The Issue Whether Centervillage Limited Partnership has demonstrated, by a preponderance of evidence, that development rights in certain real property it owns have vested against the provisions of the Tallahassee-Leon County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Procedure. On or about August 6, 1990, Centervillage filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination with the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department. (Application VR0027T) The following information concerning the development of the Centervillage property was contained on the Application: "Gerald E. Songy" is listed as the "owner/agent." Question 3 lists the name of the project as "Centervillage Limited Partnership." "Progress . . . Toward Completion" is described as:(1) planning, (2) site preparation, (3) Leon County environmental permits, (4) DER Dredge and Fill Permit, (5) DOT Drainage Connection Permit. Original P.U.D., Rezoning, Minor subdivision Approval and a stormwater agreement with Leon County, are included in Centervillage's application as forms of government approvals and as the actions of government relied on prior to committing funds toward completion of the proposed development. On September 10 and 17, 1990, hearings were held to consider the Application before the Staff Committee comprised of the City Attorney, the Director of Planning for the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission and the Director of Growth Management for the City. By letter dated September 17, 1990, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department informed Centervillage that the Application had been denied. By letter dated September 28, 1990, to Mr. Gumula, Centervillage appealed the decision to deny the Application. By letter dated October 10, 1990, the Division of Administrative Hearings was requested to provide a Hearing Officer to review this matter. By agreement of the parties, the undersigned allowed the parties to supplement the record in this matter on November 26, 1990. The Property. Centervillage currently owns approximately 27.20 acres of property (the Property) located at the Northeast corner of Capital Circle, Northeast, and Centerville Road, Tallahassee, Florida (Application). Centervillage began assembling the Property, through various transactions, in the early 1980's. By October, 1984, Centervillage had acquired the bulk of the Property. (T-3 p. 23) Prior to Centervillage's initial acquisition of the Property, the prior owners of portions of the Property began development of the site as an industrial, mini-warehouse development. This prior development activity involved a series of violations of state and local environmental laws and regulations. (T-3 pp. 50-51, 59) As a result of improper development activities by the prior owners of the Property, fines were imposed and, at the time Centervillage made the initial purchase, the Property was subject to a Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) consent order. (T-3 p. 26) Development Activity. The project that Centervillage proposes to develop is a shopping center containing 200,000 square feet of gross leasable space on approximately 18 of the total 27.20 acres. (T-3 p. 96) The balance of the property is dedicated to stormwater facilities. (T-3 pp. 96-99) During the process of acquiring the 27.20 acres it currently owns, Centervillage began preparing the Property for future development by clearing and demolishing existing structures such as mobile homes, concrete driveways, and wells. (T-1 pp. 27-28) Permits were obtained early in the process to demolish these structures and in December 1984, the front corner of the Property was selectively cleared. (T-1 p. 28) In April, 1986, Leon County (the County) began construction of a ditch on a portion of the perimeter of the Property. The purpose of this ditch was to allow stormwater discharge from a Centerville Road construction project that the County was involved in. The County had been unable to locate an alternative site to provide any catchment and holding facility to handle the stormwater run off and, as a result, had encountered problems with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). (T-3, pp. 70-71) At the same time, Centervillage was involved in attempting to resolve problems associated with improper development activity on the Property by its previous owners. These factors led to cooperative efforts on the part of both Centervillage and the County in dealing with the DER and to conceptual agreements between the Centervillage and the County regarding aspects of future development of the Property. Centervillage granted the County a temporary easement for the purpose of constructing the drainage ditch. (T-1 p. 28, T-3 p. 52) The drainage ditch constructed on the site turned out to be a "long, skinny holding pond." (T-1 p. 29) The County constructed over 80 percent of the overall onsite perimeter ditch in mid to late 1986. (T-1 p. 29) The property subject to the temporary easement will be conveyed to the County pursuant to a formalized conceptual agreement between Centervillage and the County. (App. Ex. G, G-8) This agreement will be the subject of expanded discussion later in this Final Order. Construction of the majority of the current improvements on the Property began in June of 1989. The work consisted of: construction of a holding pond sized for commercial development; construction of some two and a half acres of wetlands; and construction of the perimeter ditch from the north end of the project to Centerville Road, then west along Centerville Road under Capital Circle. (T-1 pp. 30-31) The work also included vegetation of the perimeter ditch to create wetlands. (T-1 p. 31) This development activity also involved the placing of 50,000 to 60,000 cubic yards of fill material on the site. (T-1 p. 30) In May and June of 1989, Centervillage acquired over six acres of adjoining property in order to construct a stormwater facility which it had agreed to provide as part of its conceptual agreements with the County and in partial mitigation against prior improper development on the Property. (App. Ex. H, H-2; T-1 p. 11; T-3 pp. 125-126; T-3 pp. 26-27) The two and a half acres of new wetlands Centervillage constructed on the property was also in mitigation for prior improper development activity engaged in by previous owners of the Property. (T-1 p. 30) Further development has been permitted but not constructed. This work is to involve the construction of culverts, crossings, and onsite, upland filtration facilities. (T-1 pp. 31-32) As a result of the 1989 development activity, the northern 7.57 acres of the property has been excavated for the stormwater facility and some 18 acres of the Property have been filled from depths of two to six feet. (T-3 p. 97) Government Approvals. In July, 1984, the City approved Centervillage's request for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) to allow the Property to be developed as a shopping center to be constructed in three phases. Each phase of construction was to involve 50,000 square feet of retail space. (App. Ex. G, G-1) In December, 1984, the City approved an amendment to the previously approved P.U.D., to add additional property and to expand the size of the development by the addition of approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space. (App. Ex. G, G-2) In January, 1988, Centervillage received rezoning approval from the P.U.D. to Commercial Parkway, limited use site plan (CP zoning). (App. Ex. G, G-3; T-3 pp. 25-26) The limited use site plan outlines, among other things, the limited access to the Property and the reestablishment of the canopy road on portions of Centerville Road which abut the property. (App. Ex. G, G-3) In May, 1988, the City approved Centervillage's application for minor subdivision approval. This minor subdivision approval established one parcel as the previously developed mini-warehouse site to the east of the Property and the other parcel as the Property as it currently exists except for 2.79 acres on Capital Circle which had not been acquired at that time. (App. Ex. G, G-4) In October, 1988, the City granted a separate minor subdivision approval which addressed the additional 2.79 acres. (Minor subdivision approval, dated October 26, 1988, signed by Donny Brown, Development Coordinator for the City.) The parcel containing the mini-warehouse facility was sold in 1986, and is no longer part of the Property. (T-1 pp. 37-38) On July 22, 1988, the DER issued an environmental permit to Centervillage. (App. Ex. E, E-9) This permit was a result of extensive negotiations between DER and Centervillage and also involved the County because of the County's own permitting problems with the road improvement Project. (T-1 pp. 63-65) This DER permit specifies that the "permit does not convey any vested rights." (App. Ex. E, E-9, paragraph 3) On August 17, 1988, the County issued Environmental Management Permit #88-0299 to Centervillage. This permit was for "earth work only" and specified that "stormwater runoff [would] be required upon final development plans." (App. Ex. E, E-1) On October 25, 1988, the County accepted Centervillage's hydrological analysis on the Property. (App. Ex. E, E-3) On December 5, 1988, Centervillage received notification from the County that the project site was exempt from site plan review. (App. Ex. E, E- 9) Currently, there is not a city-approved site plan for the Centervillage project. (T-3 p. 115) On May 3, 1989, the County issued Environmental Permit #89-0230. This permit reflects approval of an additional of 630,000 square feet of impervious surface to the site. Centervillage's application for this permit also lists the proposed use of the Property as "M-1 mini-warehouses and CP shopping center." (App. Ex. E, E-5) Centervillage began its construction of the majority of current site improvements in June of 1989. (T-1 p. 30) In meetings between Centervillage and the City it was never confirmed that the approval of an additional 630,000 square feet of impervious surface on the site was a valid assumption. (T-3 p. 