The Issue Whether Scott S. Carswell, The Moon Property (Petitioner), has demonstrated 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 Chronology The property on which "The Moon" building is located was initially purchased by Grant Peeples and Scott S. Carswell in 1984. The Peeples/Carswell partnership filed bankruptcy in December 1986, and "The Moon" was closed in April 1987. In December 1987, Moon Management, Inc. (Scott S. Carswell and Tallahassee Entertainment Facility, Inc.) executed a partnership agreement to reopen "The Moon" and continue its operations. In December 1988, Scott S. Carswell, Moon Management, Inc., repurchased the Moon property from the Florida National Bank. In November 1989, the Respondent City of Tallahassee published a caveat announcing the preparation of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and advising that land use designations would be changed pursuant to the Plan. On February 1, 1990, the Respondent submitted its 2010 Comprehensive Plan to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. In March 1990, Petitioner entered into a 50 year lease agreement for the property at issue, which is vacant property immediately east of the property on which "The Moon" building is located. This agreement also provided for Petitioner's purchase of a 10 foot by 330 foot parcel immediately west of the "Moon" property. Zoning History The property at issue in this proceeding is part of a portion of property located on the south side of Lafayette Street between Seminole Drive and Magnolia Drive in the City of Tallahassee. The development project Petitioner seeks to have vested would involve commercial development of vacant land located between the existing "Moon" building and an existing strip shopping center. With the exception of the vacant property, the entire parcel on the south side of Lafayette Street between "The Moon" building and parking lot and Magnolia Drive to the east, is currently developed and houses commercial business enterprises. Petitioner leased the subject property from Alban Stewart in March 1990. This property has been zoned for commercial uses since 1955. The Stewart family began developing property within the tract in 1960. The building occupied by "The Moon" was constructed in 1962. "The Moon" building was originally constructed for, and occupied by, a super market. Since this building was sold to Scott S. Carswell and his partners in 1984, the building has been occupied by "The Moon" and, with the exception of a short period while "The Moon" was in bankruptcy, has operated as a commercial entertainment facility. In 1988 Petitioner Carswell attempted to obtain approval from the Respondent City of Tallahassee to expand "The Moon" operation on property west of the existing building. Petitioner's requested variance was not granted because the proposed expansion encroached into a buffer zone between "The Moon" facility and Seminole Drive. During negotiations with Respondent regarding this 1988 zoning variance request, City officials suggested that Petitioner consider developing east of "The Moon" facility, which was at that time zoned for commercial use. When Petitioner Carswell was unable to obtain a variance to proceed with his plans to expand west of "The Moon" building, he began plans and negotiations to develop east of the existing facility. Theee plans and negotiations culminated in the lease agreement which Carswell entered into with Alban Stewart in March 1990. In the meantime, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Respondent and submitted to the Department of Community Affairs in February 1990. Land use provisions within the Plan changed the zoning of the property at issue to a designation of residential preservation. The residential preservation designation does not permit the Petitioner's development for commercial purposes. The property at issue does not meet any of the Comprehensive Plan criteria for residential preservation designation. Permitting Construction for the proposed expansion has not been undertaken. No permits have been issued for any structures on the proposed development. There have been no plat approvals for the structures in the proposed development. Petitioner's Application for Vested Rights On or about October 3, 1990, Scott S. Carswell filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), with the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department. (Application VR0082T) The following information concerning the development of The Moon property was contained on the Application: "Scott S. Carswell is listed as the President, Tallahassee Entertainment Facility, Inc." The project is described as consisting of "existing commercial uses of property as well as uses proposed for property." The property location is described as "on Lafayette Street between Seminole Drive and Magnolia Drive and contains approximately 9.39 acres as shown in Exhibit 4, site plan." as: "Progress . . . Toward Completion" is described plans (R 2, p. 20, Line 9-21, Line 13). purchase of fixtures (R-2, p. 21, Line 22, p. 22, Line 10). lease of property (R-2, p. 23, Line 9-17). Expenses for proposed facility March 31, 1990, lease agreement for $3,200 per month. (R-1, Exhibit 8c) July 19, 1990, The Moon Expansion for $5,000. (R-1, Exhibit 8c) March 6 - April 30,1990,"Club Development $9,231.83." (R-1, Exhibit 8d) May 25,1990,Planning cost.(R-1, Exhibit 8e) Planning Dates September18,1990,Captain Tony's proposal. (R-1, Exhibit 5d) May 25,1990, letter of interest for Captain Tony's. (R-1, Exhibit 7 A-4) April 4, 1990, completed plans for project, estimate of costs. (R-1, Exhibit 7 A-5) The Application lists substantial additional expenses which were in fact associated with the original structure and operation of "The Moon" and do not relate to Petitioner's proposed expansion/development. Common Law Vesting Petitioner seeks approval of the Application for Vested Rights based upon the common law vesting provisions pursuant to the City of Tallahassee Ordinance 90-0-0043AA. Petitioner does not assert a claim of statutory vesting.
