Findings Of Fact On September 23, 1983, Hollywood submitted a permit application to DNR for construction of the proposed project which is the subject matter of this proceeding. DNR designated that permit application as Permit Application 50-41. The proposed project is actually the first phase of a two-phase project, Phase II of which has already been permitted by DNR. Phase I, which is the subject of Permit Application 50-41, consists of an extension of existing Surf Road in the City of Hollywood, an extension of an existing asphalt boardwalk, construction of a parking area with landscaped island, swale, and associated lighting. The excavated fill removed from the site of Phase I is to be used in the construction of a dune which is encompassed within Phase II of the project. The properties on which Phase I and Phase II are to be constructed are owned by the City of Hollywood and are located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and landward of the Erosion Control Line. The Summit Condominium is a condominium development located west of South Surf Road in the City of Hollywood, and is directly adjacent and contiguous to the property upon which the aforementioned project is to be constructed. Petitioner is the builder and developer of the Summit Condominium and, in addition, is the fee simple owner of approximately 15 units in that development. Phase I of the proposed project, which is the permit application at issue in this proceeding, provides for the construction of a 121-space public parking area which will be approximately 62 feet wide and 605 feet long, and will extend approximately 95 feet seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The parking lot will be constructed with a six-inch limerock base over a six-inch crushed limerock subbase, and will be surfaced with a one and one-half- inch asphalt wearing course. The parking lot is designed with a definite landward slope, so that stormwater will sheet flow across the parking lot away from the dune system. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding which would in any way justify a conclusion that stormwater runoff from the parking lot area will have any adverse effect on the dune system seaward of the lot. Stormwater runoff once it has left the parking lot surface will be collected in a swale and drainage ditch system located landward of the paved parking lot surface. The drainage ditch will be composed of sandy material presently located on the site and is designed on a 1.2 to 1 slope. In addition, Wedelia is to be planted in and around the drainage ditch system in order to stabilize the slopes of the ditch. The ditch and swale system is designed to allow most stormwater runoff to percolate into the soil, with any excess being collected in the ditch itself and transmitted in a northerly direction. A drainage calculation study prepared in conjunction with this proceeding demonstrates that the drainage capacity for the proposed ditch meets minimum standards contained in the South Florida Building Code, as applied by the City of Hollywood. As the ditch fills with stormwater, the water will flow in a northerly, shore parallel direction to Jefferson Street, which is located north of both the proposed project and the Summit Condominium. From Jefferson Street, runoff from the project site will flow westerly to Highway A-1-A where an existing stormwater sewer system is located. If for some reason that system proves insufficient to handle runoff, the runoff will then travel across A-1-A into the intracoastal waterway. There is no competent evidence of record in this proceeding to demonstrate that stormwater runoff from the project site will, under any conditions, flow onto Petitioner's property. Phase I of the project has been designed to minimize the potential for the creation of aerodynamically or hydrodynamically propelled missiles in the event of a major storm. The asphalt surface of the parking lot is designed to break into chunks which will settle into the sand or water when exposed to wind and water forces. The parking meters are set four feet into the ground which reduces their potential to act as missiles, but even should the beach recede to the point where the meters are installed, evidence of record in this proceeding establishes that they will fall to the base of the eroded dune wall and will be washed out to sea rather than be propelled shoreward either by water or air. Various storm surge computer models for pre- and post-construction conditions at various locations on the property were performed. The result of these models shows that there will be no difference in impact on the beach dine system and adjacent property between the pre- and postconstruction profiles in the event of a ten-year storm. Further, computer models actually showed that there will be less erosion for the post-construction profile than for the preconstruction profile in the event of a twenty-year storm surge. In the event of a fifty-year or greater storm event, the beach profile for both pre- and postconstruction in the project area would be inundated, so that the impact of such a storm will be the same with or without the proposed construction. Evidence of record does, however, establish that based upon postconstruction conditions as proposed in the permit application it would take a greater storm to erode material from the postconstruction profile, thereby establishing that the proposed project will afford greater protection than existing topography. It appears from the record in this proceeding that Hollywood's Permit Application 50-41 is complete, and that DNR has in its possession all information necessary and required by law for the processing of the permit application. Engineering plans submitted in support of the application for Phase T have been signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, granting the requested permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Josias, Esquire Donald J. Dooty, Esquire 3040 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Leonard Lubart, Esquire Post Office Box 2207 Hollywood, Florida 33022 Elton J Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Roland Peterson, is the owner of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 7, Vilano Beach, in an unincorporated area of St. Johns County, Florida. Vilano Beach lies just eastward of the City of St. Augustine, Florida, and north of St. Augustine Inlet. The three lots are adjacent to each other. By applications dated June 7, 1985 petitioner sought the issuance of three coastal construction control line permits by respondent, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores (Division), to authorize construction seaward of the coastal construction control line or setback line on Lots 4, 5 and 6. More specifically, petitioner sought approval to construct a beach-side snack bar with associated beach walkover, driveway and attached decks on Lot 4, and single family residences with associated dune walkover; driveway and attached decks on Lots 5 and 6. These applications were assigned Application Numbers SJ 220, SJ 221 and SJ 222 by the Division. They were deemed to be complete on August 6, 1985. After evaluating the three applications, the Division formulated recommendations to deny the requested permits. These recommendations were adopted by the Governor and Cabinet sitting as head of the agency at its November 5, 1985 meeting. Notice of such intended action was previously forwarded to petitioner on October 23, 1985. Said notice prompted the instant proceeding. As grounds for denying the permits the Division concluded that the three projects were located seaward of the seasonal high- water line and were therefore prohibited by a law, the projects lay in an area "highly vulnerable" to a major storm; and the cumulative impact of locating these and other structures further seaward could be expected to adversely impact the beach and dune system of the Vilano Beach area. The parties have stipulated that the Division has properly calculated the seasonal high water line in the questioned area, and that petitioner's three projects lie seaward of that line. The parties have also stipulated that the three projects lie seaward of the frontal dune within the meaning of Subsection 161.053t6)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1985).