138) The County issued two additional environmental permits in 1989, one for tree removal (App. Ex. E, E-6) and one for stormwater permit amendments. (App. Ex. E, E-7) In March, 1990, the County issued an additional environmental permit for tree removal. (App. Ex. E, E-8) In January and in June, 1990, the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) issued two separate drainage connection permits to Centervillage. (App. Ex. E, E-10, E-11) Until October, 1990, the County performed the environmental regulatory services for both the County and the City. (T-3 p. 56) At the time the County issued the environmental permits described in this Final Order, there was no City of Tallahassee Environmental Ordinance. (T- 3 pp. 73-74) At the time the County issued the environmental permits described in this Final Order, the County Chief of Environmental Management regularly appeared before the Tallahassee City Commission as part of his duties in issuing environmental permits for property within the City. (T-3 p. 56) At the time the County environmental permits described in this Final Order were issued to Centervillage, the City would look to a County environmental permit before issuing a building permit. (T-3 p. 74) At the November 26, 1990, hearing in this case, the Chief of Environmental Management for the County testified that he knew of no specific resolution or ordinance that granted environmental permitting authority within city limits to the County. (T-3 pp. 74-75) However, the testimony at the November 26, 1990, hearing in this case establishes that the City relied on the County's environmental permitting in making its own permitting decisions. (T-3 pp. 56, 73-75) In practice and effect, the County was acting on behalf of the City in granting local environmental permits. (T-3 pp. 73-80) The County has never been delegated the authority to make land use decisions, such as subdivision approvals, for property within the City. (T-3 pp. 74-76) The rezoning of the Property from P.U.D. to CP Zoning, approved by the City in January, 1988, provided no specific approval of densities and intensities for development of the Centervillage project. (T-3 pp. 130-132) When Centervillage requested rezoning of the Property from P.U.D. in January, 1988, its managing general partner assumed that as part of the approved zoning change it received approval for the same density and intensity of development that existed under the P.U.D. (T-3 p. 125) The Conceptual Agreement. In early 1986, the County was in the process of attempting to widen and improve Centerville Road. (T-1 p. 28) During this construction by the County, the DER asserted jurisdiction over the road project and the construction was stalled because the County did not have adequate property on which to construct facilities for the storage and treatment of stormwater runoff generated by the road construction project. (T-3 pp. 70-71, 82-84) During the initial rezoning and permitting process, Centervillage was required to address the effects of prior improper development activity engaged in on a portion of the Property by previous owners. As a result of the prior improper development on the Property, Centervillage was required to mitigate against flooding problems and to facilitate revegetation of a denuded canopy road segment along Centerville Road. (T-3 p. 52) On April 11, 1986, James G. Parrish, Administrator for the County, presented Centervillage with a conceptual agreement whereby, among other things, Centervillage agreed to grant necessary easements to the County for the construction of a drainage ditch on the Property to accept and store stormwater runoff from the County's Centerville Road improvement project. (App. Ex. G, G- 6) During 1986, the County and Centervillage cooperated through a series of permitting contacts specific to the development of a shopping center, to establish a major regional water management facility, to provide water management for the Centerville Road project, and to engage in cooperative efforts to reforest the canopy road. (T-3 pp. 52-53) These cooperative permitting contacts included contacts with the DER. (T-3 p. 53) The conceptual agreement was finally formalized and adopted by the Leon County Commission on July 18, 1989. (App. Ex. G, G-8) In this agreement, Centervillage obligated itself to acquire additional property, construct a stormwater management facility and to convey the completed facility to the County. (App. Ex. G, G-8) In the formalized conceptual agreement, the County agreed to fully cooperate in the efforts of Centervillage to obtain all permits necessary to complete all improvements in accordance with the DER permit issued to Centervillage in July, 1988. (App. Ex. G, G-8) The formalized conceptual agreement further provides that the County will not require any additional stormwater retention or detention above that required by the County environmental permit issued to Centervillage previously. (App. Ex. G, G-8) The agreement also provides that the County will allow Centervillage to develop the southwest portion of the Property, fronting Capital Circle Northeast and Centerville Road," to its fullest commercial potential, subject only to existing zoning ordinances, terms and conditions of the limited use site plan, approval of subsequent short-term applications for environmental management permits, and Leon County Environmental Permit number 88-0299." This portion of the agreement also provides that the property will no longer be "protected from development." (App. Ex. G, G-8, paragraph 8) Centervillage is obligated, pursuant to the agreement, to convey in excess of 7 acres of property and the drainage ditch area for no additional consideration. (T-3 pp. 85-86) Absent the agreement of Centervillage to provide stormwater drainage and retention on the Property and to convey that portion of the Property to the County, the County could not have completed the Centerville Road improvement project. (T-3 pp. 70-71) Centervillage's agreement to donate land to the County was tied to the DER permits issued to both Centervillage and the County. (T-1 p. 41) Centervillage's agreement to provide the 7.57 acre stormwater facility to the County was a required condition in connection with the issuance of the environmental management permit issued by the County. (T-3 p. 88) The City was privy to the conceptual agreement between Centervillage and the County from the development stages through to its final, formal approval by the County Commission in July 1989. The plans for the stormwater facility were discussed with and reviewed by the City, with the understanding that the city would accept and maintain the facilities. (T-3 pp. 86-87) During these discussion with City personnel, there was no indication given that the agreement included land use decisions. (T-3 pp. 90-91) The 7.57 acre stormwater facility serves more than the development area. The facility is a major component of the total drainage system for the City of Tallahassee. (T-3 p. 88) The size of the 7.57 acre stormwater facility is not directly related to the Centervillage development proposal. (T-3 p. 90) Development Expenses. The cost of purchasing the original tract was $1,812,012.00. Centervillage has since sold a portion of the original tract for $738,282.00. Centervillage's net land costs for the Property are $1,073,730.00. (App. Ex. C, C-1) Centervillage incurred costs of $175,000.00 in purchasing land pursuant to the conceptual agreement with the County. (T-3 pp. 123-126) Other than the $175,000.00 expended pursuant to the conceptual agreement, the balance of costs of purchase of land were not incurred in reliance on any act or omission of the City. Interest and property taxes paid by Centervillage were $1,279,753.30. (App. Ex. C, C-1) No significant portion of the costs attributed to interest and property taxes were incurred in reliance on any act or omission of the City. Centervillage incurred $543,624.50 in costs associated with site work, clearing, and landscaping on the Property. Significant portions of these costs were incurred beginning in June, 1989. (T-1 pp. 30-31) These costs were substantially incurred after Centervillage had engaged in extensive negotiations with state and local government entities and after permits were issued by the state DER and DOT as well as environmental permits issued by the County. At the time the County issued these permits it was, in practice and effect, acting on behalf of the City. These negotiations, agreements, permits and approvals are outlined in the Government Approvals portion of this Final Order. Centervillage has established that it expended well in excess of $400,000.00 on testing, inspection, soil investigation, engineer and survey fees, architectural fees, legal and title fees and general development expenses associated with the development of the Property. (App. Ex. C, C-1) Centervillage has proved that a significant portion of these "soft costs" were expanded during the period it engaged in extensive negotiations with and after Centervillage obtained permits and approvals from the various state and local government entities as outlined in the Government Approvals portion of this Final Order. Centervillage would not have made the large expenditure of funds, or made the commitment to convey significant portions of the property to the County pursuant to the Conceptual Agreement if it had not obtained the zoning approvals and environmental permits that were necessary to construct a community size shopping center of approximately 200,000 square feet. (T-1 pp. 68-70; T-3 pp. 127-128) The evidence in this case establishes that Centervillage reasonably relied on the approvals and environmental permits it obtained from state and local governments, as well as on the conceptual agreement between Centervillage and the County in changing its position and in incurring substantial costs associated with the development of the Property. Current Status of the Development. Centervillage took a site that was a drainage way, added properties to it, accomplished an enormous amount of permitting and fill work to come up