The Issue The issue is whether the site plan for the Evergreens project should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this land use dispute, Petitioners, Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association, Inc.; Lynn Hill; A.A. Sulkes; Philip Bennett; Vera Harper; and Carlos McDonald (Petitioners), have contested a decision by the Developmental Review Committee (DRC) of Respondent, City of Tallahassee (City), to approve a Type B site review application for a project known as Evergreens at Mahan (Evergreens). In its decision, the DRC exempted the project from the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan based upon a 1991 agreement by the City and the property owner which conferred vested rights on the property. Thus, the project was never reviewed for compliance with the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. If the application is approved, the applicant will be authorized to commence the process for constructing 416 apartment units in ten three-story buildings on approximately 24.56 acres of land located just south of the intersection at East Mahan Drive and Riggins Road in Tallahassee, Florida. The apartment complex will be one of the largest in the City. The application was filed by Respondent, Genesis Group (Genesis), acting as an agent for the owner of the property, Respondent, George K. Walker, Trustee (Walker). After the application is approved, Walker is contractually obligated to sell the property to Respondent, TTK, L.L.C. (TTK), a New Hampshire developer, who will actually construct the complex. In response to the DRC's decision, on August 9, 2000, Petitioners filed a Notice of Intent to File Petition for Formal Proceedings. On August 28, 2000, Petitioners filed their Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. As grounds for denying the application, Petitioners contended that a Stipulation and Final Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) entered into by Walker and the City on August 6, 1991, in DOAH Case No. 91-4109VR determining that the property was presumptively vested violated in a number of respects the City's Vested Rights Review Ordinance (Ordinance); that any vested rights acquired on the property have expired under Section 18-104(1)(c), Code of Ordinances; and the site plan is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. As to the latter ground, the parties have agreed that this issue need not be addressed now, but rather it can be considered by the DRC in the event Petitioners prevail on the merits of this action. Other than the vesting status, no issues have been raised regarding the site plan itself. On September 11, 2000, the Commission entered its Determination of Standing. Pursuant to the Bylaws of the Commission, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on September 20, 2000, for an evidentiary hearing. The parties Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association, Inc. (Association) is a not-for-profit corporation organized on February 18, 2000, and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The Association represents approximately 200 of the 279 homeowners who reside in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. The Meadowbrook neighborhood is zoned for Residential Preservation-1 and has a residential density of less than three units per acre. A portion of the Meadowbrook neigborhood is adjacent to the proposed project. Lynn Hill, A.A. Sulkes, Philip Bennett, Vera Harper, and Carlos McDonald reside and own property in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. Their property either abuts, or is close to, the location of the proposed Evergreens project. All are members of the Association and bring this action in their individual capacity and as a member of the Association. During the course of the hearing, Respondents stipulated to the standing of all Petitioners. The City is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida. It has authority to review proposed site plans for real property located within the City's geographic boundaries. Genesis is a Tallahassee consulting firm which prepared the application for Walker and acted as his agent in seeking approval of the site plan for the Evergreens project. TTK, a New Hampshire limited liability corporation, is a developer and builder of real property, and has a contract to purchase the site of the Evergreens project pending final approval of the site plan by the City. Walker is the owner of the approximately 30-acre parcel (the subject property) which is at issue in this proceeding, and is the applicant for the Evergreens site plan. The Evergreens project will be located on 24.56 acres of this 30-acre parcel. The property and its history The subject property has been owned by the Walker family, either as a part of a