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that application numbers SJ 220, SJ 221 and SJ 222 filed by Roland Peterson to construct various structures on Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 7, Vilano Beach in St. Johns County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Richard K. Stander is the owner of Tom's Harbor Key located in the Florida Keys between Duck Key and Grassy Key. Petitioner seeks a permit to construct a private, non-income producing fishing camp for personal acquaintances and guests. The construction includes a wood dock 80 feet long by six feet wide with nine finger piers two feet wide and 15 feet long running from this dock to provide boat slips, and 1350 linear feet of elevated walkway six feet wide running from the dock area across the mangrove area to seven cottages to be constructed on the upland area of Tom's Harbor Key. Piling across the mangrove area will be implanted by hand auger or water-jetted in. If jetted, appropriate turbidity screens will be used. The pilings for the dock will be driven or implanted with a mechanical auger. The Department of Natural Resources reviewed the application and determined that since the proposed project is a private, non-income producing facility, a lease [from DNR] is not presently required. (Exhibit 3) The submerged lands where the dock and boat slips are to be constructed contain patchy turtle grass growth on an open sandy bottom. (Exhibit 4) Construction of the dock and finger pier boat slips as proposed will have no adverse impact on the flora or fauna in the area. The proposed walkway will cover approximately 2400 square feet (0.06A) of wetlands consisting primarily of red and black mangroves. Constructing this walkway over these wetlands will have no adverse effect on the plants other than the pruning which will be needed to keep the walkway clear. The proposed caretaker's house will be built over the wetlands area and it, like the walkway, will be elevated and will have no adverse effect on the plant or animal life. The cottages will be built on the upland area, and they, too, will be built on pilings with the bottom of the structures some ten feet above mean sea level. Petitioner proposes to use dry toilets in these cottages and remove all wastes to the mainland. Accordingly, no waste will be discharged into the waters adjacent to Tom's Harbor Key. Intervenor contends the proposed project is commercial in nature rather than private but presented no evidence to support this contention. Objections to Intervenor's attempts to infer error in the DNR determination made in Exhibit 3 were sustained as not relevant to the issue before this tribunal. Intervenor also inferred that the application was false because Petitioner stated in the application that the pilings would be implanted using a hand auger or water jet, while at the hearing it was learned the dock piling would be driven or implanted with a mechanical auger. This difference was satisfactorily explained by the testimony of the individual who prepared the application. Moreover, the harm to the environment by implanting the dock pilings by driving or mechanical auger would be less than if these pilings were jetted. It is Intervenor's position that because Petitioner erred in stating in the application how the pilings were to be implanted perhaps he erred in other parts of the application, and therefore the application should be returned to Petitioner for resubmission. Tom's Harbor Key is a pristine area accessible only by water. The wetlands adjacent to this site consist of flourishing mangrove forests, and the area is highly productive. Those opposing the permit applied for are residents of Duck Key, a larger key adjacent to Tom's Harbor which is accessible by land, and which, before its development and occupancy, was also a pristine wetland habitat. Although these witnesses opined that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the marine habitat and on the birds at the site, no factual evidence to support those conclusions was presented.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral argument and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On November 29, 1990, CSXR filed an application with the Respondent for a disclaimer to 1.39 acres more or less of submerged lands beneath and immediately adjacent to a phosphate loading pier ("pier") located in Charlotte Harbor on the eastern side (bay side) near the southern end of Gasparilla Island in Lee County, Florida. Charlotte Harbor is a natural, navigable harbor off the Gulf of Mexico which receives water flow from the Gulf of Mexico and the Peace River. The Department is an agency of the state of Florida charged with implementation of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, relating to sovereign submerged lands. The Department serves as staff to the Board pursuant to Section 253.002, Florida Statutes. The Department has the authority to process applications for disclaimers to state lands under the provision of Section 253.129, Florida Statutes. On December 31, 1990, the Department notified CSXR that its application for disclaimer was denied. The basis for the denial was that the pier was constructed on pilings and was not solid fill as provided for in Rule 18-21.013, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the legal description of the subject submerged lands included open submerged lands lying adjacent to the pier. CSXR agreed to amend its application to reflect that it is seeking a disclaimer only for those submerged lands immediately beneath the pier. The Department reconsidered the application, and it is now the position of the Department that Rule 18-21.014, Florida Administrative Code, no longer applies in this case. However, the Department in reconsidering the application revised its position to deny the application for lack of compliance with the Butler Act in that: (a) it was the Department's opinion that the pier was not a permanent improvement within the intent of the Butler Act; and (b) neither CSXR nor CSXT had shown compliance by its predecessors in title with the Butler Act sufficient to vest title to the submerged lands beneath the pier pursuant to Section 253.129, Florida Statutes, and the Butler Act. The Department's position is that in order to be "permanent" for purposes of the Butler Act, a structure must be able to exist for an extended period of time without maintenance. Generally, there are no circumstances