with a fairly level buildable site suitable for building anything allowed within the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. (T-1 p. 18) The shopping center project has been pursued by Centervillage for the past several years. Centervillage has never proposed any alternative plans to the City or other governmental authorities in the history of its project. (T-3 pp. 57-60, 82; T-1 pp. 17-18) Environmental Management Permit #89-0230, issued on May 3, 1989, by the County, contemplated approval of the addition of 630,000 square feet of impervious surface to the Property. (App. Ex. E) Centervillage relied on this approval and incurred substantial costs in proceeding with the further development of the Property. At the hearing on November 26, 1990, Centervillage presented the testimony of Richard Moore, a licensed professional engineer. (T-3 p. 94) Mr. Moore has been involved with the Centervillage project for seven years. (T-3 p. 95) Mr. Moore testified that he prepared a layout based on several planning concepts on engineering design and determined that 630,000 square feet of impervious surface allowed 200,000 square feet of gross leasable space and allowed the development of adequate parking with good internal circulation and sufficient green areas to allow for aesthetic landscaping. (T-3 pp. 106-107) Mr. Moore further testified that this square footage ratio is on average with design standards accepted in the engineering community. (T-3 p. 107) According to Mr. Moore's testimony, if Centervillage is required to meet consistency and concurrency requirements of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the shopping center development could be limited or delayed because the Property is located on a constrained roadway. (T-3 pp. 103-106) The DOT and the City have scheduled widening of Capital Circle, on which the Centervillage Property fronts, for 1991. (T-3 pp. 109-110) However, based upon Mr. Moore's testimony, Centervillage has established that constrained roadway limitations could limit or delay the project under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan despite the current improvement schedule. According to Mr. Moore's testimony, under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the proximity of the Property to Centerville Road, a canopy road, could limit the development of a shopping center to 100,000 square feet of leasable space. (T-3 pp. 103-104) As of July 16, 1990, the date of adoption of the City of Tallahassee Vesting Ordinance, the stormwater facilities on the Property were not complete. Additional water treatment facilities must still be constructed for runoff from the site. (T-3 pp. 19-21) No roadways, water and sewer services or electrical services have been constructed on site. (T-3 p. 108)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and Amended Administrative Complaints and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified residential contractor, having been issued license number CR C040917. He has been licensed since March 16, 1987. Respondent was the qualifying agent of KM Homes, Inc. (KMH) from June 10, 1995 through March 13, 1997, more than one year but less than two years. On or about February 3, 1997, KMH filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 97-30498, with an estimate of assets of less than $50,000.00 and an estimate of liabilities of between $1 million and $10 million. The petition was signed by Kenneth H. Maltz, as president of KMH. On or about February 4, 1997, the next day, Kenneth H. Maltz and his wife, Susan Maltz, filed a joint voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7. Case No. 01-3827PL On or about April 28, 1996, KMH contracted with Daniel L. Simons and Carol L. Stefanski for the sale of a lot to Simons and Stefanski and for construction of a house on the lot. The contract price for the lot was $45,000.00 and for the construction of the home was $141,000.00, totaling $186,000.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, Simons and Stefanski made the following payments to KMH: on or about April 28, 1996, $5,000.00; on or about August 21, 1996, $40,000.00; and on or about August 30, 1996, $42,229.60 and $747.00, through their lender, First Federal Savings of the Palm Beaches, pursuant to an August 21, 1996, mortgage loan of $128,000.00. The payments totaled $100,976.60. KMH applied for a building permit from Martin County to build the home for Simons and Stefanski. Respondent's license number appeared on the application. The building permit was never obtained. Beginning on or about August 27, 1996, and at various times thereafter, until approximately January 9, 1997, the lot was cleared and fill was delivered to the lot by KMH's subcontractor, Tideway Construction Company, Inc. (Tideway). The work by Tideway was the only work performed by KMH pursuant to the contract with Simons and Stefanski. KHM did not pay Tideway and Tideway recorded a lien on the lot for $4,084.00. KMH failed to remove Tideway's lien. On or about November 23, 1997, Tideway filed suit to foreclose its lien. Sometime in May 1998, Tideway released the lien in exchange for payment from Simons and Stefanski in the amount of 65 percent of the lien amount. Simons and Stefanski's lender paid the 65 percent from additional funds the lender loaned to Simons and Stefanski to enable them to complete their home. Tideway wrote off the remaining 35 percent. KMH never explained to Simons and Stefanski why it did not complete their home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. Simons and Stefanski never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. Simons considered KMH to have abandoned the job. Simons and Stefanski filed a proof of claim in KMH's bankruptcy for an unsecured non-priority claim in the amount of $58,000.00. They received nothing from the bankruptcy action. In the latter part of 1998, Simons and Stefanski had their home completed by another contractor, Murex, for $143,270.00. The house that Murex completed for Simons and Stefanski was essentially the same house that KMH was to construct, except that the roof structure was different and the garage and back porch were a little larger. KMH never provided Simons and Stefanski with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Simons and Stefanski never had any direct dealings with Respondent personally. They attempted to sue Respondent but were unsuccessful. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3827PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $457.88. Case No. 01-3828PL On or about June 6, 1996, KMH contracted with Carol Morris for construction of a house on a lot owned by Morris. The contract price for the construction of the house was $287,940.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, Morris made the following payments to KMH: on or about February 28, 1996, $1,000.00; on or about June 10, 1996, $27,000.00; and on or about August 2, 1996, $109,240.00. The payments totaled $137,240.00. Morris obtained a mortgage loan in the amount of $150,000.00 from First Bank of Florida to finance part of the contract price. On or about September 17, 1996, KMH applied for a building permit from Palm Beach Gardens to construct the home for Morris. Respondent's license number appeared on the application. On or about September 26, 1996, the building permit was approved and issued, bearing building permit number 28644. From approximately September to December 1996, KMH performed work pursuant to the contract and thereafter, did not perform any more work on the home. KMH failed to complete the construction of Morris' home. KMH never explained to Morris why it did not complete her home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. Morris never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. Morris considered KMH to have abandoned the job. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on Morris' property. The subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens were as follows: on December 12, 1996, Tideway for $8,438.00; on January 16, 1997, Buckeye Plumbing, Inc. (Buckeye Plumbing) for $3,676.00; on January 22, 1997, Tarmac Florida, Inc. (Tarmac) for $6,296.40; on January 23, 1997, Electrical Express, Inc. (Electrical Express) for $450.00; on February 13, 1997, E. M. Brandon, Inc. (Brandon) for $2,164.00; on February 18, 1997, Tom Rawn Masonry, Inc. (TR Masonry) for $16,454.00; and on April 3, 1997, Spacerace Enterprises, Inc. (Spacerace) for $7,850.00. Morris paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. Morris never paid any monies directly to the lien holders to remove any of the liens. However, Morris' lender, First Bank of Florida, assisted her with the resolution of the liens, including allowing its attorney to act as Morris' representative in resolving the liens. In May 1998, Tideway released its lien in exchange for payment by Morris' lender in the amount of 65 percent of the lien amount. Tideway wrote off the remaining 35 percent. The evidence is unclear as to whether Morris was obligated to repay the lender. Buckeye Plumbing, Electrical Express, TR Masonry, Inc., and Spacerace never received any money on their liens and the entire amount of their liens was a complete loss. Tarmac sued to foreclose on its lien, but ultimately dismissed its lawsuit and wrote off the amount of its lien as a bad debt. No testimony was presented regarding the final result of the lien held by Brandon. Morris obtained the services of another contractor, Home Work Group, Inc. (Home Work), to complete the construction of her home. Morris used the original mortgage loan of $150,000.00, a shortfall loan from the same lender in the amount of $45,000.00, and her savings of approximately $43,000.00, to pay Home Work. On or about September 1998, Home Work completed the construction of Morris' house, which was essentially the same as the house which was to be constructed by KMH. Morris received notification of KMH's bankruptcy by mail. She filed a complaint with the bankruptcy court objecting to KMH's discharge. The bankruptcy court eventually dismissed Morris' complaint. Sometime during the year 2000, Morris received $900.00 from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided Morris with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. During the transaction between KMH and Morris, she knew Respondent as the construction manager for KMH. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3828PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $478.70. Case No. 01-3829PL On or about February 23, 1996, KMH contracted with Fred W. Connell, Jr., and his wife, Celia M. Connell, for construction of a house on a lot that the Connells would purchase separately, not as a part of the contract. The contract price for the construction of the house was $258,870.00, which included $18,000.00 for a swimming pool. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, the Connells made the following payments to KMH: on or about February 23, 1996, $5,000.00; on or about February 29, 1996, $30,000.00; on or about November 7, 1996, $8,687.00; on or about November 25, 1996, through their lender, First Bank of Florida, pursuant to a mortgage loan, $33,541.00; and on or about December 16, 1996, $24,393.00. The payments totaled $101,621.00. KMH applied for a building permit from the City of North Palm Beach to construct the home for the Connells. Respondent's name and license number appeared on the application. On or about November 5, 1996, the building permit was approved and issued, bearing building permit number 96-01386. From approximately November to December 1996, KMH performed work pursuant to the contract and thereafter, did not perform any more work on the home. KMH failed to complete the construction of the Connells' home. In December 1996, the City of North Palm Beach issued a stop work order due to voids in the concrete walls that made, according to the City of North Palm Beach, the structure of the house unsafe. After the issuance of the stop work order, KMH failed to resume work on the house. KMH never explained to the Connells why it did not complete their home. The Connells fired KMH only after they received notification of KMH's filing for bankruptcy. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Connells considered KMH to have abandoned the job. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on the Connells' property. The subcontractors/material suppliers and recorded liens were as follows: on January 16, 1997, Palm Beach Masonry (PB Masonry) for $12,125.00; on January 17, 1997, Sasso Air Conditioning, Inc. (Sasso Air) for $550.00; on January 22, 1997, Tarmac for $4,239.21; on January 28, 1997, CPS Construction, Inc. (CPS Construction) for $2,580.00; on January 31, 1997, Gulf Stream Lumber Company (Gulf Stream Lumber) for $19,461.00; and on March 24, 1997, Waste Management of Florida, Inc. (Waste Management) for $276.50. The Connells paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. The Connells paid its lender, First Bank of Florida, $25,000.00 in exchange for the lender's assistance in resolving the liens. PB Masonry and Waste Management never received any money on their liens and the entire amount of their liens was a complete loss. On or about August 4, 1997, Sasso Air gave a partial release of its lien in return for payment in the amount of $275.00. Tarmac's notice to owner was untimely, so it chose to not pursue foreclosure proceedings and instead wrote the amount of its lien off as a bad debt. On or about November 11, 1997, Gulf Stream Lumber released its lien in return for payment of $5,000.00 from First Bank of Florida. On May 13, 1997, CPS Construction released its lien in exchange for payment from the Connells in the amount of $2,500.00. On or about April 22, 1997, the Connells obtained the services of another contractor, Villafranca Design and Development, L.C. (Villafranca Design), to complete the construction of their home for $221,000.00. The Connells, through their lender, paid Villafranca Design. Their home was completed shortly before Christmas 1997. The house completed by Villafranca Design was essentially the same as the house which was to be constructed by KMH. Because KMH failed to complete the Connells' home, the Connells, their two children and their two dogs were forced to live on the Connells' boat and to store their furniture for almost a year. During that year, the Connells had to pay dockage fees to live on their boat and storage fees for their furniture. The Connells estimate that the difference in the contract price of their home with KMH and what they eventually paid for their home was conservatively $100,000.00. The Connells did not receive any money from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided the Connells with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. During the transaction between KMH and the Connells, the Connells knew Respondent as someone who worked in the KMH office. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3829PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $519.43. Case No. 01-3830PL On or about September 19, 1996, KMH contracted with William and Iceline Chang for the construction of a house on the lot owned by the Changs. The contract price for the construction of the home was $205,620.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, the Changs made the following payments to KMH: on or about September 16, 1996, $10,000.00; and on or about October 10, 1996, $10,620.00. Pursuant to a change order for additional site preparation and fill, on or about October 7, 1996, the Changs paid KMH $9,400.00. On or about December 16, 1996, KMH applied for a building permit from Palm Beach County to build the Changs' home. Respondent's license number and Respondent's name as the qualifying agent for KMH appeared on the application. The building permit was never obtained due to KMH's failing to submit the construction plans to Palm Beach County's building department. On December 13, 16, and 19, 1996, the Changs' lot was cleared and fill was delivered to the lot by KMH's subcontractor, Tideway. The work by Tideway was the only work performed by KMH pursuant to the contract with the Changs. KHM did not pay Tideway and Tideway recorded a lien on the lot for $10,900.00. KMH failed to remove Tideway's lien. On or about June 6, 1997, Tideway agreed with the Changs to release the lien in exchange for payment from them in the amount of $9,810.00. The Changs paid Tideway in six monthly installments, June through November 1997, of $1,635.00. On or about November 26, 1997, Tideway gave the Changs a release of its lien. KMH never explained to the Changs why it did not complete their home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Changs never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. The Changs considered KMH to have abandoned the job. The Changs had their home completed by another contractor, Villafranca Design, for $203,500.00. Villafranca Design submitted the same construction plans to Palm Beach County's building department that KMH was to use to construct the Changs' home. On or about May 7, 1997, a building permit was issued, bearing permit number B97012080. The house that Villafranca Design completed for the Changs was essentially the same house that KMH was to construct. On or about February 26, 2000, the Changs received $643.29 from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided the Changs with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. The Changs never had any direct dealings with Respondent personally. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3830PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $714.11. Case No. 01-3831PL On or about July 30, 1996, KMH contracted with Harold and Jean Bell to sell them a lot and construct a house on the lot. The contract price for the lot was $53,000.00 and the construction of the home was $186,000.00, totaling $239,000.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, on or about August 1, 1996, the Bells paid a deposit of $5,000.00 to KMH. On September 19, 1996, the Bells paid, as closing costs, $67,147.63 to Universal Land Title, Inc., which included the cost for the lot and an additional deposit toward construction in the amount of $13,600.00. Subsequently, the Bells received a deed to the lot. KMH never obtained a building permit to construct the house. On or about December 11, 1996, the Bells' lot was cleared and fill was delivered to the lot by KMH's subcontractor, Tideway. The work by Tideway was the only work performed by KMH pursuant to the contract with the Bells. KHM did not pay Tideway, and Tideway recorded a lien on the lot for $3,688.00. KMH failed to remove Tideway's lien. Tideway never received any money on its lien and the entire amount of its lien was a complete loss. KMH never explained to the Bells why it did not complete their home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Bells never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. The Bells considered KMH to have abandoned the job. The Bells had their home, with extras, completed by another contractor, Villafranca Design, for approximately $208,000.00. On or about August 2, 2000, the Bells received $996.95 from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided the Bells with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. On October 1, 2002, Mr. Bell obtained a civil judgment against KMH in the amount of $24,199.64, plus costs of $264.75; prejudgment interest of $21,664.88; and attorney's fees of $2,395.00, totaling $48,524.27. The Bells never had any direct dealings with Respondent personally. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3831PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $305.84. Case No. 01-3832PL On or about May 26, 1996, KMH contracted, in a revised contract, with Erol and Yildiz Aksoy for the sale of a lot and construction of a house on a lot. The contract price for the lot was $58,000.00 and construction of the house was $242,000.00, totaling $300,000.00. The revised contract entered into evidence at hearing was incomplete. No determination could be made as to whether Respondent's license appeared in the revised contract. In accordance with the contract, the Aksoys made the following payments to KMH: on or about October 28, 1994, $1,000.003; on or about June 5, 1996, $23,000.00; on or about August 14, 1996, $12,545.00; on or about October 4, 1996, $21,800.00; on or about October 17, 1996, $1,323.00; on or about November 2, 1996, $21,800.00; on or about November 20, 1996, $7,123.00 and $21,800.00; on or about November 22, 1996, $21,800.00; on or about December 13, 1996, $21,800.00; and on or about January 2, 1997, $21,800.00 and $5,000.00. The payments totaled $180,791.00. On or about July 26, 1996, KMH executed and delivered a deed to the Aksoys for the lot. KMH performed work pursuant to the contract, but only performed 55 percent to 60 percent of the construction contracted for. After January 1997, KMH failed to perform any further work on the Aksoys' home. KMH failed to complete the construction of Aksoys' home. KMH never explained to the Aksoys why it did not complete their home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Aksoys never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. The Aksoys considered KMH to have abandoned the job. The Aksoys filed a proof of claim in KMH's bankruptcy for an unsecured non-priority claim in the amount of $85,000.00. Sometime in the years 2000 or 2001, they received $918.00 from the bankruptcy action. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on the Aksoys' property. The subcontractors/material suppliers and recorded liens were as follows: on January 8, 1997, Buckeye Plumbing for $2,570.00; on January 14, 1997, J. W. Hodges Drywall Textures, Inc. (Hodges Drywall) for $3,500.00; on January 15, 1997, Griffin & Wilson Stucco, Inc. (GW Stucco) for $6,040.00; on January 16, 1997, Gallina Electric, Inc. (Gallina Electric) for $3,732.00; on January 17, 1997, Sasso Air for $2,925.00; on January 21, 1997, K. D. Installation, Inc. (KD Installation) for $2,789.00; and on February 5, 1997, Macshmeyer Concrete Company of Florida, Inc. (Macshmeyer Concrete) for $5,814.00. The Aksoys paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. The Aksoys paid the lien holders to remove the liens, as follows: on or about February 18, 1997, $2,570.00 to Buckeye Plumbing; on or about April 7, 1997, $1,400.00 to Hodges Drywall, with the remaining unpaid amount ($2,100.00) being a loss for the company; on or about August 6, 1997, $7,760.10 to GW Stucco, which included additional monies for attorney's fees; on or about March 12, 1997, $1,866.00 to Gallina Electric; on or about April 7, 1997, $2,975.00 to Sasso Air; $1,500.00 to KD Installation (date of payment unknown); on or about March 12, 1997, $2,616.00 to Macshmeyer Concrete. The Aksoys also paid for work for which another KMH subcontractor, Spacerace Enterprises, Inc., claimed that KMH had failed to pay. On or about February 18, 1997, the Aksoys obtained the services of another contractor, Villafranca Design, to complete the construction of their home. The Aksoys paid Villafranca Design $145,250.00. In or around May 1997, Villafranca Design completed the construction of the Aksoys' house, which was essentially the same as the house which was to be constructed by KMH. KMH never provided the Aksoys with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. The Aksoys never had any direct dealings with Respondent personally. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3828PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $606.48. Case No. 01-3833PL On or about December 11, 1995, KMH contracted with Milo and Jerolene Glass for construction of a house on a lot owned by the Glasses. The contract price for the construction of the house was $395,795.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, the Glasses made the following payments to KMH: on or about November 13, 1995, $1,000.00; and on or about December 11, 1995, $39,079.00. The payments totaled $40,079.00. On or about May 21, 1996, KMH applied for a building permit from Palm Beach County to construct the home for the Glasses. Respondent's name as the qualifying agent for KMH and license number appeared on the application. Sometime thereafter in 1996, the building permit was approved and issued, bearing building permit number B96019588. From approximately November 1996 to January 1997, KMH performed work pursuant to the contract, but thereafter, did not perform any further work on the home. KMH failed to complete the construction of the Glasses' home. At the time KMH stopped working on the Glasses' home, a substantial amount of work remained to be completed. Furthermore, much of KMH's work had to be repaired or corrected. KMH never explained to the Glasses why it did not complete her home. KMH's trustee in the bankruptcy never offered to complete the work. The Glasses never fired KMH, never denied KMH access to the property to perform work, and never refused to pay KMH monies due under the contract. The Glasses considered KMH to have abandoned the job. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on the Glasses' property. The subcontractors/material suppliers and recorded liens were as follows: on January 17, 1997, Sasso Air for $925.00; on January 23, 1997, Electrical Express for $750.00; and on January 28, 1997, R J G Masonry, Inc. (RJG Masonry) for $8,353.99. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. The evidence is unclear as to whether the Glasses paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. The Glasses paid to remove the liens. The Glasses paid the following: $925.00 to Sasso Air for which they received a final waiver of lien dated July 8, 1999; on or about February 14, 1997, $750.00 to Electrical Express for which they received a release of lien dated June 2, 1997; and on or about January 24, 1997, $8,353.99 to RJG Masonary. The Glasses did not obtain the services of another contractor to complete the construction of their home. Contractors whom they approached were very reluctant or unwilling to take over the project. Finally, the Glasses, who had prior experience as owners of other construction projects, became their own contractors and completed their home. They also received the assistance of a contracting firm, but the Glasses handled all the disbursements of funds to the suppliers for labor and materials. By September 2000, the Glasses had substantially completed their home and were living in it. At the time of the hearing, they had sold the house and moved to another location in Florida. The Glasses estimate that they expended $1,239,487.78 in the construction of their home. They maintain that this cost does not include approximately $80,000.00 that the Glasses claim that their original lender paid to KMH without their authorization. The amount paid by the Glasses exceeds the contract price because (1) KMH underbid the job; (2) the Glasses spent substantial sums to repair or correct KMH's work, which the Glasses estimate conservatively to be more than $200,000.00; and (3) the Glasses spent substantial sums on upgrades of contract allowance items. The Glasses received approximately $1,000.00 from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided the Glasses with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. After the bankruptcy, Mrs. Glass contacted Respondent and requested the construction plans for the home. Respondent indicated that he did not have the plans. Mrs. Glass contacted Respondent again and he indicated that he may be able to locate the plans. Subsequently, Respondent contacted the Glasses and indicated that he had located the plans. The Glasses went to Respondent's place of business to retrieve the plans. After providing the plans, Respondent requested the Glasses to hire him to complete their home. The Glasses declined Respondent's offer because they considered Respondent's cost estimate to be too high and because of Respondent's association with KMH. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3833PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $628.33. Case No. 01-3834PL On or about December 8, 1995, KMH contracted with Suzanne Beck for construction of a house on a lot that Beck would acquire at a later date (in 1996), not as a part of the contract. The contract price for the construction of the house was $133,500.00. Respondent's license number did not appear in the contract. In accordance with the contract, Beck made the following payments to KMH: on or about December 8, 1995, $5,000.00; on or about July 31, 1996, $8,350.00 and 5,643.09; on or about August 7, 1996, $5,030.88; on or about September 4, 1996, $12,051.05; on or about September 18, 1996, $12,051.05; on or about October 1, 1996, $12,051.05; on or about October 11, 1996, $12,051.05; on or about November 7, 1996, $12,051.05; and on or about November 26, 1996, $12,051.05 and $12,051.05. The payments totaled $108,381.32. KMH applied for a building permit from the Town of Jupiter to construct the home for Beck. Respondent's name and license number appeared on the application as the contractor. On February 12, 1996, the building permit was approved and issued, bearing building permit number 96-29588. From approximately August to December 1996, KMH performed work pursuant to the contract and thereafter, did not perform any more work on the home. KMH failed to complete the construction of the Beck's home. KMH never explained to Beck why it did not complete her home. Around the end of December 1996 or in January 1997, Beck notified KMH that she was taking over the project. Progress by KMH had been slow and Beck discovered that KMH had closed the doors of its business for a second time and was not paying its subcontractors. Beck considered KMH to have abandoned the job. She obtained an owner's building permit and completed the project, making payments directly to the suppliers of labor and materials. On February 7, 1997, Beck obtained a certificate of occupancy from the Town of Jupiter. KMH's subcontractors/material suppliers recorded liens on the Beck's property. The subcontractors/material suppliers and recorded liens were as follows: on January 6, 1997, American Aluminum and Insulation FireProofing