consortium of investors or in trust, for more than 70 years. Since the mid-1960's, Walker has controlled the property as trustee for himself and his brother. The site of the apartment complex lies a few hundred feet south of the intersection of East Mahan Drive (U.S. 90) and Riggins Road. Approximately 11.738 acres of the land sit on the eastern side of Riggins Road while the remaining 12.821 acres sit on the western side. The remainder of the property, which consists of around 7 or 8 acres, is situated just north of the apartment site, fronts on East Mahan Drive, and is currently zoned commercial. The Meadowbrook neighborhood begins approximately 1,250 feet or so south of Mahan Drive and sits on around 100 acres. The boundaries of the neighborhood abut the southern and southeastern ends of the project site. The relevant history of the property goes back to January 9, 1926, when the original plat of Glenwood Estates was recorded in Leon County (County). The property was located in the County, but not within the City, and was owned by a group that included Walker's father. The subject property was identified in the plat as Blocks L and M. The Glenwood Estates plat did not contain any statements establishing use or density for the subject property. On April 7, 1943, Glenwood Estates was replatted for taxation purposes. Walker's mother, a widow and the heir of Walker's father, was among the owners of the property. The 1943 replat reconfigured the subject property as a single, large acre parcel. The replat does not contain any statements establishing uses or densities for the platted parcels. Prior to 1967, Glenwood Estates became the sole property of Walker's mother. Upon her death, the property was placed in trust for the benefit of Walker and his brother. George K. Walker is the named trustee of the property. On March 22, 1989, the remaining property owned by Walker was subdivided into three parcels; two of the small parcels on the southwestern corner of Riggins Road and Mahan Drive were sold, thereby reducing the size of the subject property by approximately 1.56 acres. By 1991, the 1943 replat of Glenwood Estates had been resubdivided a minimum of seven times which changed the replat substantially from its original configuration. Five of the resubdivisions involved the Meadowbrook tract. Since 1989, the subject property has been configured as a large parcel of approximately 30 acres. Since 1991, the subject property is the only property in the replat that Walker has owned. In addition to his ownership of the subject property, until 1971 Walker owned approximately 69 acres of land that presently constitute a large part of the Meadowbrook neighborhood. On October 6, 1971, Walker entered into a contract for the sale of that land. Among the conditions of the sale was a requirement that the property consisting of the Meadowbrook neighborhood be rezoned R-3; that the property that is the proposed apartment site be rezoned RM-2; and that the property fronting Mahan Drive be rezoned C-1. Costs of the rezoning were to be shared equally by the buyer and seller. At the time of this sale, the subject property and the Meadowbrook tract were undeveloped. In 1972, the County rezoned the property consisting of the Meadowbrook neighborhood as R-2 for single-family residential development; rezoned the approximately 25-acre portion of the subject property north of the Meadowbrook tract as RM-2, for multi-family residential development; and rezoned the property fronting Mahan Drive as C-1 for commercial development. The multi-family zoning on the property that is the proposed location for the Evergreen project authorized a range of dwelling units from single-family to two-family to multi-family up to a maximum of 17.4 units per acre. One of the conditions of the 1971 sale was the granting of an easement by Walker to the buyer (Collins Brothers) to extend Riggins Road south from Mahan Drive to the northern boundary of the Meadowbrook tract. At the time of the sale, there was no direct access from the Meadowbrook tract north to Mahan Drive. On an undisclosed date, Collins Brothers was forced into receivership. Therefore, between 1971 and 1980, there was no development on the Meadowbrook tract or the subject property, other than the roughing-out of the location of what was to become Riggins Road. In 1980, Guardian Mortgage Investors (Guardian) took over the previous buyer's interest. At that time, Walker entered into a road construction agreement with Guardian in which he agreed to pay one-half of the road construction costs to extend Riggins Road south from Mahan Drive to the Meadowbrook subdivision. Guardian agreed to pay one-half of the road construction costs as well as all of the cost for the installation of the main water and sewer trunk lines, except for laterals which were to be installed at Walker's expense. In 1981, the construction of Riggins Road and the main water and sewer trunk lines were completed. The minimum allowable width of Riggins Road from Mahan Drive to the northern boundary of the Meadowbrook tract was 30 feet. However, it was constructed 36 feet wide so that it could serve not only the Meadowbrooks neighborhood, but also Walker's future development. For the same reason, even though the minimum right-of-way for this section of Riggins Road was 60 feet, an extra 20 feet (or 80 feet in all) were dedicated for the right-of-way. No development has occurred on the subject property