under which a wooden structure would be considered "permanent" for purposes of the Butler Act by the Department. The only material available to construct a structure such as the pier when it was constructed was wood, steel or concrete. Each of these materials would have required maintenance in order for the pier to have lasted approximately 80 years. In fact, considering the durability of the materials available at the time of construction, the most durable material would not have lasted more than 15 years without maintenance. In 1907 or 1908, the Alafia, Manatee and Gulf Coast Railway Company began constructing the pier for the purpose of loading phosphate ore from railroad cars onto ships. The pier and loading system was put into operation in 1911. The pier was built continuously from the line of mean high water in the direction of the channel in Charlotte Harbor and was built so as not to obstruct the channel. The pier is a structure along the shore of a navigable waterbody alongside which vessels were brought to be loaded with phosphate. The main pier is approximately 770 feet long by 25 feet wide with a T- head approximately 325 feet long by 95 feet wide at the north and south ends but only 45 feet wide at the middle two-thirds. Constructed on the pier was a superstructure consisting of a conveyor system and a loader. The conveyor system moved the phosphate ore from the railroad cars to the loader located on the T-head. The loader could move along rails from one end of the T-head to the other. The loader dropped the phosphate ore into the hold of the waiting ship. The loader weighed approximately 250 tons. The pier was constructed on wood pilings as large as 2 feet in diameter. Wooden caps (beams) 12 inches by 12 inches or 14 inches were placed across the top of the pilings. The caps were fixed together with wood stringers up to 7 inches by 14 inches in cross-section. The caps were fastened to the pilings and the stringers fastened to the caps with metal bolts. The deck of the pier was constructed on top of the stringers. After the railroad cars were unloaded, they would travel out onto the main pier for a distance of approximately 350 to 400 feet. This part of the pier is known as the trestle and was built to support the weight of the train with railroad cars even when loaded. When the pier was in operation, from 100 to 240 ships were loaded every year at this facility. This amounted to 500 thousand to 2.5 million tons of phosphate ore per year. Except for a few years during World War II, the pier was used continuously from 1911 to 1979 for the purpose of loading phosphate ore onto ships. In 1979, the pier ceased being used to load phosphate. This was because more up-to-date loading facilities had been constructed in Tampa, Florida, and the tracks and trestles between Arcadia and Gasparilla Island were in need of extensive repairs. Therefore, the phosphate that was previously shipped by rail to the pier on Gasparilla Island was shipped to Tampa. Hurricanes struck this area in 1944 and 1960. In each instance, while the hurricanes damaged the superstructure of the conveyor system, there was only minor superficial damage to the pier itself. The pier was maintained regularly from 1911 to 1979. The timber pilings were replaced every four to eight years because of damage caused by marine borers that ate the wood. However, in 1954, concrete was placed around the pilings by a process known as jet-creting. Since that time, no pilings have been replaced. The pile caps were replaced infrequently, and the deck of the pier still has some timbers that were placed there in the early 1940s. Except for routine maintenance and replacement of damaged pilings and timbers, there have been no changes to the pier structure from 1946 to date. The superstructure was raised approximately 8 feet in 1948 and was dismantled and removed in 1988. While the pier as it currently exists is in need of repair and maintenance, it is an extremely sturdy pier which has been in existence for 80 years. It was constructed of materials and spacings that greatly exceed what one normally sees for a pier that is used for water-related projects. Considering the purpose, design and construction of the pier, there is no dispute that the pier was originally constructed as a permanent structure. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that the pier is a permanent structure which "permanently improved" the submerged lands directly beneath the pier as contemplated by the Butler Act. CSXR is the record title holder of certain upland littoral (riparian) property in Boca Grande, Gasparilla Island, Lee County, Florida that is contiguous to the submerged lands upon which the pier is located. Prior to 1934, the United States of America (United States) owned title to the subject property as a military reservation. In 1906, the United States conveyed a right-of-way to the Alafia, Manatee and Gulf Coast Railway Company (Alafia) for construction of the pier and terminal facilities. In 1934, the United States conveyed fee simple title to the subject property to Boca Grande Inn, Inc., subject to such rights granted to Alafia for right of way and terminal purposes. Boca Grande Inn, Inc. then conveyed fee simple title to Charlotte Harbor and Northern Railway Company by deed dated January 6, 1937. Prior to this conveyance, Charlotte Harbor and Northern Railway Company had become the successor corporation to Alafia, as a result of a name change, and as a result of this conveyance, title to the right-of-way was merged with fee simple title to the riparian upland tract. In 1946, the Charlotte Harbor and Northern Railway Company deeded the property to the Seaboard Airline Railroad Company by deed dated December 30, 1946. Through a series of name changes, the Seaboard Airline Railroad Company became CSX Transportation, Inc. on July 1, 1986. On January 27, 1988, CSXT conveyed the subject riparian property, subject to certain reservations, by a special warranty deed to CSXR. Title to the pier structure itself is currently held by CSXT by virtue of a reservation contained in the 1988 deed from CSXT to CSXR. That reservation also reserved to CSXT those riparian rights and interests necessary to allow CSXT to use, maintain and operate the pier. A further reservation reserved to CSXT a perpetual nonexclusive easement for ingress to and egress from the pier to the extent necessary for the use, maintenance and operation of the pier. CSXT did not reserve title to the submerged lands. There has been no severance or alienation of the riparian rights to the submerged lands in the chain of title to the subject upland property. Notwithstanding, that Alafia was not the riparian upland owner at the time Alafia permanently improved the subject submerged lands by constructing the pier, title to the subject submerged lands vested in the riparian upland owner (United States) by virtue of the Butler Act due to the subject submerged lands being permanently improved by Alafia. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that CSXR is currently the riparian upland owner, and therefore, holds title to the subject submerged lands.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board granting the disclaimer sought by CSXR. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 27th day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(8); 4(9); 5(10); 6(1, 11); 7(12); 8(13); 9(14); 10(15); 11(16); 12(17); 13(18); 14(19); 15(20); 16(21); 17(22); 18(4); 19(5); 20(6); 21-22(7); 23(23); 24(24); 25(25); 26(26); 27(27); 28(28); 29(29); 30(30); and 31(31). Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(24); 2(3); 3(29); 5(1); 6-7(4); 8-9(5); 12(13); 13-14, 16(8); 17-21(25); 22(26); 23(25); 25(19, 20); 26-30(19); 31(21); 32-33(17, 20, 21); Proposed finding of fact 4 is covered in the preliminary statement. Proposed findings of fact 10 and 36 are neither material or relevant to this proceeding. Proposed findings of fact 11, 15, 24, 34 and 35 are rejected as not being supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 37 is covered in the Conclusions of Law. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Intervenor The Intervenor did not submit any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Lotspeich Landers & Parsons 310 West College Avenue P.O. Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Suzanne B. Doub Brantley Nona Schaffner Department of Natural Resources Office of General Counsel Room 922, Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Ken Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Nannette K. Scoggins is the owner of the real property located at 5622 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida in Manatee County. Nannette K. Scoggins' property, the petitioner's property, 5624 Gulf Drive, and the other adjacent property, 5620 Gulf Drive, are zoned as "A-1 Hotel-Motel" under the City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance. On November 13, 1983, Mrs. Scoggins submitted to DNR an application for a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (control line). The proposed project, known as Jansea Place, would consist of two multifamily dwellings, four units to a building, divided by a swimming pool. A portion of the most seaward building would extend a maximum of 57 feet seaward of the control line. By letter dated July 11, 1984, DNR notified petitioner that the department was considering the permit application. The petitioner responded by letter dated July 18, 1984, objecting to any construction seaward of the control line. On October 1, 1984, petitioner received notification that DNR intended to recommend approval of the permit. The permit was scheduled for a vote by the Governor and Cabinet on October 16, 1984. The staff of DNR recommended approval of the permit. By telegram dated October 15, 1984, the petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and on October 22, 1984, petitioner filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The application for permit No. ME-89 is a complete application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line. On October 5, 1983, the Superintendent of Public Works of the City of Holmes Beach certified that this project does not violate any ordinance of the City of Holmes Beach. The plans for the proposed project are signed and sealed by an architect registered in the State of Florida, and the submitted plans comply with the design standards established in Rule 16B-33.07, Florida Administrative Code to resist adequately the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event. The plans, specifications, drawings and other information submitted to DNR with the application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line are complete and accurate, and meet the requirements of DNR for that purpose. Under the provisions of Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, the application was determined to be complete on August 6, 1984. The proposed construction is located landward of an existing vertical concrete bulkhead. The seawall was built jointly by the Scoggins and Mr. McLean, who owns the property immediately to the south of the Scoggins' property. The seawall was built after the hurricane of 1972 because the existing dune system had been destroyed. Since that time, the mean high water line has continued to encroach landward to the point where it is now east of the wall. However, the seawall is not necessary for the protection of the proposed building. Although the seawall would fail under the direct impact of a major hurricane, the proposed building is adequately designed to withstand the impact erosion, the wave loads, the winds, and the water forces associated with a major hurricane. The necessity and justification for the project's location in relation to the control line is stated in the application, and petitioner has not challenged the necessity or justification. The City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance requires that the buildings be separated by a minimum of 30 feet. Since the proposed buildings are separated by 30 feet, the proposed seaward building is located as far landward as possible without violating the zoning ordinance. Erosion and structural damage occurred as a result of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and the "No Name" storm in 1982 in the area between 1,000 feet south of the Scoggins' property and 500 feet north of the Scoggins' property. Although the beach was fairly stable from 1974 to 1979, the beach began to erode in 1980. When the seawall was built in 1974, the dune line was even with the seawall. However, as can be seen from a comparison of the photographs taken in June of 1979 with those taken in early 1985, the beach has eroded since June of 1979 and the dune line is now several feet landward of the seawall. The DNR recommendation for approval of the Scoggin's permit application was based upon historical erosion data for the period between 1940 and 1974, which was the most recent data available that could be used to review the project. Mr. Clark stated that the application was recommended for approval based on the design of the proposed building and its alignment with existing structures built seaward of the control line. The proposed project is located landward of a line of existing structures. Although the adjacent properties have been affected by erosion, there was no evidence presented to show that the existing structures located seaward of the control line have been unduly affected by erosion. In 1974, when the seawall was being constructed, the worker building the seawall dug up part of the petitioner's property and destroyed the sea oats he had planted. However, the proposed project has a driveway encircling the building which would provide vehicular access to the seawall if necessary. The proposed project will partially obstruct petitioner's view to the southwest. However, there was no evidence presented that petitioner's property or the other adjacent property, would be adversely affected in any other way by the proposed project. There was no evidence presented that the proposed project would be affected by, or have an effect on, beach or coastal erosion. The proposed project would have no effect on the beach dune system.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that DNR issue Permit Number ME-89 to Nannette K. Scoggins. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1985.