Company, Inc. (American Alum.) for $385.00; on January 6, 1997, Buckeye Plumbing for $2,625.00; on January 14, 1997, Hodges Drywall for $8,280.00; on January 14, 1997, Rizzo Tile & Marble, Inc. (R Tile & Marble) for $1,870.70; on January 15, 1997, James M. Webster d/b/a Rain Flow of South Florida (Rain Flow) for $75.00; on January 17, 1997, K. D. Installation, Inc. (KD Installation) for $520.40; on January 17, 1997, Q. C. Cabinet Systems, Inc. (QC Cabinets) for $3,207.00; on January 17, 1997, Paul Temple Painting (PT Painting) for $2,534.75; on January 17, 1997, Sasso Air for $3,360.00; on January 28, 1997, James Velix Bobcat Service (Bobcat Service) for $1,450.00; on February 4, 1997, Tideway for $279.00; on February 7, 1997, Florida Builder Appliances, Inc. (Builder Appliances) for $2,936.20; on February 7, 1997, Mc D Sprinklers, Inc. (McD Sprinklers)for $1,275.00; on February 11, 1997, Builder Direct Carpet Sales (Direct Carpet) for $1,959.26; and on February 12, 1997, Pollard Electric, Inc. (Pollard Electric) for $3,640.00. Beck paid KMH for all the work or materials pertaining to the liens. KMH failed to remove any of the liens. Beck paid to remove the liens as follows: on or about June 18, 1997, $2,625.00 to Buckeye Plumbing; on or about March 9, 1999, $10,125.00 to PT Painting, Hodges Drywall, R Tile & Marble, and Direct Carpet; and on or about October 19, 1999, $3,360.00 to Sasso Air. Hodges Drywall released its lien for $4,000.00 and the remaining amount of its lien was not paid, which represents a loss to the company. Builder Appliances, Rain Flow, McD Sprinklers, QC Cabinets, and Tideway did not receive payment from any source and the entire amounts of their liens were complete losses. After Beck took over construction of her home from KMH, she spent $19,203.00 to complete the home. Beck did not receive any money from KMH's bankruptcy. KMH never provided Beck with notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. During the transaction between KMH and Beck, she met with Respondent at the job-site on one occasion to discuss some aspects of the project with which she was dissatisfied. Beck had expressed her dissatisfaction in a letter to KMH's owner. As of November 15, 2001, Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution for Case No. 01-3834PL, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, totaled $534.57.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Dismissing the following counts: Count I of Case Nos. 01-3828PL, 01-3831PL, and 01-3833PL. Count IV of Case No. 01-3832PL. Finding that Glenn L. Mustapick committed all other violations in the counts of Case Nos. 01-3827PL, 01-3828PL, 01-3829PL, 01-3830PL, 01-3831PL, 01-3832PL, 01-3233PL, and 01-3834PL. Imposing a $25,000.00 administrative fine. Requiring Respondent to pay restitution not exceeding $25,000.00. Assessing $4,245.34 in costs for investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Revoking the certified residential license, CR C040917, of Glenn L. Mustapick. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2002.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-383 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and corre copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this Ve Paula Ford Agency Clerk Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 day of December, 2009. U.S. Mail: The Honorable D. R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 Timothy J. McFarland, Esquire Gulf County Attorney 326 Reid Avenue Port St. Joe, Florida 32456-1826 Hand Delivery: Matthew Davis, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a variance to permit an onsite treatment and disposal system should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The lot of land for which the Bank seeks a variance for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system is located at 341 Compass Lake Drive in Jackson County, Florida. The lot is approximately 40 feet wide and 300 feet deep, with approximately 40 feet of frontage on Compass Lake. Prior to its severance in 2010, the lot was part of a larger parcel of land with an address of 343 Compass Drive in Jackson County. The larger parcel was owned by Charles Paulk and had substantial improvements consisting of a house, boathouse, and dock. In 2004, Mr. Paulk borrowed money from the Bank and gave the Bank a mortgage lien on the entire larger parcel to secure the loan. At some point, a survey was prepared which subdivided the larger parcel into two lots -- the first containing the substantial improvements, and the other consisting of the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot lot at issue, which is .28 acres in size, with no improvements. There is no indication that the survey was ever recorded in the public records. Later, in 2010, Mr. Paulk decided to sell the lot with the substantial improvements for $330,000. Because the Bank had a lien on the entire larger parcel, Mr. Paulk requested that the Bank release its lien on the lot with the substantial improvements. The Bank agreed to release its lien on the lot with substantial improvements and, after receiving what the Bank felt was a “sufficient pay-down” on the loan, shifted its lien to the smaller, unimproved lot that is at issue in this case. The sale and release of lien transaction “substantially reduced the loan versus the collateral value” that the Bank previously had. According to the Bank’s Senior Vice President, James Goodson, after the sale transaction, there was “not a lot of money left on the loan ” Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot and shift its lien to the remaining unimproved lot, it was unaware that a variance would be required for an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system (septic tank) on the unimproved lot. The facts as outlined above, however, demonstrate that the Bank was an active participant and beneficiary of the transaction that ultimately resulted in the creation of the two lots, one of which was the approximately 40-foot by 300-foot unimproved lot at issue in this case. In 2012, Mr. Paulk experienced financial problems and was having difficulty paying back the loan to the Bank secured by the unimproved lot. Because it was easier than foreclosure, the Bank agreed to take a deed to the unimproved lot in lieu of foreclosure.1/ At the time of the Bank’s release of lien in 2010, as well as at the time of the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the 40- foot by 300-foot lot size of the unimproved lot was too small to meet the statutory requirements for a septic permit. Mr. Goodson testified that, at the time that the Bank accepted the deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Bank was aware that the lot was too small and would need a variance for a septic tank. He did not explain, however, why the Bank had earlier been unaware of the need for a variance when it agreed to release its lien on the substantially improved lot in 2010. After the Bank acquired title to the unimproved lot, a third party offered to purchase it on the condition that the Bank could obtain a permit. The Bank went to Jackson County to request a permit, knowing that its request would be denied because the lot size was insufficient for a septic tank without a variance. Nevertheless, the Bank believed that it would qualify for a variance on hardship grounds because it did not “intentionally” create the hardship. The Bank commenced the permitting process by submitting an application with the Jackson County Health Department on October 4, 2012. The County denied the application on the grounds that the lot was deficient in width and total area. Next, the Bank submitted a request to the Department for a variance. The request was considered by the Department’s Variance Review and Advisory Committee (Committee) on December 6, 2012. The Committee has only recommending authority to the State Health Officer. In a four to three vote, the Committee recommended approval of a variance. The members voting against a recommendation for approval were representatives of the State Health Office, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the County Health Department. Eight objections from adjacent property owners were provided to the Committee’s review and consideration. After considering the facts, including the decision of the County Health Department, objections filed by adjacent property owners, actions taken by the Bank, and the recommendations of all the members of the Committee, Gerald Briggs, Bureau Chief for Onsite Sewage Programs for the Department of Health, made the Department’s preliminary decision that the Bank’s variance request should be denied, concluding, among other things, that “[a]ny perceived hardship that [the Bank] might experience as a result of the obligation to meet established standards comes about as a direct result of your own proposed action.” Likewise, considering the facts and evidence as presented in this case, the undersigned finds, as a matter of fact, that the Bank intentionally participated in and benefitted from the transaction that resulted in the hardship posed by the small lot size that it now owns and for which it seeks a variance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying SunSouth Bank’s application for a variance. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 21st day of March, 2014.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. ° YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA09-GM-352 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community A ffairs, and that true and corr copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this day of November, 2009. Paula Ford Agency Clerk Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 U. S. Mail: The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Sanford Minkoff, Esq. Administrative Law Judge Lake County Attorney’s Office Division of Administrative Hearings Post Office Box 7800 The DeSoto Building Tavares, Florida 32778-7800 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 Hand Delivery: | Matthew Davis, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Bivd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceeding should be dismissed.
