The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioner for the purchase of agricultural products, and whether such indebtedness constitutes a breach of the conditions of the bond posted by the Surety for which payment should issue.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SARASOTA GROWERS INCORPORATED (SARASOTA GROWERS), is a producer of agricultural products, primarily nursery ornamental plants, in Sarasota County, Florida. W.R. Walden is president of SARASOTA GROWERS. Respondent, TOULIA XIOTAS INCORPORATED, d/b/a GULF BREEZE LANDSCAPING (GULF BREEZE), is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, holding License Number 10091, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. At all material times, David Joy was the manager of GULF BREEZE. Co-Respondent and Surety, FRONTIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK (FRONTIER), posted Bond Number 5004806 in the amount of $9,999.00 in support of Respondent's license as a dealer in agricultural products. The inception date of the bond was April 30, 1996, and the expiration date of the bond was April 30, 1997. In early 1997, Respondent GULF BREEZE through its manager, David Joy, contacted SARASOTA GROWERS and ordered the delivery of certain agricultural products. By usual business practices, payment was demanded upon delivery. On February 10, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products to GULF BREEZE. The invoiced value of the agricultural products delivered to GULF BREEZE was $2,255.00. On February 12, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products valued at $302.50 to GULF BREEZE. On March 7, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products valued at $18.00 to GULF BREEZE GULF BREEZE did not pay for the agricultural products at the time of delivery by SARASOTA GROWERS. At each of these deliveries, SARASOTA GROWERS was informed by an employee of GULF BREEZE that the manager David Joy, was not present, but that payment by check would be mailed. After the delivery of March 7, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS ceased making deliveries to GULF BREEZE. After several demands for payment by SARASOTA GROWERS, GULF BREEZE remitted a partial payment of $1,000.00 for the agricultural products delivered by SARASOTA GROWERS. GULF BREEZE failed to properly make payment for agricultural products delivered by SARASOTA GROWERS and is indebted to SARASOTA GROWERS in the amount of $1,575.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered directing Respondent TOULIA XIOTAS INCORPORATED, d/b/a GULF BREEZE LANDSCAPING, to pay Petitioner SARASOTA GROWERS INCORPORATED $1,575.50 for agricultural products sold to Respondent, and in the event Respondent fails to make such payment, within fifteen (15) days of that order, that the Surety be required to pay pursuant to the bond posted. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 W. R. Walden, President Sarasota Growers, Incorporated 1001 Sinclair Drive Sarasota, Florida 34240 Toulia Xioutas, Incorporated Gulf Breeze Landscaping 901 MacEwen Drive Osprey, Florida 34229 Frontier Insurance Company of New York 195 Lake Louise Marie Road Rock Hill, New York 12775-8000
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request to modify permit no. 5601095728 should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, William Schulman, as trustee, is the owner of a parcel of real property consisting of approximately ten acres located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. On July 3, 1986, Petitioner was issued permit no. 5601095728 and became authorized to fill 1.5 acres of impacted wetlands in accordance with specifications and drawings which had been approved by the Department. Petitioner was required to provide mitigation in connection with the permit which included: the installation of culverts to allow tidal circulation to adjacent wetlands; scraping down a .5 acre area and planting smooth cordgrass; and dredging an area approximately sixty feet wide to allow an access to the Indian River. Petitioner has performed the above-described mitigation. The permit also required Petitioner to execute and record a Conservation Easement which included the .5 acre to be scraped and planted with cordgrass. This easement has not been recorded in accordance with the permit guidelines. Instead, Petitioner sought to modify the permit to allow an additional 1.5 - 2.0 acres to be filled. This proposed area encompassed the smooth cordgrass and an area of mangroves which were to be part of the conservation easement. By letter dated July 10, 1987, Petitioner provided drawings to the Department to further identify the area subject to the requested modification. The proposed modification would result in the permanent loss of white mangrove and cordgrass marsh. This marsh is connected to Class II waters (Indian River) via the dredged opening described in paragraph 2. Petitioner's ten acre parcel is bounded to the north by the platted Windmill Village subdivision; to the east is a commercial area which fronts on SR A-1-A; to the southwest of the property is a diked area known as Impoundment 12; to the west is a man-made lake referred to as "Black's Lake" at the hearing; and further to the west is the Indian River. As part of the original mitigation, Petitioner dredged a sixty foot opening connecting Black's Lake to the Indian River. The culverts required by the original mitigation connected Black's Lake to Impoundment 12, Petitioner's parcel to Black's Lake, and Impoundment 12 to the Indian River. As mitigation for the modification sought, Petitioner has proposed to provide four additional culverts to connect Impoundment 12 with Black's Lake. The record in this cause is unclear as to the present ownership of Impoundment Further, no owner has given consent to the proposed installation of additional culverts. The mitigation proposed for Impoundment 12 is not on Petitioner's property. As additional mitigation for the modification, Petitioner has proposed to provide two culverts which would connect a ditch on Petitioner's property to Black's Lake. On September 4, 1987, Petitioner provided materials from the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District to the Department in support of the requested modification. The information suggested that with the installation of additional culverts, the tidal activity within Impoundment 12 would be improved and would thereby eliminate most of the mosquito breeding within that area. On October 14, 1987, the Department notified Petitioner of its intent to deny the modification to permit no. 5601095728. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed for a formal review and these proceedings resulted. By stipulation, the parties agreed that the Department has jurisdiction of the project and the proposed modification to the permit. The proposed mitigation seeks to increase tidal exchange within Impoundment 12. Petitioner has not offered evidence to illustrate how the mitigation would directly benefit Petitioner's property. The tidal replication in Black's Lake is approximately 90 percent of that within the Indian River. The tidal replication within Impoundment 12 is approximately 60 percent of that within Black's Lake. Petitioner anticipates that the addition of culverts connecting Black's Lake to Impoundment 12 would increase the tidal exchange to the impoundment. Impoundment 12 consists of approximately 120 acres. Due to a dike which divides the property, only 80 + or - acres would be affected by the proposed mitigation. To effect 100 percent tidal replication within Impoundment 12 the dike separating it from the Indian River to the west would have to be removed. Since that solution is highly unlikely, authorities have sought to achieve tidal exchange via 40' culverts which are 30 inches in diameter and which have been placed to breech the dikes surrounding the impoundment. The most desirable locations for these culverts would be directly connecting Impoundment 12 to the river. That is not Petitioner's proposal. Petitioner proposes to connect Impoundment 12 with additional culverts to Black's Lake. The opening to the river from the lake would not be increased. Consequently, it is unlikely the replication within the lake will increase. The sole objective of Petitioner's proposed mitigation would simply cause more water to tidally flow from the lake to Impoundment 12. Increased flow to Impoundment 12 would enhance the likelihood of achieving tidal inundation which would make mosquito breeding less frequent. While it is expected that the Mosquito Control District would have to continue applying larvicide to Impoundment 12, its use may be less often. Optimally, tidal inundation would occur at least once a week. Currently, Impoundment 12 receives this desired inundation only during the fall season when the waters are high enough to flood the remote areas. Increasing the number of culverts would also increase the points of access and would allow the water to move more slowly through the openings. While there is no evidence to establish the locations for the placement of the proposed culverts, in theory, the placement would be to maximize the tidal exchange. A slower exchange through the culverts would benefit organisms moving through the system. The slower rate would also enhance the use of the passages by fish. To be lost by the modification are .5 acre of smooth cordgrass and 1.25 - 1.50 acres of mature, functioning mangroves. The mangroves are predominantly of the white variety with some reds scattered. They are approximately 20 feet in height. If allowed to remain undeveloped, it is anticipated that the cordgrass area will aid in the recruitment of additional mangroves. Mangroves provide several benefits to estuarine systems. The leaf litter is a primary source of food for organisms in the lower end of the food chain such as fish and crabs. Fish, birds and mammals use mangroves for cover from predators. Birds also use the mangroves for perching and nesting and feed on insects and crabs associated with the trees. Mangroves in Impoundment 12 and