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 1, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, which is given the authority under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the license of, among others, certified commercial pool/spa contractors. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified commercial pool/spa contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-2578 (RP0023937). On September 9, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Louis Alberto and Margaret Alberto (Albertoes). The contract provided for Respondent to: Remove algae and dirt from Sand Pebble deck. Resurface entire Pebble Deck (1132 sq. ft.) with Flo-Crete. Retexture entire surface and seal with color of choice. Place random pattern. Pressure clean existing deck and acid wash. The contract price was $3,600.00 with 50 percent to be paid at the beginning of the contract and the balance to be paid upon completion of the contract. Although it is not covered in the contract, both parties agreed that Respondent had verbally agreed to give the Albertoes his personal five-year warranty on the work he was to perform under the contract, which included covering the pool sand pebble deck with Flo Crete. Design Flo-Crete (Flo-Crete) is a product manufactured by Seamco Laboratories, Inc. (Seamco) and used in covering pool decks. Seamco's position on covering a sand pebble deck with Flo-Crete is as follows: Please be advised that as a manufacturer Seamco Laboratories, Inc., does not recommend going over river rock (stone and epoxy systems) with their product Design Flo-Crete. Going over epoxy stone would encapsulate bacteria, which could cause gases that could cause disruption of the Design Flo-Crete. Seamco is aware that some of their dealers install Flo-Crete over river rock successfully. However, Seamco's official position is as stated above. Respondent was aware of Seamco's position on the installation of Flo-Crete over river rock at the time he entered into the contract with the Albertoes and advised the Albertoes that Seamco did not recommend going over river rock (stone and epoxy systems) with Flo-Crete. However, Respondent advised the Albertoes that he had previously used Flo-Crete over river rock successfully on several jobs. Respondent's did not seal the sides of the deck which allowed the gases created by the encapsulated bacteria to escape through the sides. There is no mention in the contract that Seamco would warrant Flo-Crete under any condition. Furthermore, Respondent did not verbally advise the Albertoes that Seamco would warrant Flo-Crete under these conditions. Subsequent to entering into the contract, Respondent proceeded to: (a) remove the algae and dirt from the sand pebble deck by pressure cleaning and acid wash; (b) resurface entire pebble deck with Flo-Crete; and (c) retexture entire surface and seal with color of choice. There were some minor problems but those were corrected. However, the Albertoes were not satisfied with the new textured surface because it tended to show scuff marks and the color was too light. In an attempt to satisfy the Albertoes, Respondent put lines on the deck by applying tape and painting over the entire surface and then removing the tape leaving the lines. Also, in a further attempt to satisfy the Albertoes, Respondent applied a combination of two colors to darken the original color. However, the original color (bone white) continued to bleach through and was not satisfactory to the Albertoes. At this point, Respondent became convinced that he could not satisfy the Albertoes. Apparently, the Albertoes' dissatisfaction with the color of the deck resulted in Respondent not being allowed to apply the polyurethane sealer to the deck. In any event, the polyurethane sealer was never applied to the deck surface. Subsequently, the Albertoes contracted with another contractor to tear out the existing sand pebble deck and refinish the deck to their specifications for a contract price of approximately $3,600.00 There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's method of applying Flo-Crete over the sand pebble deck resulted in the disruption of the Flo-Crete or was the cause of Respondent being unable to satisfy the Albertoes as to the color and texture of the deck.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Robert W. Dobson 8965 60th Street, North Pinellas Park, Florida 33782 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
Findings Of Fact Lior Hason is the owner of Britt's Cafe, a restaurant which occupies property owned by the Petitioner's Stanislaw and Kasimiera Budzinski. On or about December 19, 1995, Harry S. Cline, an attorney for Mr. Hason and the Budzinskis, filed an application for a variance from the City of Clearwater's Development Code, for the purpose of eliminating three required parking spaces from the front of the subject property for the construction of an outdoor cafe at 201 South Gulfview Boulevard. The Code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, and a variance was required to remove three existing parking spaces from the unit's parking space inventory. The matter was brought before the City's Development Code Adjustment Board at its January 11, 1996 meeting. Mr. Cline appeared at the meeting on behalf of the applicant and presented the project. No one else was present to speak in support of or in opposition to the request. However, four letters in opposition from neighboring business owners were submitted. Notwithstanding these objections, the Board determined that the applicant had substantially met all standards for approval listed in the City's Land Development Code; and upon vote of the Board, the application was approved, subject to certain conditions, by a three to two majority. Mr. Hason entered into discussions with City officials to determine what was necessary. Official City reaction was initially favorable. Mr. Hason was advised of the requirements for the project and had plans drawn which called for a deck with a 35 to 36 inch railing with landscaping around it, and with posts and lights. When the plans were submitted to the City officials, the only change suggested was to raise the railing height to 45 inches, which was done, after which the City approved the plans and the permit was granted. The deck was then constructed exactly according to the approved plans. At some time during 1996, Mr. Hason discussed with some City employees putting an awning over the deck. During these discussions, the City employees sent Mr. Hason a copy of Section 41.221(1)(c), Clearwater City Code, which provides for awnings to be removable. Mr. Hason considered the sending of this Code provision to be tantamount to a favorable reply to his inquiry, and, based on that, he finalized his plans for the installation of a removable awning. The proposed awning is designed in such a fashion as to be extendible and retractable on a frame, capable of easily being pulled up against the front of the building like a drapery. With a minimum of further effort, consisting of the removal a several bolts, the entire awning construction can be removed from the frame. Mr. Hason submitted his application for the variance to install the awning on February 2, 1997. In the interim, the City employees with whom Mr. Hason discussed the project changed their position from favoring the project to opposing it. He was ultimately advised in December 1996 or January 1997 that the awning could not be permitted because an awning could not be approved over a deck for which a permit should not have been issued and for which the issuance was a mistake. Though the Board had not yet voted on the application, no information was given to Mr. Hason as to what he could do to make the project approvable. His