Findings Of Fact In July of 1997 a notice of an application for an environmental resource permit (ERP) was issued in conjunction with a project identified as 4-061-0164A-ERP. This project proposed to develop six single-family homesites and required the filling of 5.79 acres of wetlands. The project was reviewed by the permitting authority, the District, and was recommended for approval. On February 20, 1998, the District sent a written notice of Intended District Decision on permit application 4-061-0164A- ERP to interested persons. Such persons include those who have requested notice of all District ERP projects or those who have requested notice of District ERP projects by county which, in this instance, is Indian River County. Additionally, on February 25, 1998, a notice of the District's intended agency action appeared in a newspaper published at Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida. Such notice provided, in pertinent part: The District gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to the following applicant(s) on March 10, 1998: HORSE'S HEAD, LTD. ATTN: CHARLES M. BAYER, JR., 1 JOHN ISLAND DRIVE, VERO BEACH, FL 32963, application #4-0610164A-ERP. The project is located in Indian River County, Section 13, Township 32 South, Range 39 East. The ERP application is for CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE FILLING OF 5.79 ACRES OF MANGROVE SWAMP WITHIN THE EXISTING JOHN'S ISLAND DEVELOPMENT (LTVC PROPERTY). The receiving waterbody is the INDIAN RIVER LAGOON * * * The District will take action on each permit application listed above unless a petition for administrative proceeding (hearing) is filed pursuant to the provisions of sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., and section 40C- 1.511, F.A.C. A person whose substantial interests are affected by any of the Districts [sic] proposed permitting decisions identified above may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. or all parties may reach a written agreement on mediation as an alternative remedy under section 120.573. Choosing mediation will not adversely affect the right to a hearing if mediation does not result in a settlement. The procedures for pursuing mediation are set forth in section 120.573, Florida Statutes, and rule 28-106.111 and 28-106.401-.405 Florida Administrative Code. Petitions must comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C-1.521 and be filed with (received by) the District Clerk, located at District Headquarters, Highway 100 West, Palatka, Florida 32177. Petitions for administrative hearing on the above application(s) must be filed within fourteen (14) days of publication of this notice or within nineteen (19) days of the District depositing notice of its intent in the mail for those persons to whom the District mails actual notice. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., concerning the subject permit application. Petitions which are not filed in accordance with the above provisions are subject to dismissal. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the Districts [sic] final action may be different from the position taken by it in this notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the District to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. (Emphasis added) On February 27, 1998, the District sent Horse's Head, Ltd., the permit applicant, a notice of intended agency action to issue the ERP to fill approximately 5.79 acres of wetlands on John's Island in the Town of Indian River Shores, Indian River County, Florida, to create five residential lots in an existing residential development commonly known as "John's Island." Subsequent to the foregoing, a group of homeowners whose properties are adjacent to the applicant's site timely challenged the intended agency action. This group, designated in this record as the Prosser petition, sought an administrative hearing and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings. The Prosser petition was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Linda Rigot as DOAH Case No. 98-1784. The Prosser challengers and Horse's Head eventually reached an amicable resolution. Horse's Head agreed to modify the subject application by reducing the filling of wetlands on the project site; by reducing the number of proposed residential lots; by undertaking additional mitigation activities on Hole-in- the-Wall Island, which is owned by Horse's Head; and by placing additional acreage under a conservation easement previously created for the subject permit application. Pursuant to the stipulated settlement agreement referred to in the previous paragraph, Horse's Head agreed to request, and did request, the District to modify its ERP application as follows: Reduce the wetland impacts for Parcel A (see composite Exhibit "A" to Exhibit "4") from ? 2.45 acres to ? 1.03 acres. Reduce the wetland impacts to Parcel B (see Exhibit "B" to Exhibit "4") from ? 3.34 acres to ? 1.63 acres. Eliminate the northernmost of the proposed lots in Parcel B, thus reducing the total number of lots proposed for development in Parcel B from 4 to 3 lots. Create an additional 1.77 acres of wetlands by removing the Florida Power & Light ("FP&L") roadbed/power line easement on Hole-in-the-Wall Island and scraping down 0.6 acres of spoil banks within the conservation easement. Perform the rotational impoundment management "RIM" mitigation plan previously proposed for Hole-in-the-Wall Island, with the exception that clearing of nuisance exotic species on the perimeter dike has been deleted. Incorporate the majority of the northernmost of the four lots originally proposed in Parcel B into the revised and expanded area subject to a conservation easement for that parcel. Place approximately 78 acres under a conservation easement consistent with the terms and provisions of the conservation easement previously created for this application. Pursuant to the stipulated settlement agreement, the Prosser petition was voluntarily dismissed on or about February 25, 1999, and Case No. 98-1784 was closed by Judge Rigot on or about March 1, 1999. Prior to the dismissal of DOAH Case No. 98-1784, Petitioner, Edna Wieler, sent a letter to the District to contest the instant application. The Wieler letter, dated October 1, 1998, included a collection of signatures of those who reportedly opposed the applicant's proposed development. Petitioner Wieler had not timely filed a petition to challenge the applicant's project in March of 1998. Moreover, Petitioner Wieler had not sought to intervene in the proceeding which had been timely filed (DOAH Case No. 98-1784). Petitioner Wieler sent a second letter to protest the instant ERP on October 20, 1998. Because of the Wieler letters in opposition to the project, the District added Petitioner Wieler's name to the data base of those persons claiming an interest in the subject permit application. Mark Gronceski is an environmental specialist employed by the District responsible for reviewing ERP applications for projects located in Indian River County. As such he was instrumental in the agency's review of the instant project. On December 15, 1998, Kenneth Oertel wrote to Mr. Gronceski with regard to the subject project. Mr. Oertel's letter provided: On behalf of the Town of Indian River Shores I would request that you send me a copy of the final staff report prepared for the above-referenced application and any notice that this matter will be placed on the Governing Board agenda. I would like to be furnished with these documents in sufficient time to evaluate whether a petition, pursuant to Chapter 120, F.S., will be filed. On February 12, 1999, the District sent a written notice of Intended District Decision on Permit Application 4-061- 0164A-ERP to Interested Parties including Petitioners Wieler and Kenneth Oertel. On February 18, 1999, a second notice of the District's intended action in this case was published in the Vero Beach Press-Journal. This notice mirrored the first notice published. It did not reference the modifications to the permit application which had been reached through the settlement of DOAH Case No. 98-1784. On March 2, 1999, the District staff sent the applicant a notice of intended agency action to approve the Horse's Head ERP permit as modified pursuant to the above-referenced stipulated settlement agreement. On March 5, 1999, the Town of Indian River Shores and Wieler filed Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceeding challenging the District's intent to approve the Horse's Head ERP permit as modified by the stipulated settlement agreement. The District uses three forms of notice regarding ERP applications. When an ERP application is submitted, notice of receipt of such application is posted in each District service center. Further, a copy of the posted notice is provided by mail to persons or organizations who have requested notice of ERP applications. These "interested persons" receive notice based upon District-wide interests or for a requested county interest. The District is aware that some persons simply want notice of all ERP applications. Organizations in this category include the Florida Audubon Society and the Pelican Island Audubon Society as well as others. The District considered Petitioner Wieler and Mr. Oertel "interested persons" to whom notice of the application should be sent. When the District is prepared to agenda an ERP application for Board intended action, the District publishes a notice for the public of the proposed action and sends a second notice to the interested persons in its data base. This second type of notice provides a point of entry for interested persons to contest the proposed action. A third type of notice used by the District is termed a "sunshine notice." This notice makes interested persons aware of items on a Board agenda. It is sent to all persons in the data base but does not offer a point of entry for agenda items. It merely lets interested persons know what topics will be on the Board agenda. In this case, the District erroneously issued the second type of notice to the interested persons in its data base. Consequently, instead of the sunshine notice which should have been issued to Petitioners, they received the second type of notice. Petitioners claim a point of entry based upon the language of the second notice. The District Board did not formally determine Petitioners are entitled to be "parties" to an administrative review of the subject project. The issuance of the notice to Petitioners was no more than a clerical oversight. None of the Prosser group who timely challenged the applicant's project have supported Petitioners' efforts in this matter. The modified permit application as currently endorsed by the District and requested by Horse's Head does not constitute a substantial deviation from the original permit application noticed in February 1998. Petitioners have stipulated that the modified permit application is less impacting than the original design.