the Petitioner's property (which will be lost by the modification) currently provide these benefits. It has not been demonstrated that the increased tidal flow to Impoundment 12 will quantitatively improve the benefits offered by mangroves to the existing system. Smooth cordgrass is a food source for birds, fish and mammals. Not only do organisms feed on the cordgrass, but they also feed on the leaves and seeds of the associated growth of spike rush and fungus. Mammals use the cordgrass for cover and some birds nest there. The following listed birds have been identified on Petitioner's property and Impoundment 12: snowy egret and little blue heron, which are species of local concern, and the brown pelican which is on the federal list of endangered species. Also observed at the location was the roseate spoonbill. Mammals identified on the Petitioner's property included raccoon, marsh rabbit and rat. The loss of the Petitioner's mangroves and cordgrass will decrease the habitat area currently used by mammals, fish and birds. Moreover, the mangrove population on Hutchinson Island is on the decline. Wetland areas have been decreasing due to development over the last 20 years. Numerous dredge and fill projects previously permitted by the Department have allowed filling of mangrove areas. Fish currently inhabiting the area which are expected to be adversely affected by the loss of the mangroves and ditch area include: snook (a species of special concern), tarpon, mojarra, and striped mullet. The increased water flow to Impoundment 12 does not offset this loss. Windmill Village By The Sea Homeowners Association, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation consisting of property owners occupying approximately 46 duplexes to the north of Petitioner's property. The 13 individual intervenors (Sophie Holler, Jackson and Mildred Gray, Terry and Norine Young, Einer Nielsen, Richard and Alphild Chase, Jack and Pat Donohue, and Robert and Lynn Chandler) are homeowners on Aqua Ra Drive north of and contiguous to Petitioner's property.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Toulla Xioutas, Inc., owes Petitioner money for the purchase of landscape plants and, if so, how much.
Findings Of Fact As is relevant in this case, Petitioner sold Respondent, Toulla Xioutas, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Breeze Landscaping (Respondent), numerous palm trees on three dates. The first sale took place on February 17, 1997, and consisted of 20 palm trees for a total of $1270. Respondent paid all but $34 of this sum. The second sale took place on March 3, 1997, and consisted of 25 palm trees for a total of $1887.50. The third sale took place on March 24, 1997, and consisted of 15 palm trees for a total of $1721. Respondent never paid anything for these two purchases, which total $3608.50. The palm trees conformed to the items ordered by Respondent in type, quality, and quantity. Petitioner repeatedly tried to obtain payment for these trees, but Respondent would not even respond to his calls.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner $3642.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Dean, President Trademark Palms, Inc. Post Office Box 2198 Pineland, Florida 33945 David Joy Toulla Xioutas, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Breeze Landscaping 901 MacEwen Drive Osprey, Florida 34229 Lisa DeSantis Surety Claims Analyst Frontier Insurance Company of New York 195 Lake Louise Marie Road Rock Hill, New York 12775-8000 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda D. Hyatt, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondent Coastal Lumber Company (Coastal) has provided reasonable assurances to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that it can comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules in the Florida Administrative Code regarding odor and visible emissions, and whether DEP should issue a Title V Air Operation Permit to Coastal Lumber.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners live in Gadsden County, Florida. Their home is approximately a half a mile from Coastal's plywood plant in Havana, Florida. DEP is the agency that reviewed Coastal's application for a Title V Air Operation Permit and issued a draft permit and a notice of its intent to grant Coastal’s permit request. Coastal is the applicant for the proposed permit. Since 1971, Coastal has operated a wood products facility off of U.S. Highway 27 North in Havana, Florida. Coastal has operated various sawmill and hardwood operations during its existence. However, the sawmill and hardwood activities ceased operation in 1991 due to a shortage of logs in the area. Coastal began manufacturing plywood in 1980 and continues its plywood manufacturing activities today. Coastal employs approximately 250 people with shifts covering 24 hours a day, seven days a week, year round -- including most holidays. The shifts rotate, so the same employees cover both day shifts and night shifts. The operations of the plant, including compliance with environmental standards, are the same at night and on weekends as they are during the daytime shifts. Coastal has operated the plant at normal capacity up to and during this proceeding with the exception of its peeler operations, which ceased operating on February 8, 1998, because of a lack of logs. However, all the other equipment was operated at its normal rate throughout the hearing. Manufacturing Plywood Logs arrive at Coastal and are separated by size and stored in log yards along the southern and southeastern portions of the mill property which is bordered by 159-A and U.S. 27 North. Logs are later moved to a block conditioning area, stripped of their bark, and cut into eight-foot lengths. The eight-foot logs are then soaked in hot water for about eight hours to soften them. After that, the logs are placed in a lathe that spins the logs against a sharp knife and peels them into sheets of veneer. The sheets of veneer are placed on dryers for six to nine minutes to drive off moisture. Then, the dried sheets of veneer are layered with glue between layers of veneer and placed in a press for four to five minutes. The result is a sheet of plywood. The plywood is stacked according to its quality and some stacks are sealed by spraying the ends with canned spray paint. In a separate area, the cores of the logs are treated and shaped to be used as landscaping material. Air Pollution Sources at the Plant Coastal has been operating under seven separate DEP operating permits. The Title V permit, mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the subject of this proceeding, will combine those seven operating permits into a single operating permit. The seven permits cover five boiler systems and seven dust control systems. Two boilers (numbers 1 and 2) have restrictions on particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and visible emissions. Boiler number 3, with a “wet scrubber,” also has restrictions on particular matter, on nitrogen oxides, and on visible emissions. Boilers numbered 4 and 5 have visible emission limits. Three veneer dryers and two plywood presses are not permitted, but are proposed to be permitted to Coastal under the permit which is the subject of this proceeding. Boilers 3, 4, and 5, are operating and are used to generate steam for the plant. The boilers are all fueled with wood waste such as bark chips and saw dust generated at the plant. The boilers are incapable of operating with a different type of fuel such as fuel oil. Also, it would be inefficient for Coastal to use any other type of fuel in the boilers because Coastal Lumber has an abundance of wood waste. The dust control systems include two filters for sander dust and four cyclones. A cyclone is a device which swirls dust and air together eventually releasing the air out of the top and letting the dust settle downward. The cyclones at the Coastal facility do not have filters inside. Three of the cyclones are not currently in use because they were used for the sawmill operations or to load rail cars and, at present, Coastal uses solely trucks. Coastal has included them in the application in the event that rail loading again becomes feasible. The fourth cyclone handles chips and sawdust collected throughout the plant. The veneer dryers and plywood presses emit steam mixed with small quantities of pine oil naturally present in the wood and are operating under a construction permit until covered under the Title V permit. Coastal's Title V permit application does not contemplate an increase in operations or capacity. Specifically, Coastal could not change its permitted capacity without adding new sources to its plant which would require additional permits. Coastal can operate its Havana plant in compliance with the conditions in its draft Title V Permit. Issues Raised by Petitioners Petitioners raised two issues in challenging the issuance of Coastal's Title V Air Operation Permit: sulfur or acid odors, and "smoke" or excess visible emissions that they attribute to the Coastal facility. According to Petitioners and some of their witnesses, the odors are worse when it is humid or following a rain, at night, and on weekends. Thick smoke experienced in the past by Petitioner Chester Nalls as a result of open burning at Coastal’s facility has ceased. Burning operations at present are only those instances of permitted burning for reforestation purposes. Two of Petitioners' witnesses, however, Cathy Moore and Sondra Rowan do not have any complaints about sulfur or acid odors from the Coastal facility. Moore testified that she occasionally smells a "treated wood smell" that she associates with Coastal Lumber. Rowan described what she perceived to be smoke from the facility, but has never had a problem with smoke or odor on her property. Donald Daniels, a neighbor of Petitioners, has experienced a burning wood smell and a smell that he describes as “chemical.” Sometimes, the smoke is like a fog and not distinguishable from condensed steam. Ash has been deposited on his truck. Nancy Lowe lives near the Coastal