application, on February 2, 1997, was submitted because, Hason claims, he had been told, by someone not further identified, that applying for a variance for the awning would make everything right. The Variance Staff Report submitted to the Board by the appropriate City employees acknowledged that the frame over which Mr. Hason proposed to put the awning does not meet code because it was constructed within a required setback area from South Gulfview Boulevard, but since the frame was built pursuant to a City-issued permit, consistent with City policy, the City accepted its existence. In its final recommendation to the Board, the staff concluded that notwithstanding the encroachment into the setback area, the project "appears to comply with all standards for approval, provided attention is given to the external appearance of the cafe:" The staff then went on to recommend approval of the project subject to certain conditions, all of which, Mr. Hason accepts and agrees to. Nonetheless, the Board denied the permit by a vote of four to one. Mr. Hason contends that the Board vote was an attempt by the Board to get back at him because of what it perceived as his failure to comply with the conditions placed upon the issuance of the first permit and his alleged misrepresentation of the scope of his project at the time. Mr. Hason, however, categorically denies he has done anything contrary to the dictates of the City. He went back to City officials many times during the construction of the deck to make sure the project was built as required. The majority of the Board members believe, however, that the deck as constructed, goes far beyond the limited structure approved by the granting of the parking space variance in January 1996. This animosity toward the project can be seen from a review of the audio record of the February 13, 1997, Board meeting where, during a colloquy between a Board member and Mr. Hason, it appeared the member was somewhat put out by the entire situation. His analysis indicates a less than complete recollection of the matter, however. Whereas one of the conditions to the issuance of the initial permit was that the area of the outdoor cafe should not be greater than 25 percent of the indoor area of the restaurant, this member pointed out that the 69 outdoor seats were far in excess of 25 percent of the 115 or so indoor seats. This constituted a confusion of seating as opposed to area. No evidence was presented concerning whether Mr. Hason had violated the area constraint. In the main, however, while it appeared that a majority of the Board members were unhappy about the way the project developed, and expressed the opinion that the project did not conform to what they had intended to approve, there was no indication any member s vote was motivated by anything other than a sincere belief in the correctness of his position. There was no indication of any inappropriate or vindictive action by anyone on the Board or its staff. Stephen Sarnoff, a central permitting specialist with the City reviewed the plans for the initial construction and for the current application. As he recalls, the plans for the initial deck construction did not show any support beams, fans, overhead structure or latticework fencing, and the deck, as built, does not conform to the plans as submitted. City Code requirements call for a railing of from 30 to 42 inches high. The current railing of 45 inches does not conform to that standard, and Mr. Sarnoff is not aware of any request from the City that the railing be raised to that height, as Mr. Hason claims. By the same token, while there is no requirement in the ordinance that a deck be of a certain height, anything higher than 12 inches is considered a structure and a waiver is required. This deck was approved for 12 inches. A certificate of occupancy is usually issued for a deck, but in the instant case, such a certificate has not been issued because the deck, as built, is not in compliance with the 1996 approval. If it is brought into compliance, it will be approved. Sarnoff is aware of and familiar with other outdoor restaurant decks built at various locations in the Clearwater area, as indicated by Mr. Hason. Some are not within the CR-28 zone and do not come under the same standards as are applicable here. Others, which must conform to the instant requirements appear to have movable awnings which are acceptable. Still others are in a different zoning district with different set-back requirements, and some were initially denied, but were subsequently approved when they were brought into compliance with the requirements. John Richter, a senior planner for the City, was the individual who prepared the staff report on the instant project and initially recommended approval, contingent upon changes to the external appearance of the facility. He made suggestions and has discussed the project with Hason on his several visits to the property. He did discuss an awning with Hason at some point, but their discussions did not deal with its mobility. All in all, Mr. Richter concluded that the project appears to meet the standard for approval, provided attention is given to the external appearance of the cafe. David S. Shuford, the City's central permitting director and development code administrator indicated that the variance required for the awning, which was an integral part of the structure already built, was not automatically granted with the granting of the permit for the deck structure. Section 42.221, Clearwater City Code, was adopted to promote a more festival atmosphere in some of the outdoor tourist areas. The intent of subsection (l)(c) of that provision was to require the use of moveable items and to design structures that would meet wind requirements and not interfere with pedestrian traffic. The term "moveable" means what it says, and in Shuford's opinion, from the plans he saw, the proposed awning would not be easily moveable on a daily basis. The Clearwater City Code establishes the area in question as one where, once guidelines are developed, they will be adopted and be complied with. Mr. Shuford opines that the current deck, in the rafter area, goes beyond what was proposed at the time the project was submitted for the parking variance and was approved. This is what appears to be the source of the difficulty the Board members have with it. However, if designed to comply with the guidelines, this awning could be approved. He would agree with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation so far as they relate to painting and architectural matters.