since this dedication. The sewer main serving the Meadowbrook neighborhood is a gravity feed system flowing into a pump station within the Meadowbrook neighborhood. From there, it is pumped into a force main to a point under or adjacent to Riggins Road approximately 50 feet into the property that is zoned RM-2. From there, the system is again a gravity feed system flowing north under Mahan Drive to another pump station. If the sewer system had been installed to serve only the Meadowbrook neighborhood, it could have consisted only of a forced main system between the two pump stations. However, because further development was anticipated, the developer installed a gravity feed system that flowed through the RM-2 property, through the C-1 property, and under Mahan Drive at considerably more expense than a forced main system. Both the water and sewer systems have the capacity to serve 670 domestic equivalent units in the RM-2 and C-1 portions of the subject property. Following their completion, the water and sewer facilities, and Riggins Road, were dedicated to the City. Since 1983 or 1984, the City has owned, operated, and maintained Riggins Road and the water and sewer lines from Mahan to the Meadowbrook neighborhood. On April 14, 1983, Walker petitioned the City to annex his property. By Ordinance No. 83-0-2185 adopted on December 30, 1983, the Walker property, the Meadowbrook neighborhood, and considerable other properties were annexed into the City. Prior to annexation, Walker received assurance from the City that the annexation would not affect his ability to develop the RM-2 and C-1 portions of his property. The City's vesting process On July 16, 1990, the City adopted its 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Concurrent with its adoption, the City adopted a Vested Development Rights Review Ordinance (Ordinance), which established "the sole administrative procedures and standards by which a property owner" could assert that he had acquired certain property rights and obtain a vested rights determination from the City. The Ordinance is codified as Article VII of Chapter 18 of the City's Code of Ordinances. The Ordinance established the administrative procedures and standards for common law or statutory vesting. A property that was determined to be vested under the Ordinance was exempt from the application of the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Once a property is found to be exempt, or vested, it retains that status in perpetuity. In order to claim vested development rights under the Ordinance, a property owner was required to apply for a vested rights determination with the City's Planning Department within 120 days of July 16, 1990. A failure to timely file an application constituted a waiver of any vested rights claim. However, a property owner whose property was located within a recorded subdivision, or unrecorded subdivision which the City determined had satisfied the City's infrastructure requirements, did not have to submit an application for a vested rights determination. In those cases, vested rights were "presumed," based upon the infrastructure requirements being satisfied, and the property was "presumptively" vested from the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section III.1.a. of the Ordinance. The right of a property owner to assert that his property is presumptively vested can be made at any time, even today. After reviewing its land development records, on July 25, 1990, the City published in the Tallahassee Democrat a lengthy list of recorded and unrecorded subdivisions it had determined were presumptively vested from the concurrency and consistency requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The subject property, identified on the City's tax rolls by Tax I.D. #11-28-20-071-000-0, was included within the City's list of presumptively vested recorded subdivisions. The notice stated that it was the City's intent to only exempt subdivisions for which streets, stormwater management facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure required for development had been completed by July 16, 1990. Recorded subdivisions included on the list of exempt subdivisions were presumed to have satisfied the infrastructure requirements. The City did not inspect recorded subdivisions to ensure compliance with the infrastructure requirements, but presumed the existence of the requisite infrastructure. Any recorded subdivision subsequently determined not to be in compliance with the infrastructure requirements could be removed from the exempt list. Unrecorded subdivisions were not included on the exempt list unless they had first been physically inspected to ensure compliance with the infrastructure requirements. Walker's application for vested rights On October 17, 1990, the City's Director of Growth Management instructed that Walker's property be removed from the list of exempt subdivisions due to the resubdivision of the original plat and because all of the infrastructure was not in place. At that time, however, there was no provision in the Ordinance that made resubdivision a factor in the determination of an exemption or vesting. On the other hand, the issue of infrastructure was a valid consideration. On November 13, 1990, Walker timely submitted an application for a vested rights determination on the basis that his property was entitled to vesting under the common law. The City assigned Number V.R.0195T