facility and claims that her car is often coated with ash. But she was unable at hearing to testify concerning the source of the ash. She has experienced a smell that she cannot identify, which she believes is created by Coastal since she associates that smell with smoke that settles like a fog on her neighborhood. Norma Page described what she believed to be smoke, but her testimony was unclear regarding where she observed the smoke. Additionally, she was not sure that she could distinguish between fog and smoke. Linda Pickles lives an equal distance from Coastal’s facility and the Peavy and Son asphalt plant in Havana. She has experienced “smokey” smells and sulfur smells, as well as the deposit of an ash-like substance at her home. She did not testify concerning the source of the substance. Although several types of odors --mainly wood odors-- are generated by Coastal's plywood manufacturing process, Coastal does not generate any odors that could be described as acid or sulfur odors. The log yard where Coastal stores harvested pine logs has odors of cut pine logs. The block conditioning area where logs are cut into eight-foot lengths and soaked in hot water has additional odors of cut wood and wet wood. A small amount of caustic or base is added to the water occasionally to keep the pH of the water neutral because wood is naturally acidic. Caustic generally tends to smell like soap or bleach; however, no such odors were associated with the caustic at Coastal Lumber. The area where the logs are peeled into thin veneer sheets generates pine odors. The dryers used on the sheets of veneer generate a smell described alternatively as a pine oil or a cookie-baking scent. Where the gluing occurs there is a faint odor similar to Elmer's glue. Additionally, an area near the boilers where sawdust and bark are stored for fuel generates smells, but none that would be objectionable. The area where the cores of the logs are treated and sliced into landscaping timbers has a slight, treated-wood odor. Also, where the plywood is color-coded by painting the edges, there is a localized paint smell. Neither the boilers nor a re-circulating pond at the Coastal facility are associated with any odors. From 1989 until the publication of the Notice of Intent to issue the Title V permit, Coastal did not receive any complaints about its Plywood Manufacturing facility in Havana, Florida. None of the processes at the Coastal facility generate sulfur or acid types of odors. Acid odors are usually associated with chemicals that contain sulfur. Wood fuel, as is used in the boilers, does not generally generate sulfur emissions. A facility such as the asphalt plant near Coastal’s location burns fuel oil and could generate sulfur odors. The asphalt plant is subject to the same emissions limitations as Coastal. Frequent open burning of trash, including tires, by other persons occurs near the Coastal facility and could produce sulfur smells. None of the odors at the Coastal facility are likely to mix with odors produced at other facilities in the area to create objectionable odors. Nor would any of the odors or processes within the plant combine to create chemical reactions leading to objectionable odors. Coastal employees who offered testimony regarding odors have a normal sense of smell. None of the Coastal employees who have responded to the Petitioners’ complaints have been able to detect the odor conditions described by Petitioners. No employees have complained of objectionable odors at the plant. No employees have been made sick by or quit because of odors at the plant within the last five years. Nor have any workers' compensation claims been filed because of odors generated by the plant. Contractors from Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., hired by Coastal to conduct emissions testing at its facility, and a consultant from Environmental Resources Management Group, hired to study odors generated by the facility, have never noticed objectionable odors at the Coastal facility. DEP inspectors have visited Coastal on rainy, humid days when the odors would be expected to be at the worst and did not detect objectionable odors. Also, DEP inspectors who responded to Petitioners' complaints were unable to detect significant levels of odors at Petitioners' residence. Coastal's operations are not offensive to neighboring businesses and residences. A restaurant, located closer to Coastal Lumber than Petitioners' residence, has not made any complaints regarding odor. No credible evidence established that the odors complained of by the Petitioners were produced by Coastal Lumber. To the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the odors may be caused by one or more other sources in the vicinity. No evidence was presented to indicate that odors emitted at the plant pose any danger to human health or welfare. Coastal Lumber's operations do not produce objectionable odor. The main sources of visible emissions which would be covered by the Title V permit are the three boilers used to generate steam for the plant. "Excess emissions" occur when a boiler becomes "upset" due to a malfunction of equipment or the startup or shutdown of equipment. Such conditions account for occasional dark puffs emitted by the boilers, but do not occur for long periods of time. Under DEP rules and the draft permit conditions, excess emissions may not exceed two hours in a twenty-four (24) hour period. Coastal has complied with excess emissions limits in the past and can comply with the draft permit conditions regarding excess emissions. The boilers at Coastal Lumber are equipped with oxygen sensors that regulate the rate of fuel coming into the boiler before an upset condition occurs, thus, minimizing excess emissions. Coastal Lumber has excess steam capacity so if a boiler is not operating properly it will be shut down. A computer also records the occurrence of upset conditions. Because the sensors are sent to an outside facility to be maintained and calibrated, Coastal employees can not change sensor settings or information recorded by the computers. Under its current operating permits, Coastal is required to conduct annual testing for visible emissions and has been found in compliance every year. During that testing, the plant operates under its normal procedures and at its normal capacity. Under its current operating permits, Coastal has been subject to inspections by DEP investigators, including weekend inspections. Some of the visits are scheduled so that Coastal knows the inspectors are coming, and others are not scheduled or announced in advance. Contractors from Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc., hired by Coastal to conduct visible emissions test have always found Coastal in compliance with visible emissions limits placed on it. Air Consulting and Engineering, Inc.'s reports and test results have always been accepted by DEP. DEP personnel have inspected the Coastal facility at least ten (10) times between December of 1996 and the hearing on February 9, 1998 -- eight of those inspections were made after January 24, 1998. Those inspections included an unannounced weekend inspection of the plant. Based on the Title V Application and Coastal Lumber's history of compliance with emissions limits, Coastal can comply with DEP emissions regulations. No employees have been made sick by or quit because of smoke at the plant. Nor have any workers' compensation claims been filed because of smoke generated by the plant. Petitioners also complained of black smoke from Coastal's log loaders. These diesel-fueled motor vehicles are not subject to the Title V air permit. Coastal has responded promptly to complaints of Petitioners and has made diligent efforts to locate excess emissions from its plant, but Petitioners' complaints can not be substantiated. In the absence of credible evidence that Coastal exceeds DEP emissions limits or that emissions from Coastal are harmful to human health or property, it is established that Coastal can operate in compliance with DEP standards for visible emissions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order GRANTING Coastal's Application for a Title V Air Operation Permit subject to the conditions set forth in the Draft Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul H. Amundsen, Esquire Julia E. Smith, Esquire Amundsen and Moore Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Chester Nalls Thelma Nalls Post Office Box 396 Havana, Florida 32333 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Urbanek owns land in and adjacent to Town Lots 93 and 94, Highland Beach, in Section 28, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. The real estate in question is located on the eastern shore of the Intra-Coastal Waterway approximately 2,000 feet south of the mouth of the C-15 Canal. Urbanek seeks a permit under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and water quality certification under Public Law 92-500, to dredge approximately 24,500 square feet of shoreline and shallow nearshore area, while installing approximately 240 linear feet of bulkhead and ten mooring piles, and constructing a marginal dock and piers for the use of future residents. The application also includes filling approximately 60,000 square feet of tidally connected ditches and wetlands to allow the construction of a high density residential development. On January 19, 1976, DER received a short form application for a permit from Urbanek pursuant to Subsection 17-4.28 (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. On March 10, 1976, Urbanek received from DER a request for additional information. This occurred 51 days after Urbanek's original application for permit. Urbanek forwarded the requested additional information to DER on April 22, 1976, and April 30, 1976. On May 12, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that the project must be submitted using standard permitting procedures along with the incorporation of certain recommendations made by DER's field inspector. On June 9, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER that his application had been forwarded to Tallahassee with a recommendation for denial on two grounds. First, that the application did not meet the criteria for short form applications and second, that the proposed project would eliminate valuable submerged and wetland habitats. On July 27, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER's Tallahassee office that his application was received on January 1976, and that the application was incomplete. The notification requested additional information. On September 22, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that processing of his application was discontinued because required data was not sent by Urbanek to DER. Urbanek was further advised that processing of the application," would be continued upon receipt of the necessary information. On January 20, 1977, Urbanek submitted another modified permit application to DER. On February 28, 1977, DER sent Urbanek notice of receipt of the application once again requesting additional information be submitted. On March 4, 1977, Urbanek forwarded the requested information to DER. On April 1, -1977, DER forwarded to Urbanek its notice of intent to deny and the proposed order of denial of the permit application. On April 15, 1977, Urbanek petitioned DER for a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The area of the project, prior to the turn of the century, was a fresh water wetland. However, salt water intrusion from the permanent opening of the Boca Inlet in south Palm Beach County in the early 1900's paved the way for colonization of mangroves in the Spanish River Basin, now the Intra-Coastal Waterway. As the human population increased in Palm Beach County, the mangroves were destroyed in order to afford living spaces. As a result, approximately 77 percent of the mangroves in Palm Beach County have been removed. One of the last remaining mangrove areas in southern Palm Beach County is located on a strip of land which borders the eastern side of the Intra-Coastal Waterway. The applicant's project site represents a portion of that strip. The project site fronts 230 feet-of the Intra-Coastal Waterway and extends approximately 670 feet eastward to State Road A1A. The property is intersected by three mosquito control ditches which run perpendicular to the Intra-Coastal Waterway but do not connect with it, and by six lateral ditches which extend from north to south and adjoin the property to the south. The project site is thus divided into eighteen parcels of land or "islands" and a fringing shoreline area. A survey conducted on October 13, 1977, and October 18, 1977, revealed the emergent areas between the ditches to be vegetated by mostly white mangroves, with canopies ranging from fifteen to forty-five feet in height. Numerous white and red mangrove seedlings plus a few scattered black mangrove seedlings indicate that the area may be changing from a predominantly white mangrove to a mixed mangrove community throughout the project site. Batis and Sesuvium were found and Australian Pines and Brazilian Pepper were observed only in areas where spoil from dredging activities was placed on the emergent area. There are approximately seven to eight thousand trees, including seedlings, in the project area. The mangrove system at the project site was characterized as a very productive system by Dr. G. Alex Marsh, an expert in Estuarine Ecology, who testified for DER. Dr. Arnold Banner of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with Dr. Marsh that the eradication of the productive system would result in the removal of a significant source of food and habitat. The evidence shows that a wetland habitat such as the project site affords approximately 535 pounds of fishing products per year with a dollar value of $8,000 per acre to the public. Petitioner argues that it would be in the public interest to bulkhead and fill the subject property because rodents would be eliminated, trash and debris would no longer collect on the property and that further erosion of the property would be prevented. However, Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that there actually exists a rodent problem on the subject property. The evidence does establish that trash and debris collect among the root system of the vegetation and that severe erosion has occurred on the property from wave action created by vessels moving through the Intra- Coastal Waterway. Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that the proposed project will not degrade water quality, cause violation of water quality standards or criteria or cause pollution. In fact, no evidence was submitted whatsoever by Urbanek which would tend to prove any of these three preconditions to the granting of the requested permit. Nonetheless, DER's failure to act on the permit application within the time limits prescribed by Subsection 120.60 (2), Florida Statutes, as amended in 1976, mandates the issuance of the requested permit.
The Issue What amount, if any, is owed by Reiter Citrus, Inc., to Mark Olivenbaum, d/b/a AMR Groves, Inc., for oranges purchased pursuant to contract entered by the parties on November 5, 2014.
Findings Of Fact A "dealer in agricultural products" is defined as a person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity, "engaged within this state in the business of purchasing, receiving, or soliciting agricultural products from the producer . . . for resale or processing for sale." § 604.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2014).1/ Respondent is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products. Petitioner is a "producer" for purposes of sections 604.15 through 604.34, Florida Statutes. See § 604.15(9), Fla. Stat. (defining "producer" as "any producer of agricultural products produced in the state"). On November 5, 2014, Petitioner and Respondent entered into a written contract for the purchase of oranges from Petitioner’s grove. The written contract provides that the Sunburst variety fruit would be purchased for $16.00 “per on tree box.” The written contract is silent as to the purchase price of the tangelos and the Orlando variety oranges. As for the price of these items, the parties verbally agreed to a price of $4.00 per box. The verbal and written contracts are collectively referred to as the “contract.” Petitioner is an experienced producer of agricultural products. According to Petitioner, the fruit at issue was essentially ready for picking when the parties entered into their contract on November 5, 2014. Petitioner’s testimony as to the maturity of his fruit is supported by information from the Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida/IFAS Extension (HS168), which states that Sunburst tangerines will, in most years, “reach maturity by mid-November and will remain acceptable through late December.” Respondent, prior to entering into the contract with Petitioner, inspected the oranges in Petitioner’s grove. Respondent approved the oranges for purchase. Within days of signing the contract, Petitioner spoke with Respondent about a schedule for the picking of the oranges. Respondent was non-committal as to an exact time-frame for picking the oranges but did inform Petitioner that he would send someone to Petitioner’s grove to pick the oranges “within a few days.” After a few days had passed, and the oranges remained unpicked, Petitioner again contacted Respondent and like before, Respondent told Petitioner that someone would be out to pick the oranges “within a few days.” This pattern between Petitioner and Respondent continued for several weeks and at no time did Respondent arrange to have the oranges picked from Petitioner’s grove. The testimony from the final hearing establishes that Respondent intended to purchase Petitioner’s fruit and then re- sell the fruit to other buyers. However, Respondent was unable to find a buyer for the fruit that he was contractually obligated to purchase from Petitioner because, according to Respondent, “the fruit was too small to pack due to citrus greening.” Respondent claims that his contract with Petitioner provides that Respondent was obligated to purchase Petitioner’s oranges only if Respondent found a buyer for the oranges. Contrary to Respondent’s testimony, a review of the contract reveals no such contingency. Respondent claims that he is relieved of his obligation to perform under the contract because the oranges were compromised due to citrus greening. Specifically, Respondent cites to the “HAZARDS” provision of the contract which provides, in part, that “in the event said fruit shall become damaged by cold, hail, fire, windstorm or other hazard, [Respondent] shall have the right to terminate th[e] contract.” Respondent claims that citrus greening is a condition that falls within the “other hazard” provision of the contract. Respondent’s reliance on this contractual provision is misplaced because, as previously noted, Respondent was well aware of the condition of the oranges when he entered into the contract with Petitioner for the purchase of the same. The credible evidence establishes that there was not a material change in the condition of the oranges from the time of the execution of the contract to the time when the oranges should have been picked by Respondent. Because Respondent did not pick any oranges from Petitioner’s grove, Petitioner, in calculating his losses resulting from Respondent’s non-performance, reasonably determined that Respondent, had he met his contractual obligations, would have picked 700 boxes of Sunburst tangerines and 100 boxes (combined) of the Orlando and tangelo fruit. Petitioner, in quantifying his likely crop yield for the oranges covered by the contract with Respondent, utilized results from previous crop yields as well as a general assessment of the state of his grove in November and December 2014.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that Reiter Citrus, Inc., is indebted to Mark Olivenbaum, d/b/a AMR Groves, Inc., in the amount of $11,650 (includes filing fee). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues presented for determination are whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s determination that the three applicant-parties were eligible for the allocation of low-income housing tax credits; and its intended decision to award such tax credits to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, are contrary to governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.1/