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1988 Harry B. Williams made application to the Department of Natural Resources for permission to construct a single-family dwelling with appurtenant structures at 2831 Ponte Verda Boulevard South, South Ponte Verda Beach, Florida. The permit sought was a coastal construction control line permit which would allow construction seaward of that line in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of that permit application may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 2. Associated with the permit application was a description of the plans related to the dwelling and other structures. This application was received by the Department February 11, 1988. Following a review of the permit application the Department deemed it complete as of February 22, 1988. A site inspection was made of the property and a report was prepared by an employee with the Department, a Mr. Partel. The report may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 4, which includes photographs of the prospective building site, together with the surrounding property to include dwellings to the north and south of the lot where the Williams home would be built. As commented on by Mr. Partel the applicant had intended at that time to construct a single-family dwelling a maximum of 75 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although this evaluator, Mr. Partel, felt that the applicant had requested the right to construct a dwelling which was in line with existing construction, he felt that it could be moved further landward and that it could be limited in deck size and that a cantilevened form of construction was preferable to the concrete called for in the plans set out in the application information. It was also suggested that the sea oats that were in the way of the construction should be relocated seaward on a dune face slope where a denuded area is found. In this connection, the Department is empowered to make suggestions to the applicant concerning the minimization of the adverse impacts on the beach-dune system. Following the site visit of February 26, 1988 the Department wrote the applicant on March 11, 1988 and indicated concerns about the proximity of the dwelling to the crest of the dune. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 5. In the correspondence the Department asked the applicant to move the proposed dwelling 10 feet landward and that the 10 foot wide concrete patio, on the seaward side, be modified to a 10 foot wide wooden deck. The letter told the applicant that the approval would be conditioned on the sea oats and other dune grasses that would be disturbed by the proposed structures being replanted seaward of the project in the denuded areas of the dune. The applicant agreed to these changes. The relocation of the structure 10 feet landward took it away from the beach- dune system. The modified site plan that was brought about by the suggested changes is found Department's Exhibit Number 6, a copy of that amended site plan. With the relocation the construction would be 66 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. An aerial photograph of the site location reference the basic design of the dwelling and the proximity to the relevant or existing coastal construction control line is found as Department's Exhibit Number 3. In responding to the suggestions to the change in location the modified site plan which moved the dwelling 10 feet landward was received by the Department on August 1, 1988. Under this arrangement the applicant had agreed to waive the requirements of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes pertaining to the obligation by the Department to review and decide its action of grant or denial within 90 days of date of receipt of the application. With the changes being made to the location of the proposed dwelling and associated structures and the type of construction materials used in the patio on the seaward side, together with the relocation of the plant life, the impact on the beach-dune system and adjacent property is acceptable. There is no adverse impact on the beach-dune system or on the adjacent properties. The location of the proposed dwelling and its associated structures as it relates to the 30-year erosion projection under the terms of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, in this instance, shows that the dwelling would be approximately 55 feet landward of the 30-year erosion projection and not at risk. Calculations related to this finding may be found within Department's Exhibit Number 7. The existing coastal construction control line dates from January 28, 1988. Although the original application referred to the previous line of 1978 in describing the site plan and survey, the reason for this was that the site plan and survey were prepared prior to the establishment of the January 28, 1988 line, as allowed. In the course of the hearing appropriate reference was made to the January 28, 1988 line as it relates to the anticipated location of the dwelling and other structures as modified at the instigation of the Department. As contemplated by Section 161.053(5)(f), the Department required the applicant to provide mitigation of the- effects of the construction as a condition to a grant of the permit. Those permit conditions may be found in the Department's Exhibit Number 8, a copy of a proposed final order. Included within those would be the requirements for erection of a temporary construction fence on the site to protect existing native dune vegetation from the impacts of that construction, in addition to the requirement of the dune vegetation relocation. This would involve the irrigation and application of fertilizer to those plants with the expectation that a certain percentage would survive over time as described in this special condition. This project will not pose a hazard to the sea turtle and its hatchlings and habitat for the sea turtles and hatchlings. Ms. Butler, Petitioner in this cause, has a beach home which is north of the Williams property separated by a 10 foot easement between those properties. In mid July, 1988 Ms. Butler offered a written statement in opposition to the placement and size of the proposed dwelling together with other remarks and asked that the Department provide her information and documents pertaining to the application under the authority of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. On August 10, 1988 the Department dispatched a letter of inquiry to surrounding property owners to include Ms. Butler and solicited remarks concerning the Williams application to be provided on or about August 20, 1988. Ms. Butler had received certain documents from the Department concerning the application sometime in the middle of August 1988. On August 18, 1988 Butler made known her objection to the project on the grounds that the concerns about the 30-year erosion line and the size and placement of the dwelling. On September 2, 1988 the Department informed Ms. Butler of the intent to grant the permit to Mr. Williams. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5. This led to a timely request for hearing by Ms. Butler stating her opposition to this project. The request was received in accordance with the Department's advice that the request must be filed by September 26, 1988. Based upon the prehearing conference and the discussion of those issues which would be allowed for consideration as stated in the request for hearing and the statement of particulars that attend the request for hearing, commented on by the hearing officer at the commencement of the final hearing, and found within the transcript and further stated in the issues portion to this Recommended Order, this case has been carried forward. The presentation made by the Petitioner, after the Department and applicant had offered their cases, was through her testimony and that of employees of the Department together with exhibits she offered. The testimony of the Department employees concerned the procedural techniques that the agency pursued in reviewing the application at issue. Ms. Butler described her concern for her property, and the area between her property and the Williams property. This is the 10 foot easement area which is sparsely vegetated and low. As a consequence she was concerned that her property might be destroyed with the advent of the Williams construction. She has no expertise in her own right nor did she present expert opinion from other witnesses which would tend to bear out her concern. She also expressed the concern that the Williams home, in its dimensions, was too large and that it should be relocated an additional 10 feet back from the adjusted placement following the Department's criticism of the original application. In effect, she would have the house placed 20 feet away from the sea as compared to the original site plan submitted with the application on February 10, 1988. Again, there is no competent evidence presented which would support her theory that this further relocation was needed. Her expression of concern for the sea turtles and their hatchlings and habitat was not well founded. Turtles are known to nest on the sandy flat beach area and the construction of the Williams property will not interfere with that area adjacent to the ocean.