to the application. On January 8, 1991, in accordance with Section III.3.b. of the Ordinance, the City Planning Department determined that the subject property was not vested and notified Walker that Application Number V.R. 0195T was denied. No reason was given. The letter of denial advised him of his rights to contest the planning staff's denial of his vested rights. On January 22, 1991, Walker notified the City of his decision to challenge planning staff's denial of his vested rights application. He elected to waive his right to a hearing before the City Staff Committee, and he requested a hearing before DOAH pursuant to Section III.3.c. of the Ordinance. On July 3, 1991, the City referred Walker's request for an administrative hearing to DOAH on the planning staff's denial of Application Number V.R.0195T. The request was assigned DOAH Case Number 91-004109VR. On July 9, 1991, the case was scheduled for a hearing on August 29, 1991. During the pendency of the DOAH case, and at the request of the City, Walker and his counsel met with representatives of the City, including a Planning Department staffer and an assistant city attorney. Before the meeting, Walker reconfirmed with City officials that his property had been rezoned to C-1, RM-2, and R-2 in 1972, and that the necessary water and sewer lines were in place to serve his property. After learning at the meeting that infrastructure for the property had already been built, the City agreed to find Walker's property vested to the extent that the infrastructure was in place. In other words, Walker would be allowed to develop as many units as the existing infrastructure would accommodate. After the meeting, Walker secured an affidavit from Wayne Colony, the engineer who designed the water and sewer system for the property and the southern extension of Riggins Road. In his affidavit dated August 6, 1991, Coloney attested that the sewer line between Mahan Drive and the Meadowbrook neighborhood was designed to serve the single-family residences, the RM-2 property and the C-1 property; that the sewer line had the capacity to serve 670 residential equivalent units in the RM-2 and C-1 portions of that property; and that the sewer had sufficient capacity for the maximum density of development on the RM-2 and C-1 portions of the property. A letter from the City's Water and Sewer Department dated August 1, 1991, also confirmed that the City had "the necessary water and sewer lines to serve the property." Finally, Riggins Road and the stormwater drain to serve the property had been completed in the early 1980's. With this information in hand, counsel for the City agreed that the property was presumptively vested. On August 6, 1991, or just prior to the scheduled administrative hearing, counsel for Walker and the City executed the Settlement Agreement which declared the subject property an exempt subdivision based upon Section III.1.a.1. of the Ordinance, and presumptively vested the property from the consistency and concurrency requirements of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Settlement Agreement authorized the development of the subject property for up to 670 residential equivalent units. The Settlement Agreement also stated that there was no time frame in which the Walker property was required to commence or complete development, and that the property was vested in perpetuity. On August 7, 1991, the Settlement Agreement was filed with DOAH. On August 8, 1991, an Order Approving Stipulation and Final Settlement Agreement was entered. Therefore, an administrative hearing was never held on Application V.R.0195T. Walker's application was one of hundreds of vested rights applications being processed by the City at that time. Although many of the specific details underlying the City's decision to approve the settlement are not known now because of the passage of time, the subsequent loss by the City of Walker's application file, and the sheer number of applications then being processed, the City Attorney is certain that he would have known about the petition and the underlying facts before he authorized the Assistant City Attorney to execute the agreement. Based on the information then available, the City Attorney now says that Walker clearly qualified for either common law or presumptive vesting. Petitioners contend that the Assistant City Attorney (and/or City Attorney) lacked authority to settle the case without obtaining specific prior authority from the City Commission; however, the more credible and persuasive evidence shows otherwise. This is true even though the Ordinance does not specifically address the settlement of vested rights cases. The City Attorney's policy is and has been to involve the affected City staff in settlement negotiations rather than negotiating without the consent of his client. Moreover, the present City Attorney, and his two predecessors, have always considered it a part of their inherent authority to settle litigation on the City's behalf when it is in the best interest of the City to do so. The only exception to this inherent authority is when there is a budgetary impact; in those cases, prior approval must be obtained before committing the City to spending money. Here, however, there was no fiscal impact resulting from the Walker settlement. Further, at no time after the Settlement Agreement was signed has the City Commission ever expressed its disagreement with the City Attorney's