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District issue a enter a final order dismissing the instant Petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jane Angelo, Esquire Charles A. Lobdell, III, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Timothy P. Atkinson, Esquire Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street Fifth Floor Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 William L. Hyde, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Vauli & Stewart, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 830 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. John's River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1492
Findings Of Fact 2. On April 16, 2008, the Department conducted an investigation and found Respondent conducting business at 1301 Seminole Blvd., Building C, Ste. 126, Largo, FL 33770. 3. At the time of the investigation Sal Cannatella was the general manager of the Respondent responsible for the operations at the foregoing business location. 4. Sixteen of Respondent’s employees at the above location made commercial telephone solicitations on behalf of Respondent. 5. At the time of the investigation Respondent was not registered with the Department. Respondent also was not licensed by the Office of Financial Regulation under Chapters 516 or 520, Part II, Florida Statutes, nor was Respondent a consumer finance lender supervised by any other governmental entity. 1 Filed May 29, 2009 1:42 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. 6. During the investigation Respondent produced a consumer finance license (#510102) and a retail installment seller license (#510522), both in the name of Interface Management, Inc. (“Interface”), and claimed to be an affiliate of Interface. Both licenses were issued by the Office of Financial Regulation. Respondent also produced a purported contract with an entity known as “Beginning Again, Inc.” 7. Respondent was a not a subsidiary of nor controlled Interface or Beginning Again. Conclusions of Law 8. The Department has authority to enforce Chapter 501, Part IV, Florida Statutes, the Florida Telemarketing Act (“Act”) and to enter this Settlement Agreement. §§120.57(4) and 501.612, Fla. Stat. (2007). 9. Respondent claimed it was exempt from the Act under §501.604(7), Florida Statutes, which states: 501.604 Exemptions.--The provisions of this part, except ss. 501.608 and 501.616(6) and (7), do not apply to: (7) Any supervised financial institution or parent, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof. As used in this section, "supervised financial institution” means any commercial bank, trust company, savings and loan association, mutual savings bank, credit union, industrial loan company, consumer finance lender, commercial finance lender, or insurer, provided that the institution is subject to supervision by an official or agency of this state, of any state, or of the United States. For the purposes of this exemption, "affiliate’ means a person who directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls or is controlled by, or is under common control with, a supervised financial institution. 10. Chapter 516, Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: 516.02 Loans; lines of credit; rate of interest; license.-- (1) A person must not engage in the business of making consumer finance loans unless she or he is authorized to do so under this chapter or other statutes and unless the person first obtains a license from the office. $16.05 License.— (3) Only one place of business for the purpose of making loans under this chapter may be maintained under one license, but the office may issue additional licenses to a licensee upon compliance with all the provisions of this chapter governing issuance of a single license. 11. Chapter 520, Part II, Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: §20.32 Licenses,-- (1) A person may not engage in or transact the business of a retail seller engaging in retail installment transactions as defined in this part or operate a branch of such business without a license, except that a license is not required for a retail seller whose retail installment transactions are limited to the honoring of credit cards issued by dealers in oil and petroleum products licensed to do business in this state. 12. | Whether Respondent claimed to be a “supervised financial institution” or an affiliate of Interface or Beginning Again, Respondent was required to have a separate license for its business location under Chapters 516 or 520, Part II, Florida Statutes. By failing to do so, Respondent was not exempt from the Act and was required to be licensed. §§501.604(7), 501.605(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). Settlement Terms 13. To resolve these matters without further legal proceedings, the Department and Respondent expressly agree as follows: a. Respondent shall pay a total of Two Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($2,500.00). Payment is due upon Respondent’s execution and return of this Settlement Agreement. b. Respondent shall not engage in commercial telephone solicitation without first being properly exempt or licensed under the Act. c. If Respondent is found engaging in commercial telephone solicitation without being properly licensed or exempt under the Act, Respondent admits such conduct constitutes an immediate threat to the safety and welfare of Florida consumers and consents to the immediate entry and service of an order by the Department requiring Respondent to cease and desist all activities in violation of the Act. Respondent waives all contested issues of material fact under §120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and consents to proceedings only under §120.57(2), Florida Statutes. In such proceedings, if Respondent is found in violation of the Act, Respondent consents to the entry of a final order imposing administrative fines of $10,000.00 per violation. 14. This Settlement Agreement shall be construed in accordance with Florida law. 15. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees. 16. Venue for any action arising from this Settlement Agreement shall be in Leon County, Florida. 17. This Settlement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Department and Respondent, including anyone acting for, associated with, or employed by either of them, concerning only the matters specified above and supersedes any prior discussions, agreements, or understandings; there are no promises, representatioris, or agreements between the parties other than as set forth herein. No modification or waiver of any provision shall be valid unless a written amendment to the Settlement Agreement is completed and properly executed by the parties. 18. This is an agreement of settlement and compromise, recognizing the parties may have different or incorrect, information, understandings, or contentions as to facts and law, with each party compromising and settling all such information, understandings, and contentions as to fact and law, so that no misunderstanding or misinformation shall be grounds for rescission of this Settlement Agreement. 19. Respondent expressly waives in this matter its rights to any hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Department, and all other proceedings, including appeals, to which Respondent may be entitled regarding any and all issues raised in this case. 20. This Settlement Agreement is and shall be deemed jointly drafted and written by all parties to it and shall not be construed or interpreted against any party. 21. To the extent any provision of this Settlement Agreement is prohibited by law for any reason such prohibition shall not affect any other provision of this Settlement Agreement. 22. — This Settlement Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on each party’s successors, assigns, heirs, administrators, representatives, and trustees. 23. All times stated herein are of the essence of this Settlement Agreement. 24. Approval Authority: This Settlement Agreement shall be valid and binding on the Department only upon acceptance and approval of its terms as shown through the execution below by the Department’s authorized representative. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services LW Il Eric H. Miller, Senior Attorney 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 410-3775 (850) 410-3797 (facsimile) Date: [iw reeg National Consumer Services, Inc. SS _ La Print Name: SAL Te ANNATELLA Off Date: Yor © a
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER NO. DCA10-GM-109 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in the manner described, on this //L% day of May, 2010. U. S. Mail: The Honorable Donald R. Alexander Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 Lynn Porter-Carlton Orange County Attorney’s Office 435 North Orange Avenue, Suite 300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Hand Delivery: Matthew Davis, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 pt, ) 4 Paula Ford Agency Clerk Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard ‘ Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
