioners offered the testimony of Suzanne Walker, DER's Chief of Permitting. Ms. Walker's opinion was that ambient water quality had to be satisfied everywhere, including the marina site proper, and that a mixing zone, except on a temporary basis during construction, was not permitted under Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C. Accordingly, the question of where ambient water quality is to be measured is presented anew. Ambient water quality is to be measured within the area established by the hearing officer in Grove Isle I for three reasons. First, the issue was presented in Grove Isle I and the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment bars relitigation of this same issue. Second, the testimony of Ms. Walker was of no greater substance than that rejected by the court in Grove Isle I. Finally, Ms. Walker's opinion is questionable since she also testified that a mixing zone, except on a temporary basis during construction, was not permissible in Outstanding Florida Waters. The OFW rule, Rule 17- 4.242(1)(a)2.b, F.A.C., clearly contemplates and authorizes a mixing zone for purposes other than construction. The record is silent as to whether DER granted Grove Isle's request for a mixing zone. It is clear, however, that DER accepted the geographic area established in Grove Isle I as the proper area within which to measure ambient water quality. Accordingly, it is not necessary to pass on Grove Isle's request for a mixing zone. The final matters not litigated in Grove Isle I concern Grove Isle's agreement to (1) add riprap and plant mangrove seedlings, (2) employ a full-time dock master to provide additional assurance that operation of the marina will be ecologically sound, (3) prohibit the pumping of bilges and sewage from boats moored at the marina, (4) make the pumpout facility available to the public, (5) limit the ownership and use of the boat slips to the owners of the condominium units at Grove Isle, and (6) mark a channel from Grove Isle to the Deering Channel so that a deep water channel to open waters will be available. While these additional assurances were not presented in Grove Isle I, and consequently did not affect the hearing officer's recommendation that the permit be granted, each of these matters are of positive benefit to the ecology, and demonstrate Grove Isle's commitment to sound marina design and operation.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (1)(d)1, and (1)(e), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed Florida real estate salesperson, issued license number 0530788 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was an involuntary inactive salesperson at 2156 Turnberry Drive, Oviedo, Florida 32764. On or about April 13, 2000, an Administrative Law Judge entered a Recommended Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Subsections 721.11(4)(a), (h), (j), and (k), Florida Statutes (1995), by making oral misrepresentations in his sales pitch to timeshare purchasers. On or about June 15, 2000, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, issued a Final Order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Administrative Law Judge and rejecting all of Respondent's exceptions. In the Final Order, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, ordered Respondent to cease and desist from any further violations of Chapter 721, Florida Statutes, and ordered Respondent to pay a penalty of $28,000. As of September 24, 2002, Respondent had failed to pay the penalty pursuant to the terms of the Final Order of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes. On or about July 22, 2000, a uniform disciplinary citation was issued to Respondent for failing to notify the Florida Real Estate Commission of his current mailing address or any change of the current mailing address in violation of Rule 61J2-10.038, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to proper authority, the Florida Real Estate Commission penalized Respondent $100 for the violation. At the time he received the uniform disciplinary citation, Respondent was advised as follows: "You have a total of 60 days from the date this citation was served upon you to pay the fine and costs specified. This citation automatically becomes a Final Order of the board if you do not dispute this citation within 30 days of the date this citation was served upon you. As a Final Order, the fine and costs shall be due to the board within 30 days of the date of the Final Order. After this citation has become a Final Order, failure to pay the fines and costs specified constitutes a violation of a Final Order of the board and may subject you to further disciplinary action." On or about August 22, 2002, the citation became a Final Order. As of September 24, 2002, Respondent had failed to pay the penalty pursuant to the terms of the Final Order of the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent had more than 20 years' experience selling timeshare units as a salesman, sales manager or sales director; he had worked in sales at various Central Florida timeshare resorts since 1979. Between July 1995 and March 1997, Respondent was employed as a salesman and sales director by Vocational Corporation, the owner/developer of Club Sevilla, a timeshare resort property. On October 24, 1995, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Raymond and Charlene Sindel at Club Sevilla, which resulted in their purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Sindels to purchase the timeshare: (1) the Sindels would become members of Interval International, a timeshare exchange program, in which they could exchange their timeshare and/or utilize another timeshare for $79 or $99 a week 52 weeks per year; and (2) representatives of Tri Realty would sell their existing timeshare before the end of the year. On October 24, 1995, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Clarence and Maxine Shelt at Club Sevilla, which resulted in their purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statement which induced the Shelts to purchase the timeshare: the Shelts would become members of Interval International, a timeshare exchange program, in which they could exchange their timeshare and or utilize another timeshare for $79 a week 52 weeks per year. On June 26, 