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order which grants a coastal construction control line permit to Harry B. Williams, Jr., based upon his modified plan required by the Department and upon the special permit conditions announced in the proposed final order, a copy of which is found as Department's Exhibit Number 8. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 27th day of April, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Charles E. Beasley, a registered residential contractor licensed by Petitioner and holding license RR-0034139 at all times pertinent to these proceedings. His address of record is Winter Haven, Florida. Respondent and Edwin R. Shrader entered into an oral contract in July of 1986. Under terms of the agreement, Shrader agreed to pay Respondent the sum of $1,825 for installation of an aluminum patio cover at Shrader's home. Measuring 12 feet wide and 56 feet long, the patio cover would connect to the roof of the Shrader residence on one side and extend out to shade the patio consisting of a concrete slab covered with a pool deck finish. Wooden posts affixed to metal plates attached to the slab would provide support on the outward side of the cover. Respondent initially erected the patio cover on Saturday, July 12, 1986. He returned the following Monday and was paid by Shrader. A period of inclement weather consisting of heavy rain storms occurred approximately two to three weeks after Respondent erected the patio cover. After the rain had stopped, Shrader noticed that water was leaking through the patio cover. Respondent returned and attempted to stop the leaks. A year later, after numerous attempts to stop the water leakage coming through the cover, Shrader discussed with Respondent the possibility of shortening the wood support posts to increase the slant of the patio cover, permit rain water to flow off the cover at a greater rate, and eliminate the possibility that water would pool and leak through the cover. Respondent agreed to try the concept. His workmen arrived on or about July 20, 1987, and, without informing Shrader of their presence, began to pry the metal plates attached to the posts from the patio deck. The workmen then shortened the posts and reattached them to the metal plates and to the patio slab. In the process of removing the plates, approximately $500 in damage occurred to the patio deck finish. Respondent volunteered to provide a wooden facade at the base of each post to cover the damaged area of the patio finish. Shrader refused this option. Respondent then volunteered to have the damage repaired, but never provided such repairs. Even after shortening the support posts to the patio cover, the leakage continued. During the period between July, 1986 and September, 1988, Shrader contacted Respondent no less than seven times about solving the problem of the leaking patio cover. Respondent offered no response until Shrader complained to Petitioner. After the administrative complaint in this proceeding had been filed, Respondent returned to the Shrader residence and was successful in installing the patio cover to the point that the leakage stopped. The permit application submitted by Respondent to the Polk County building authorities reveals that plans accompanying the application were approved on July 11, 1986. The date on the line of the application bearing Respondent's signature is unclear; it could be interpreted as either July 11, 12 or 14, 1986. The application was clearly approved for permit issuance on July 14, 1986. The proof also establishes that no inspection of the patio installation by county building authorities was ever requested by Respondent. The Board of County Commissioners of Polk County, Florida, has adopted, as a local county ordinance, the standard building code promulgated by Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., which requires issuance of building permits prior to initiation of any construction project and inspection of projects upon conclusion of construction. With the exception of Petitioner's allegation that Respondent did not timely call for the required local inspection of a permitted construction job, Respondent does not dispute the facts asserted in the administrative complaint. With regard to the required inspection, Respondent's testimony in mitigation was that he normally calls for such inspections; feels sure he did so in this case; but has no independent recollection or evidence that such a request was actually made by him. Respondent maintains that application for the construction permit was mailed or provided to county building authorities on July 11, 1986, prior to initiation of construction. While this assertion by Respondent is not controverted by the evidence presented, the evidence did establish that Respondent or his employees were at the work site at least four times after the patio cover was initially installed and no check of the permit was made to see if an inspection of the job had been performed. Petitioner offered testimony of an expert which establishes that Respondent is guilty of incompetence in the practice of contracting as a result of his failure to properly supervise his workmen's removal of the support beam metal plates from the patio deck in a manner which would not have resulted in damage to the patio finish. The expert testimony further establishes that while the patio cover was eventually properly installed, Respondent demonstrated incompetence in the unreasonable amount of time which elapsed from the initiation of the installation of the cover in July of 1986 until completion through the stoppage of leakage in September of 1988. When questioned about the unreasonable period of time, Respondent admitted that he just assumed that he would eventually solve the leakage problem.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Subsections 489.129(1)(m) and (n), Florida Statutes, (1988) and requiring that Respondent pay an administrative fine of $1,000 in accordance with provisions of Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 6th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. 1.-18. Addressed in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles E. Beasley Beasley Aluminum 161 Audubon Court S.E. Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