Findings Of Fact Parties and Process Florida Housing is a public corporation and, for the purposes of these proceedings, is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, 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 and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits.3/ Florida Housing is authorized by law to allocate tax credits (and other funding) by means of requests for proposal or other forms of competitive solicitation. On October 6, 2017, Florida Housing published the RFA, starting the competitive application process being challenged in this proceeding. Completed applications were due December 28, 2017.4/ As explained below, all of the non-agency parties (HTG Heron, Channel Side, and Ocean Breeze) in this case applied for funding for a proposed development in Palm Beach County. According to the terms of the RFA, only one application for each county was to be funded. Moreover, the RFA’s stated goal was to fund one application wherein the applicant applied and qualified as a non-profit applicant. This non-profit goal did not apply within each of the six counties included in this RFA; one non-profit applicant in any of the six counties could satisfy the non-profit applicant goal for the entire RFA. No challenges were made to the terms or requirements of the RFA. HTG Heron is an applicant to the RFA, requesting an allocation of $1,541,751.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-289C, was deemed eligible for consideration but was not selected for funding under the RFA. Channel Side is also an applicant to the RFA. It is requesting an allocation of $2,100,000.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-278C, was deemed eligible for consideration but was not selected for funding under the RFA. Ocean Breeze is an applicant requesting an allocation of $2,070,000.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-286C, was deemed eligible for consideration and was selected for funding under the RFA, subject to a credit underwriting review process. Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the tax credit program. See § 420.507(48), Fla. Stat. The bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3) are adopted as part of the process for allocating tax credits, except that no bond is required. See Fla. Admin Code R. 67-60.009. A review committee was appointed to evaluate the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the Board). Thirty-three applications for the RFA were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA; Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60; and applicable federal regulations. The review committee found 25 applications eligible and eight applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, seven applications were recommended for funding, including Ocean Breeze. The review committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On March 16, 2018, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee for the RFA. The same day, the applicants to the RFA received notice of the Board’s determinations as to whether the applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and which of the eligible applicants were selected for award of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of a credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” applications to the RFA and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund.5/ Relevant to this proceeding, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding for Palm Beach County to Ocean Breeze, which received the maximum points available. Channel Side and HTG Heron were deemed eligible and scored the maximum number of points, but were not recommended for funding. Each applicant-party timely filed a Notice of Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. RFA The RFA contemplated a structure in which each applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. To determine if an application is eligible for funding, it must meet all of the requirements listed in section 5.A.1, of the RFA. The following eligibility terms and requirements are challenged in this proceeding: The evidence of control of the development site (site control) by Ocean Breeze and Channel Side; and The address of the development site provided by HTG Heron. For scoring the applications, the RFA allows up to a total of 20 points with the following point allocations: Submission of Principal Disclosure form stamped by Corporation as “Pre-Approved” (5 points); Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive (5 points); and Local Government Contribution Points (5 points) or Local Government Area of Opportunity Points (10 points). As explained in pages 66-67 of the RFA, the first step in evaluating the applications is the sorting order. All eligible applications are ranked by first sorting all eligible applications from the highest score to the lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.11.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); [sic] Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); [sic] Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); [sic] Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and [sic] And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. In other words, those competing for the RFA must first submit an application that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors before it is scored. After scoring, any tiebreakers are determined strictly by the luck of the draw. After applications are filed, but before they are scored, Florida Housing randomly assigned each a lottery number, and the highest scoring applicant with the lower number wins any ties, thus becoming the intended funding recipient. The notice of the intended award does not end the process, and the selection of an applicant for funding does not guarantee distribution of tax credits to that applicant. Florida Housing’s representative, Ms. Button, explained at the hearing: Q Okay. What happens once a preliminary agency action from Florida Housing becomes final agency action? A The awardees who are recommended or preliminarily approved for funding, once that becomes final, those applicants are then invited to credit underwriting by Florida Housing. * * * Q Can you provide some general information about credit underwriting? A Credit underwriting is essentially a de novo review of all the information that the applicant has provided in their application to proceed forward with the proposed development. Florida Housing retains their party underwriters who review that information and provide recommendations to Florida Housing. Similarly, the RFA provides that each selected awardee must complete a credit underwriting process before receiving funding or credits. The RFA states on page 68: Notwithstanding an award by the Board pursuant to his RFA, funding will be subject to a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter based on criteria outlined in the credit underwriting provisions in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C. Rule 67-48.0072, in turn, provides in part: Credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding, including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for Housing credits. The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team’s experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. Thus, an application might fail in this de novo credit underwriting phase and never receive funding, even though it was “awarded” tax-credit funding as a result of a proceeding such as this one. In that event, page 67 of the RFA provides: 4. Returned Allocation Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the [Review] Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing its Application, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting, or an Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA and/or Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. Therefore, if an intended applicant (such as Ocean Breeze), was nominally selected for funding at the end of the eligibility and scoring phase, but failed to garner a positive recommendation from the credit underwriting process, the next eligible applicants in the queue (such as HTG Heron and Channel Side) would be awarded the tax credits. As a result, in this consolidated proceeding, the objective of Petitioners is to displace any and all applicants in more favorable positions. Here, Petitioner Channel Side challenges the eligibility of both the Ocean Breeze and HTG Heron applications; and Petitioner HTG Heron challenges the eligibility of Ocean Breeze. Ocean Breeze, in turn, challenges both HTG Heron’s and Channel Side’s eligibility. The specific issues raised as to the three challenged applications will be discussed below. OCEAN BREEZE APPLICATION HTG Heron and Channel Side challenge Ocean Breeze’s eligibility based on the RFA requirements relating to site control. The parties have stipulated, and the undersigned finds, that site control must have been demonstrated as of the application deadline of December 28, 2017. The RFA provides three ways an applicant can demonstrate site control: (1) eligible contract, (2) deed or certificate of title, or (3) lease. Ocean Breeze utilized the first method to satisfy the site control requirement by submitting a document titled “Purchase and Development Agreement” (PDA) as Exhibit 8 to its Application. The PDA included two attachments: the “Legal Description” and a “Reverter Agreement.” Petitioners challenge the enforceability of the PDA on two apparent grounds: (1) it was not executed by the applicant6/; and (2) it was executed before the applicant was properly incorporated to do business within the State of Florida. The RFA, however, does not mention “enforceability” of a contract in its definition for “Eligible Contract.” The requirements for establishing site control though an eligible contract are found on page 30 through 31 of the RFA. Eligible Contract - For purposes of this RFA, an eligible contract is one that has a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018; specifically states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. Any assignment must be signed by the assignor and the assignee. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided, and, if a contract, must contain the following elements of an eligible contract: (a) have a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or contain extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018, and (b) specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The initial paragraph of the PDA identifies the parties to the PDA as “Boyton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency,” as the “Seller,” and “Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC” as the “Purchaser.” Paragraph 14 of the PDA designates the following for purposes of notices: If to Purchaser: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC Attn: Lewis Swezy 7735 NW 146 Street, Suite 306 Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Under the signature block, however, the PDA states it was executed on behalf of the “Purchaser” by “OCEAN BREEZE APARTMENTS LLC By Ocean Breeze East GP LLC” and signed by Lewis Swezy, “Title: Authorized Member” on December 8, 2017. “Ocean Breeze East, GP, LLC” does not exist and never has in Florida. The parties admit that this entity was not in existence on December 8, 2017, and was never subsequently formed. Ocean Breeze admits the identification of “Ocean Breeze East, GP, LLC” was in error. The PDA was executed on behalf of the “Seller” by BBCRA and signed by Steven B. Grant, “Title: Chair” on December 15, 2017. Paragraph 4 of the PDA indicates that its effective date is the date when the last party signed the PDA; in this case being the date the BBCRA executed the document--December 15, 2017. The Reverter Agreement is executed by the “Purchaser” “Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC” and signed by Lewis Swezy, “Title: Manager of Manager,” on December 12, 2017. The Reverter Agreement is executed by the “Seller,” BBCRA, and signed by Steven B. Grant, “Title: Chairman” on December 15, 2017. Mr. Swezy testified Ocean Breeze complied with all the terms of the PDA, including submitting an initial $25,000 deposit within two days of full execution of the PDA and a second deposit within 30 days. The Articles of Organization for Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC were filed on December 19, 2017, and effective December 14, 2017. Rachael Grice, Florida Housing Multifamily Programs Manager, scored the site control portion for this RFA based on the information in the application. Mrs. Grice found that Ocean Breeze met the RFA requirements for site control. It is unnecessary, and beyond the scope of the undersigned’s jurisdiction, to make a factual or legal determination as to the enforceability of the PDA. The RFA does not mention enforceability or validity as requirements for an “Eligible Contract” for site control purposes. There is no dispute that on its face, the PDA with the Reverter Agreement satisfied the RFA’s requirements for an “Eligible Contract” listed on page 30 and 31. In fact, as of the date of the application deadline the following was true: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, was listed as the applicant for the RFA. Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, was listed as the “Purchaser” on the PDA. Mr. Swezy had signature authority to bind Ocean Breeze and was listed on the Ocean Breeze application as the “Authorized Representative.” Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, and Mr. Swezy were identified in the notice provision in the PDA. The Reverter Agreement, which was signed after the PDA, correctly identified the applicant entity as Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC. Effective December 14, 2017, Ocean Breeze was incorporated. The PDA was fully executed on December 15, 2017. HTG Heron and Channel Side have not established that the PDA was fatally flawed or that Florida Housing erred in accepting the PDA as an “eligible contract” satisfying the RFA’s site control requirement. Even if the PDA contained errors by listing “Ocean Breeze East GP, LLC” in the signature block or was prematurely signed before Ocean Breeze was effectively incorporated, the evidence at the hearing established that it was a minor irregularity waivable by Florida Housing, and that Florida Housing would have waived any such errors. If the PDA is ultimately determined to be unenforceable and site control is not established at the credit underwriting stage, Petitioners would be next in line to be selected to receive the tax credits under the terms of the RFA. The preponderance of the evidence established that Ocean Breeze’s application is eligible for funding, it received the proper scoring, and should be the intended award for Palm Beach County. HTG HERON APPLICATION Channel Side and Ocean Breeze challenge the eligibility of the HTG Heron application because they claim it fails to satisfy the RFA eligibility requirement to provide a correct address of the proposed development site. Page 18 of the RFA requires in relevant part: Indicate (1) the address number, street name, and name of city, and/or (2) the street name, closest designated intersection, and either name of city or unincorporated area of county. Ms. Button testified the purpose of the address requirement in the RFA is to allow parties, including Florida Housing, to know where the proposed development will be built and to ensure the property has access to utility and other services. In that vein, the RFA does not require the street identified in an application to be a publicly maintained street. In its application, HTG Heron provided the address of the proposed development as “W 17th Ct., W 17th Ct. and North Congress Ave., Riviera Beach,” along with latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the development location. Ryan McKinless, Multifamily Programs Senior Analyst for Florida Housing, scored the development address section for this RFA. Mr. McKinless found that HTG Heron met the requirements in the RFA for providing an address of the proposed development. Here, Channel Side and Ocean Breeze argue Florida Housing erred in accepting the “W. 17th Ct.” address provided by HTG Heron because the address does not exist. They point to the site sketch submitted by HTG Heron in support of its application which references a “W. 17th Street” (not “W. 17th Ct.”) and has “W. 17th Street” intersecting with “Congress Avenue Extension,” (not “N. Congress Ave.”). In support of this position that “W. 17th Ct.” does not exist, Ocean Breeze and Channel Side also rely on a 1975 plat and a 1999 City of Rivera Beach Ordinance. The sketches attached to HTG Heron’s application each contain the disclaimer “NOT A SURVEY.” Although the sketches contain a reference to an abandonment relating to “W. 17th Ct.,” the 1999 Ordinance describing the abandonment relied on by Channel Side and Ocean Breeze was not submitted to Florida Housing. Regardless, this plat and ordinance information was not required by the RFA nor was it considered by Florida Housing in determining whether to accept the address submitted by HTG Heron for eligibility determination purposes. There was no evidence at the hearing that the “W. 17th Court” address misled Florida Housing (or anyone else) or caused confusion as to the location of HTG Heron’s proposed development. To the contrary, other information in the application supports accepting the provided address. The “Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments” form executed by the City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations” form executed by the City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure- Electricity” form executed by an Associate Engineer from Florida Power and Light affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure” form for water and sewer services executed by a Utilities Engineer from City of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure- Roads” form executed by a City Engineer from the City of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Local Government Verification of Contribution- Grant” form executed by the Interim City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The acting director of the City of Riviera Beach, Department of Community Development confirms by letter that the property at the “2003 W. 17th Court (adjacent to North Congress Avenue)” address is located with a “Qualified Census Tract for 2017 and 2018” and attaches a diagram of that tract. Documentation from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s website lists the address location as “2003 W. 17th Ct.” Given that the purpose of providing an address was fulfilled and there was no ambiguity as to the actual location of the HTG Heron’s development site, Channel Side and Ocean Breeze failed to prove that Florida Housing erred in accepting HTG Heron’s address for the purposes of eligibility. At the hearing, HTG Heron also submitted a certified copy of a 2017 map from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s Office for range 43, township 42, which includes the area of the proposed development in HTG Heron’s application, and indicates there is a “W. 17th Ct.” that intersects with “N. Congress Avenue.” There was a preponderance of evidence establishing HTG Heron’s designation in its application of “W 17th Ct., W 17th Ct. and North Congress Ave., Riviera Beach” was not an error, and that HTG Heron’s application is eligible for funding. CHANNEL SIDE APPLICATION7/ To satisfy the Site Control requirements Channel Side submitted a Purchase and Sale Agreement that lists among the sellers an entity named “MWCP, Inc., f/k/a Blueprint Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation whose post office address is 248 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, NJ (‘Blueprint’)” in the initial paragraph. MWCP, Inc. (MWCP) did not exist in Florida when the Purchase and Sale Agreement was executed. The parties stipulated that the reference in the Channel Side site control documents to MWCP was erroneous and that the owner of the property for the Channel Side’s proposed development as of the application deadline was a Delaware corporation known as Blueprint Properties, Inc., which has never operated as, or been corporately related to, MWCP. Rachel Grice, Florida Housing Multifamily Programs Manager, scored the Site control portion of this RFA based on the information in the Application. Mrs. Grice found that Channel Side met the RFA requirements for Site control. The RFA does not require the listing of related names of any corporations other than the applicant or developer. Thus, the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement does not seem to affect Channel Side’s satisfaction of any requirement of the RFA. The error is insignificant and immaterial. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Channel Side received a competitive advantage by identifying “MWCP, Inc. f/k/a Blueprint Properties, Inc.” instead of simply “Blueprint Properties” as the seller. The slight error conferred no competitive advantage on Channel Side; its application received no more points than it was entitled to by reason of the mistake. Ms. Button reasonably testified that had Florida Housing known about the mistaken listing of MWCP as the seller, it would have waived the error as a minor irregularity. The applicant-parties failed to prove that Channel Side’s application reflecting the “wrong corporate entity” as the seller was an error affecting eligibility of Channel Side’s application, or that Florida Housing erred in accepting the Purchase and Sale Agreement as proof of site control. The mistake was, at worst, a minor, inconsequential error that was waivable. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, Channel Side’s application is eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decisions: (1) finding the applications of Ocean Breeze, HTG Heron, and Channel Side eligible for funding; (2) awarding the RFA Palm Beach County funding for the Ocean Breeze proposed development; and (3) dismissing the formal written protests of HTG Heron and Channel Side. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing Chapter 253, Florida Statutes on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board). The Board holds title to submerged sovereign lands pursuant to Sections 253.03 and 253.12, Florida Statutes, and Article X, Section 11, Florida Constitution. Fraraccio, together with his wife, owns a parcel of real property located in section 13, township 38 south, range 41 east which is commonly known as 26 High Point Road and which is located in Martin County, Florida. The southern boundary of the Fraraccio's property (subject property) borders the St. Lucie and Indian Rivers. In June, 1987, Fraraccio filed an application for permission to alter mangroves which grow along the shoreline of the subject property. It was Fraraccio's intention to cut the tops of the trees in order to promote horizontal growth. This application was filed with and processed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). On September 1, 1987, DER issued a permit for the mangrove alteration. Pertinent to this proceeding is the following specific condition of the Fraraccio permit: 4. "No person shall commence mangrove alteration or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 16Q-14, if such work is done without consent, or if a person otherwise damages state land or products of state land, the Board of Trustees may levy administrative fines of up to $10,000 per offense. In October, 1987, the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping was asked to survey the west line of the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve (Preserve) at the confluence of the St. Lucie River. Terry Wilkinson, chief surveyor for the bureau, conducted the field survey on October 14-16, 1987. Mr. Wilkinson placed a metal rebar with a cap designating "D.N.R." at a point on the mean high water (MHW) line at the Fraraccio's property. Mr. Wilkinson also staked three points with lathe markers on a line northerly along the MHW line from the rebar monument. It was Mr. Wilkinson's opinion that the Preserve abutted the Fraraccio property from the point marked by the rebar monument northward along the coast. That portion of the Fraraccio property which was south and west of the rebar did not abut the Preserve. Fraraccio disputed the findings regarding the Preserve boundary reached by Wilkinson and did not concede that his property abuts the Preserve. On December 15, 1987, the issue of the Preserve boundary was taken before the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board at the request of the Department, Division of State Lands. Fraraccio was represented before the Board by counsel who argued against the staff recommendation. Mr. Wilkinson's interpretation of the boundary line for the Preserve was approved. That area waterward of the MHW line from the rebar monument northerly along the Fraraccio shoreline was, therefore, deemed to be part of the Preserve and sovereign submerged land. Prior to cutting any mangrove trees, Fraraccio telephoned Casey Fitzgerald, chief of the Department's Bureau of State Lands Management, to inquire as to whether Department permission was required to trim mangroves located above the MHW line. Fitzgerald's letter advised Fraraccio "that trimming mangroves located above the MHW line would not be within the purview of this department." Fitzgerald further recommended that Fraraccio "employ the services of a registered land surveyor to specifically identify the individual trees which are so located." Fraraccio did not obtain an independent survey. Instead, he relied upon the rebar monument and the lathe markers placed by Wilkinson, and contracted to have the mangroves landward of that line trimmed. One of difficulties encountered in determining the location of a mangrove in relation to the MHW line is the fact that one tree may have several trunks and prop roots which emanate from the center of the tree. Consequently, there is some uncertainty regarding how to locate the tree. One method used locates the centermost trunk and considers that point the tree location. Another method calculates the greatest percentage of tree mass and considers that point the center of the tree. This calculated center is then matched against the MHW line. Either method results in a judgment based upon visual inspection. This judgment may differ among reasonable men. In January, 1988, Fraraccio supervised the cutting of mangroves based upon the MHW line as established by the Wilkinson survey. Fraraccio did not intend to cut trees waterward of the MHW line. No trees were cut waterward of the Wilkinson line. A number of trees were trimmed landward of the Wilkinson line. There is no evidence that either the rebar monument or the lathe markers placed by Wilkinson were moved either prior to or after the mangrove alteration. Fraraccio was responsible for the direct supervision of the workmen who completed the mangrove trim. No work was done without Fraraccio's authorization. On March 22, 1988, Kalani Cairns, inspected the Fraraccio property. Cairns took field notes of the inspection. One of comments made at that time was that it was "difficult to determine if MHWL stakes have been moved." Based upon his review of the area, Cairns determined approximately 20 mangrove trees below the MHW line had been topped. Subsequently, the Department issued the Notice of Violation and Order for corrective action. Since Fraraccio did not believe he had cut waterward of the MHW line, no corrective measures were taken. Subsequent to the Notice, additional mangroves were not cut. Fraraccio timely sought review of the notice. In preparation for the formal hearing in this cause, the Department contracted with Greg Fleming to prepare a survey of a portion of the Fraraccio property. The purpose of this second survey was to locate the MHW line along the Fraraccio shoreline and to plot mangrove trees which had been trimmed and which were waterward of the line. Approximately 24 trimmed mangrove trees were located waterward of the MHW line as determined by the Fleming survey. The Fleming survey resulted in a MHW line which was upland of the line established by the Wilkinson survey. The trimmed trees in dispute are located between the two lines, as marked on the ground, by the lathes placed by the two surveyors. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify and no credible explanation was given for why the lines, as marked in the field, differ. At the time of the cutting, however Fraraccio believed the Wilkinson lathes marked the MHW line. This belief was based upon the representations that the Department had made regarding the rebar monument marked "D.N.R." and the fact that the placement of the lathe stakes had coincided with placement of the rebar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Violation against Charles A. Fraraccio. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 23rd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4309 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted Wilkinson put down three lathes and that there is no evidence that those lathes were moved. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify and, therefore, no evidence was presented on the issue of the lathes. It is clear Fraraccio believed the lathes to be the MHW line. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The MHW line was correctly depicted on the ground and on paper by the Fleming survey which was done after-the-fact. Pertinent to this case is the fact that Fraraccio and DNR treated the Wilkinson survey on the ground (as shown by-the rebar and the three lathes) as the MHW line prior to the cutting. Paragraph 9 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, the record shows Fleming was contacted to perform the second survey in December, 1988, and that it was dated February, 1989. With that modification and clarification, paragraph 10, in substance, is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted to the extent that the two surveys differed on the ground (as opposed to on paper). Paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 accepted but are irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the workmen were instructed not to cut waterward of the MHW line. The remainder is irrelevant to this proceeding. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted Fraraccio cut or trimmed the trees based upon the Wilkinson survey as depicted by the rebar and 3 lathe markers. Otherwise, paragraph 19, is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 17 is accepted since both surveys coincided at the point of the rebar marked "D.N.R.;" otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence since the surveys differed as plotted on the ground. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. The number of trees cut waterward of the MHW line as established by the Fleming survey was approximately The size of the trees is irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Contole McManus, Wiitala & Contole, P.A. O. Box 14125 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Ross S. Burnaman Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, DONNIS A. BARBER and KATHLEEN BARBER, d/b/a PEACE RIVER GROWERS (PEACE RIVER GROWERS), is a producer of agricultural products, primarily nursery ornamental plants, located in Zolfo Springs, Florida. Donnis A. Barber is an owner of PEACE RIVER GROWERS. Respondent, TOULIA XIOTAS INCORPORATED, d/b/a GULF BREEZE LANDSCAPING (GULF BREEZE), is a licensed dealer in agriculture products, holding license number 10091, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. At all material times, David Joy was the manager of GULF BREEZE. Co-Respondent and Surety, FRONTIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK (FRONTIER), posted Bond Number 5004806 in the amount of $9,999.00 in support of Respondent's license as a dealer in agricultural products. The inception date of the bond was April 30, 1996, and the expiration date of the bond was April 30, 1997. Prior to 1997, Petitioner PEACE RIVER GROWERS had sold agriculture products to GULFBREEZE for several years. GULF BREEZE would, in the usual course of business, order products by telephone which would be delivered by PEACE RIVER GROWERS with payment in full due at the time of delivery. GULF BREEZE changed ownership in 1996. Under its new ownership and manager David Joy, GULF BREEZE continued to order and receive agricultural products from PEACE RIVER GROWERS in 1997. GULF BREEZE, for several transactions in 1997, paid in full for the delivered agricultural products. On four business transactions in 1997 GULF BREEZE failed to pay for the agricultural products received from PEACE RIVER GROWERS at the time of delivery. Specifically, on February 26, 1997, PEACE RIVER GROWERS delivered products to GULF BREEZE valued at $831.20; on March 7, 1997, PEACE RIVER GROWERS delivered products valued at $857.50; on March 11, 1997, PEACE RIVER GROWERS delivered products valued at $425.00; and on April 4, 1997, PEACE RIVER GROWERS delivered products valued at $945.00. The total value of the agricultural products delivered by PEACE RIVER GROWERS to GULF BREEZE on these four occasions is $3,058.70. At the time of each of these four deliveries, PEACE RIVER GROWERS was informed by an employee of GULF BREEZE that the manager, David Joy, was not present, but that payment by check would be mailed. Upon failing to receive payment the delivery of April 4, 1997, PEACE RIVER GROWERS ceased making deliveries of agricultural products to GULF BREEZE. After several demands for payment by PEACE RIVER GROWERS, GULF BREEZE on May 27, 1997, remitted $200.00 to PEACE RIVER GROWERS, which amount was applied to a January 17, 1997, delivery, and which is not at issue in these proceedings. GULF BREEZE failed to properly make payment for agricultural products delivered by PEACE RIVER GROWERS and is indebted to SARASOTA GROWERS in the amount of $3,058.70.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered directing Respondent TOULIA XIOTAS INCORPORATED, d/b/a GULF BREEZE LANDSCAPING, to pay Petitioner DONNIS A. BARBER, d/b/a PEACE RIVER GROWERS $3,058.70 for agricultural products sold to Respondent, and in the event Respondent fails to make such payment, within fifteen (15) days of that order, that the Surety be required to pay pursuant to the bond posted. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Donnis A. Barber, Owner Peace River Growers Highway 66 East Post Office Box 780 Zolfo Springs, Florida 33890 Toulia Xioutas, Incorporated Gulf Breeze Landscaping 901 MacEwen Drive Osprey, Florida 34229 Frontier Insurance Company of New York 195 Lake Louise Marie Road Rock Hill, New York 12775-8000
Findings Of Fact Suncoast Highland Corp. (Suncoast), is the developer and registrant of Shadow Run Subdivision in Hillsborough County. Prior to 1970, Suncoast was known as Suncoast Peach Corporation. C. Thomas Petersen, Peter Lenhardt, and two other individuals formed Suncoast Peach Corporation in 1964. In 1974 Suncoast registered Unit 1 of Shadow Run with the Division of Land Sales (Division). At that time Suncoast's principals were C. Thomas Petersen, President and Director, and Peter M. Lenhardt, Vice President, Director, and in charge of marketing. As a charter stockholder and owner of 166,000 shares (26-2/3 percent of ownership), Lenhardt filed an affidavit stating he devoted 100 percent of his time five days per week to Suncoast's business affairs. Lenhardt was (and presumably still is) a registered real estate broker and was in charge of sales in Shadow Run. In 1977 Suncoast registered Unit 2 (consolidated with Unit 1) with the Division. At this time Petersen and Lenhardt alleged each owned 13.5 percent of Suncoast and Lenhardt again filed an affidavit stating he devoted 100 percent of his time to Suncoast's business affairs and was in charge of sales in Shadow Run. In the Annual Report filed November 13, 1978, Lenhardt executed an affidavit representing himself to be Suncoast's principal officer in connection with this filing. This report included financial and inventory data for Shadow Run, Units 1 and 2, as well as 16 other registered subdivisions. At this time Petitioner and Lenhardt represented they each owned 38 percent of Suncoast (Exhibit 1E). On January 30, 1979, Lenhardt filed, under oath, renewal applications for Shadow Run, Units 1 and 2. This application (Exhibit 1F) showed out of 277 lots registered in Unit 1, 227 had been deeded and 50 remained to be sold. In Unit 2 out of 89 registered lots, 76 had been deeded and only 13 remained unsold. In August 1978 the Division began receiving complaints from Shadow Run homeowners concerning assessments, placing of utilities, and lack of promised recreational facilities. After meeting with the homeowners association and representatives of Suncoast, the Division issued a Notice to Show Cause against Suncoast. For several months thereafter representatives of the Division, Suncoast, and the homeowners association attempted to resolve the complaints. On April 19, 1979, C. Thomas Petersen, President, and Thomas Coates, Secretary, of Suncoast executed a stipulation in which, inter alia, further sales would remain suspended pending submission of all promotional and advertising materials to the Division, Suncoast would enter into an agreement concerning recreational facilities to be furnished by Suncoast, and Suncoast would pay a $7,500 civil penalty to the Division (Exhibit 1G). On December 10, 1979, Suncoast executed an agreement (Exhibit 1H) whereby it agreed, among other things, to install a concrete boat ramp no longer than 20 feet extending not more than two feet into Lake Grady on Lot 14, Block 1, Shadow Run, Unit 1, and convey legal title of the boat ramp area to the association; and, in conjunction with the boat ramp, provide a parking area 96 feet wide abutting on Shadow Run Boulevard at Lot 14, Unit 1, Shadow Run Subdivision, running from Shadow Run Boulevard to the water. This agreement was not recorded. No evidence was submitted when, or if, Lenhardt disposed of his ownership interest in Suncoast and Timber Oaks and terminated his management role in those companies. Lenhardt was listed as Secretary/Treasurer of Suncoast in the annual corporate report for 1980. His name on the 1981 annual corporate report for Suncoast was lined out and Linda Burr's name was added as Secretary. Lenhardt's name does not appear on subsequent reports. Timber Oaks, Inc., was incorporated February 11, 1980, with C. Thomas Petersen as President, Peter M. Lenhardt as Vice President, and Linda Burr as Secretary (Exhibit 3). On the 1981 annual corporate report Lenhardt's name was lined out and Linda Burr's name was added as Secretary. Coppice-Boden, Inc., was incorporated August 28, 1980, with Peter Lenhardt as President, Helen K. Lenhardt as Vice President, and Delores Hamm as Secretary. Hamm's name was deleted from the 1982 annual corporate report and both Lenhardts continued to be listed through the 1984 annual corporate report. No evidence was submitted showing transfer of the property which included Lot 14, Unit 1, Shadow Run Subdivision 1, from Suncoast to Timber Oaks, Inc.; however, by warranty deed dated October 29, 1982, Timber Oaks, Inc., conveyed property which specifically included Lot 14, Unit 1, Shadow Run Subdivision 1, to Coppice-Boden Corp., for a stated consideration of $340,000 (Exhibit 5). On November 11, 1982, Coppice-Boden, Inc., mortgaged the property which included Lot 14, Block 1, Unit 1, Shadow Run Subdivision, to G. G. Moore to secure a note in the amount of $72,031.63. The Special Warranty Deed dated February 29, 1980 (Exhibit 8) whereby Community Banks of Pinellas conveyed certain property to Timber Oaks, Inc., excluded Lots 1 through 22, inclusive, of Block 1, of Shadow Run, Unit 1.