interpretation of the Ordinance, taken steps to curtail his inherent authority, or acted to vacate the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the Assistant City Attorney, after consultation with the City Attorney and appropriate City staff, had the authority to execute the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the City without prior City Commission approval. Petitioners also contend that based upon the language in Section III.3.e.7. of the Ordinance, there was no authority for the hearing officer to approve the Settlement Agreement until a substantive review of the information which formed the basis for the agreement had been made. The cited provision sets forth the criteria upon which the decision of the hearing officer in a vested rights case must be based. They include an evidentiary presentation by the parties at a formal hearing, adherence to certain land use guidelines and relevant case law, and a recommended order at the conclusion of the proceeding. The City points out, however, that under its interpretation of the Ordinance, once the parties learned that the property was exempt and the dispute had been settled, the criteria in Section III.3.e.7. did not apply. In those situations, no useful purpose would be served in requiring the parties to go through the formality of a de novo hearing. Otherwise, the parties (including the taxpayers) would be required to expend time, resources, and energy to litigate a matter in which no material facts were in issue. Accordingly, the City's interpretation of the Ordinance is found to be the most logical and reasonable, and it is found that the DOAH hearing officer had the authority to accept the parties' settlement without conducting a hearing. Petitioners next contend that when the Settlement Agreement was executed, the City lacked sufficient evidence to show that Walker had installed the infrastructure necessary for presumptive vesting. More specifically, they assert that except for Wayne Colony's affidavit, and the letter from the City, there was no evidence to support that determination. Petitioners go on to contend that not only must the primary roadways and water and sewer lines be built before the vesting cut-off date, but the "on-site" water and sewer lines, stormwater facilities, and other facilities necessary to begin vertical construction on each apartment building must also be in place. This contention is based on Section III.1.a.1. of the Ordinance which requires that in order for a subdivision to attain exempt status, the "streets, stormwater management facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure required for the development must have been completed as of July 16, 1990." The City Attorney's testimony on this issue is found to be the most persuasive. According to his interpretation of the Ordinance, only that infrastructure necessary to serve the subdivision must be completed in order to qualify for vesting. Conversely, on-site or private infrastructure does not have to be completed in order to satisfy the terms of the Ordinance. Therefore, on-site infrastructure is not a factor in determining whether a property qualifies for an exempt status. Indeed, as the City Attorney points out, if Petitioners' interpretation of the Ordinance were accepted, there would be "no vested lots in the City" since infrastructure is never extended from the public street to the lot prior to its development. Finally, Petitioners contend that the Settlement Agreement is invalid because Walker's application in DOAH Case No. 91-4109VR was for common law vesting while the Settlement Agreement made a determination that the property was presumptively vested. As a practical matter, there is no difference between property being exempt or being vested. Under either category, the property would not have to meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Here, the evidence shows that Walker's property qualified for both common law and presumptive vesting. Since the two types of vesting have the same practical effect, the validity of the Settlement Agreement has not been impaired. Expiration of vested rights Sections II.5.a., d., and i. of the Ordinance provide, respectively, that for purposes of a vested rights determination, an "[e]xempt subdivision," "[f]inal subdivision plat approval," or "[a]ny other development order which approved the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use and which allowed development activity on the land for which the development order was issued" shall be deemed a final development order. Section IV.1.c. of the Ordinance provides that "[a]ll final development orders shall expire in one year or such shorter time as may be adopted unless it is determined that substantial development has occurred and is continuing in good faith." Petitioners argue that the Settlement Agreement constitutes a "development order" within the meaning of the foregoing provisions of the Ordinance, and because no activity has occurred on the land since the Settlement Agreement was approved in 1991, the development order has expired by operation of the law. For the following reasons, this contention has been rejected. The Settlement Agreement did not approve "the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use" and did not allow "development activity on the land." Further, it did not allow the owner to pull building permits and commence development on his land. Rather, it simply