1996, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Eugene and Mildred Plotkin and their son, Daniel, at Club Sevilla, which resulted in the purchase by Eugene and Mildred Plotkin of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Plotkins to purchase the timeshare: (1) a timeshare owned by the Plotkins in Las Vegas, Nevada, would be sold within two months; (2) the Plotkins would receive a low-interest credit card with which they would finance the purchase of the Club Sevilla timeshare and that their Las Vegas timeshare would be sold quickly enough that they would not have to pay any interest on the credit card; and (3) the Plotkins would become members of Interval International, a timeshare exchange program, in which they could utilize another timeshare anywhere for $149 a week. On July 26, 1996, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Robert and Susan Bailey at Club Sevilla, which resulted in their purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Baileys to purchase the timeshare: (1) they would receive a low-interest credit card within ten days with a $20,000 credit limit with which they could finance the timeshare purchase; and (2) the Baileys would receive a prepaid 52-week membership in Interval International, a timeshare exchange program. In September 1996, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Thomas and Betty Prussak at Club Sevilla, which resulted in the purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Prussaks to purchase the timeshare: (1) timeshares owned by the Prussaks in Westgate and Club Sevilla were valued at $12,000 each and that these timeshare units would be sold if the Prussaks purchased a new timeshare unit at Club Sevilla; (2) that the new Club Sevilla timeshare unit would be a "floating" unit (could be used anytime); and (3) that the new Club Sevilla timeshare would be rented and that the Prussaks or their daughter would be able to take "getaway" weeks and stay at any RCI timeshare for $149 per week. On December 11, 1996, Respondent participated in a sales presentation to Larry and Carla Eshleman at Club Sevilla, which resulted in their purchase of a timeshare. During the sales presentation, Respondent made the following false, deceptive and misleading statements which induced the Eshlemans to purchase the timeshare: (1) the Eshlemans would receive a low-interest credit card with which they could finance the timeshare purchase; (2) the Eshlemans would become members of Interval International, a timeshare exchange program, in which they could exchange their timeshare and utilize another timeshare for $149 a week; and (3) the timeshare the Eshlemans owned prior to their purchase of the Club Sevilla timeshare would be sold in three months or would be rented for $1,650 per week.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsections 475.25(1)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's license as a real estate salesperson be revoked, that he be fined $2,000 and be required to pay the costs of the investigation and prosecution of the case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 3rd day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. Decosta, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N-308 Hurston Building, North Tower Orlando, Florida 32801 William S. Walsh 13079 South Taylor Creek Road Christmas, Florida 32709 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Buddy Johnson, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Nancy P. Campiglia, Chief Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue Whether Petitioner, K. S. Ravines Corporation, has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property. The Applicant, K. S. Ravines Corporation, is the owner of real property located in Middleburg, Clay County, Florida. The Applicant's property, known as the "The Ravines," is being developed as a 435-acre residential and golf course development. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied upon by Silver Sands. On or about June 1, 1990, the Applicant entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement agreeing to purchase The Ravines. Subsequent to the execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Applicant pursued a due diligence effort. In particular, the Applicant contacted Clay County to confirm that The Ravines had been zoned as a Planned Unit Developed as represented by the seller of The Ravines. The Applicant also sought to confirm that the property possessed the development capabilities associated with the zoning. In response to the Applicant's inquiries, Keith I. Hadden, then Director of Development for Clay County, informed the Applicant of the following in a letter dated August 7, 1990: The property commonly known as The Ravines, as shown on that certain map of J. M. Ard & Associates, Inc., dated May 30, 1990, (Job No. 3751B), together with a parcel commonly referred to as the McCumber Contracting Parcel as shown on said map, and the access road from County Road 218 to the main property of The Ravines commonly known as Ravines Road (all hereinafter "The Ravines") is currently zoned "PUD" Planned Unit Development. . . . Mr. Hadden also confirmed that The Ravines was approved for development of 261 single family lots, 49 condominiums, 107 hotel units, and 60 patio homes; a total of 477 units. Silver Sands' Detrimental Reliance. In reliance upon Mr. Hadden's representations as Clay County Director of Planning, the Applicant purchased The Ravines for $10,709,423.00. At the time of the purchase the golf course was valued at $6,900,000.00. The Applicant purchased 168 single-family lots (44 developed and 124 undeveloped) and 60 undeveloped patio home lots. The undeveloped lots and the existing developed single- family lots purchased by the Applicant were valued at $3,943,000.00. The Applicant also spent $495,115.00 to make capital improvements to The Ravines after it purchased The Ravines. Rights that will be Destroyed. In January 1992 Clay County adopted a comprehensive plan pursuant to Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Ravines was designated with a land use designation in the plan of "Rural Residential." The "Rural Residential" land use classification of the Clay County Comprehensive Plan allows development of one residential unit per one acre of land. As a result, The Ravines may be developed at a total of 435 units instead of the 477 units that Clay County informed the Applicant The Ravines could be developed for in the August 7, 1990, letter from Mr. Hadden. As a result of the "Rural Residential" land use classification, the total developable lots at The Ravines would be reduced from 228 lots to 186 lots, or a reduction of 42 lots. This reduction represents a reduction of 18.4% of the total lots purchased by the Applicant. It is possible that this reduction could result in an 18.4% loss of the $3,943,000.00 paid for the lots, or approximately $496,000.00. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner River Trails is the developer of a condominium community in Palm Beach County known as River Walk. River Walk is contiguous to and immediately adjacent to 2600 feet of South Florida Water Management District (hereinafter "SFWMD") property bordering Canal C-18 in Palm Beach County. The right- of-way adjacent to C-18 as well as the bottom of C-18 is owned by SFWMD. C-18 is not in an area designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. As required by Section 403.813(2), Florida Statutes, River Trails sought and obtained on January 12, 1984, a permit from the SFWMD to construct a dock and boat ramp in Canal C-18. The permit conveyed no property rights to River Trails. On October 12, 1984, River Trails asked DER to confirm that River Trails' proposed boat ramp qualified for an exemption pursuant to Section 403.813(2)(c), Florida Statutes. By letter dated December 20, 1984, DER informed River Trails that the proposed boat ramp did qualify for the exemption and, therefore did not require any permit from DER. On October 18, 1984, River Trails asked DER to confirm that River Trails' proposed dock of 1,000 square feet or less qualified for an exemption from DER's permitting authority pursuant to Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. However, on November 30, 1984, DER informed River Trails that its proposed dock did not qualify for the exemption because there was already an existing dock on SFWMD property on Canal C-18. As authority for its position, DER cited the following sentence in DER Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), Florida Administrative Code: "A private dock is a single pier at a parcel of property." On the 2600 feet of SFWMD-owned right-of-way contiguous to River Trails, there are presently no docks. On SFWMD-owned right-of-way east of River Trails, between River Trails and the southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River, there are two docks approximately 300 feet apart located in front of single-family residences. DER contends all contiguous property owned by an individual, group or entity, including a water management district, constitutes a "parcel of property" and accordingly does not recognize River Trails' claim to an exemption because of the existence of these docks. Prior to River Trails' request that DER confirm River Trails' right to an exemption, DER had not interpreted water management district-owned right-of-ways to be a "parcel of property" within the meaning of Rule 17- 4.04(9)(c). In the past, the SFWMD has permitted numerous docks of less than 1,000 square feet on SFWMD-owned right- of-ways. Copies of these permits were routinely forwarded to DER. While these docks were and are on right-of-ways which DER now defines as a "parcel" within the meaning of Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), DER has not required permits for these docks. The DER employees who interpret the rule in question as part of their duties and whose depositions were introduced at hearing do not agree on the configuration which constitutes a single pier, on the degree of ownership or control required over a parcel of property by an applicant for an exemption, or on the definition of a parcel of property. DER has failed to adequately explain its deviation from past agency practice in interpreting SFWMD right-of- way as a parcel of property. But for DER's new interpretation of the term "parcel of property" found in Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), Florida Administrative Code, River Trails' proposed dock meets the statutory and rule requirements for an exemption from obtaining a permit from DER.
The Issue The preliminary issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (District) has jurisdiction over the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) filed by the Save the Manatee Club (Club)--i.e., whether the Petition was timely or, if not, if the District has jurisdiction under principles of equitable tolling or excusable neglect.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1999, Hidden Harbor filed with the District an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to construct and operate a surface water management system serving a proposed residential development in Lee County, Florida. In January 2001, the Club sent an email to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) stating that it was concerned about Hidden Harbor's Application No. 991011- 13, as it might impact an area the Club would like to see as a manatee sanctuary, and was requesting copies of all FWCC documents relating to the permit. FWCC forwarded a copy of this email to the District on January 19, 2001. At the time, the Club's internet website gave the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. On April 9, 2001, the Club opened a Southwest Florida regional satellite office in Estero, Florida, and installed Laura Combs as Regional Coordinator in charge of that office. Responsibility for monitoring the Hidden Harbor application was delegated to Combs and the satellite office. Nonetheless, the Club's website continued to give the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. Combs's prior work experience with the Club was as assistant director of governmental relations in Tallahassee, Florida. In that position, she tracked legislation and actions of the Governor and Cabinet that were of interest to the Club. She had no role in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of governmental agencies. Combs's education included a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in urban and regional planning. She did not have specific legal education in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of state governmental agencies. On May 30, 2001, the District mailed to the Club at its Maitland office address a letter enclosing the "District's staff report covering the [Hidden Harbor] permit application [No. 991011-13]" and notifying the Club that the "recommendations as stated in the staff report [to grant the attached draft permit] will be presented to our Governing Board for consideration on June 14, 2001." The Club also was advised: Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers (refer to the attached "Notice of Rights") to [the District's deputy clerk]. The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs materially from the proposed agency action. The Notice of Rights stated that it was intended to conform to the requirement of Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to "inform the recipient of any administrative hearing or judicial review that is available under this section [120.569(1)], s. 120.57 or s. 120.68." It cautioned: Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. The Notice of Rights included a section entitled "Petition for Administrative Proceedings," which stated in pertinent part: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action. The affected person may request either a formal or an informal hearing, as set forth below. A point of entry into administrative proceedings is governed by Rules 28-106.111 and 40E-1.511, Fla. Admin. Code, (also published as an exception to the Uniform Rules of Procedure as Rule 40E-0.109), as set forth below . . .. Formal Administrative Hearing: If a genuine issue(s) of material fact is in dispute, the affected person seeking a formal hearing on a SFWMD decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. or for mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, Fla. Stat. within 21 days . . . of either written notice through mail or posting or publication of notice that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action. Pertinent to this case, the Notice of Rights included a verbatim reproduction of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.201, addressing required contents of a petition to initiate proceedings involving disputed issues of material fact. Rules 28-106.111, 40E-1.5111, and 40E-0.109 were not reproduced in the Notice of Rights. It is not clear from the evidence when the letter dated May 30, 2001, with attachments (the Notice Correspondence), was received in the Club's Maitland office. It was not date-stamped, as time-sensitive correspondence normally would be. Apparently, it was decided to forward the Notice Correspondence to the new satellite office in Estero for handling. Combs received the forwarded Notice Correspondence in early June 2001. This was the "first time [Combs] had been through this type of process." Combs reviewed the Notice Correspondence, eventually focusing on paragraph 1.a. of the "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" section of the Notice of Rights. She did not read any of the cited statutes and rules except for the rules reproduced verbatim as part of the Notice of Rights. Combs made conflicting statements regarding her understanding of the District's administrative process. However, it appears that she understood that the Club could file a petition within 21 days of receipt of the Notice Correspondence, or within 21 days of the "final" action of the District's Governing Board. She testified that, because the Notice Correspondence did not bear a date-stamp, it was unclear when the first 21-day time period began or ended; as a result, she decided to wait until the District's Governing Board took "final" action and file a petition within the second 21-day time period. Combs appeared at the meeting of the District's Governing Board on June 14, 2001, and spoke in opposition to issuance of the draft permit. Notwithstanding the Club's opposition, the Governing Board decided to issue the draft permit. Combs does not have authority to file petitions for administrative hearings on District actions. She consulted with her supervisor, Patricia Thompson, and they made a recommendation to the Club's governing board, which has ultimate authority to file petitions. Prior to Combs's involvement in the Hidden Harbor application, the Club had staff legal counsel, who could be consulted with respect to the filing of petitions and would advise the Club's governing board. However, the Club did not have staff legal counsel at the time of Combs's involvement and through the time of filing of this petition. (The Club now again has staff legal counsel.) Neither Combs nor Thompson saw any need to consult an attorney. It is not clear when the recommendation of Combs and Thompson was presented to the Club's governing board or when the Club's governing board made its decision to file the Petition. Neither Thompson nor any member of the Club's governing board (nor anyone else who may have participated in the decision to file the Petition) testified. Several (according to Combs, approximately 12) times after the District's Governing Board's meeting on June 14, 2001, Combs telephoned the District's offices to obtain a copy of the District's Governing Board's "final" action when it was reduced to writing. It is not clear from the evidence why several telephone calls were required. Eventually, on June 26, 2001, Combs received a copy of the permit issued to Hidden Harbor; there was no Notice of Rights attached. On July 17, 2001, the Club filed its Petition challenging the permit issued to Hidden Harbor. In the meantime, Hidden Harbor had obtained a final development order from Lee County in reliance on the Club's failure to petition for an administrative hearing. The Club is not a newcomer to Florida's administrative process. It can be officially recognized that the Club has participated in numerous proceedings before DOAH. At least one of those cases involved issues similar to those presented for determination in this case. See Conclusion of Law 32, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire Post Office Box 861118 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Martha M. Collins, Esquire 233 3rd Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3089 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