determined which set of rules and regulations (pre-1990 or post-1990) Walker had to comply with in order to develop his property. Therefore, it cannot be "[a]ny other development order which approved the development of land for a particular use or uses at a specified intensity of use and which allowed development activity on the land for which the development order was issued." At the same time, a recorded subdivision such as Glenwood Estates is "complete" since all necessary infrastructure is in place. It has no expiration date, and no further development remains to be done to show "continuing good faith," as that term is used in the Ordinance. Therefore, even if the Walker property technically meets the definitions of an "exempt subdivision" or a "final subdivision plat approval," the expiration provisions of the Ordinance still do not apply. Finally, the City has never applied the expiration provisions of the cited provision to terminate the exempt status of a recorded subdivision, nor has it construed a vested rights determination as being a "final development order" within the meaning of the Ordinance. This interpretation of the Ordinance is found to be reasonable, and it is hereby accepted. Equitable estoppel As noted earlier, when Walker sold the Meadowbrook tract (69 acres) to Collins Brothers in 1972, he made the sale contingent on his obtaining not only residential zoning for the Meadowbrook tract, but also upon obtaining commercial and multi-family zoning on the remainder of the tract. Thus, he sold the site in reliance on his ability to develop the remainder of the tract in conformance with his master plan. As a part of that sale, Walker gave the purchasers credit towards the purchase price to defray one-half of the cost of installing the infrastructure for the entire 100-acre parcel, again in reliance on his ability to develop the property. When Collins Brothers defaulted, he paid the successor developer (Guardian) the money necessary to defray one-half of the cost of the communal infrastructure, and he paid additional funds for water and sewer taps and a storm drain, again in reliance on his ability to develop the property. Walker also petitioned the City to annex his property in the early 1980's based on a representation by the City that the annexation would not affect his ability to develop his property. After the annexation, Walker has continued to pay property taxes to the City based upon the value of the property to be developed under the property's C-1 and RM-2 zoning. In addition, Walker encumbered his property to secure loans in reliance on his ability to develop it in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. After the Settlement Agreement was approved, the City adopted a site-specific zoning plan which impacted Walker's property. Walker agreed to reduce the maximum density he might otherwise have obtained through litigation in reliance upon the City's representation that the Settlement Agreement remained in effect and that his rights under that Agreement would survive in perpetuity. Finally, Walker has entered into an option contract for the sale of his property to TTK based upon the validity of the Settlement Agreement. He has also expended substantial monies to further that sale and to develop his site plan. Other contentions Petitioners have also contended in their Proposed Recommended Order that "[t]he creation of new lots through the re-subdivision of the parent parcel [in 1989] subjects the property under review to the consistency and concurrency provisions in the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan." Because this contention was not raised in the initial pleading or in the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement, it has been disregarded. Finally, the Association points out that multiple three-story apartment buildings will be constructed immediately adjacent to single-family homes in the Association with only an 8-foot fence and a 30-foot setback dividing the two areas. In addition, its members logically fear that the project will generate additional traffic, crime, and pollution and result in the lowering of property values in the neighborhood. It also asserts that the developer has never been willing to sit down with neighborhood members and attempt to compromise on any design aspect of the apartment complex. While these concerns are obviously legitimate and well- intended, they are not relevant to the narrow issues raised in this appeal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission enter a final order granting the Type B site plan review application filed by George K. Walker which determined that his property is presumptively vested. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 8th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5201 Linda R. Hurst, Esquire City Hall, Second Floor 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731 Jay Adams, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1804 Jean Gregory, Clerk Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Darrell J. Leamy is entitled to licensure in the State of Florida as a real estate salesman.
Findings Of Fact Darrell Leamy was previously licensed in Florida as a real estate salesman and broker. He was also licensed in the State of Wisconsin. On May 22, 1980, in a Department of Professional Regulation Administrative Complaint, Mr. Leamy was charged with four counts of various violations of Chapter 475 F.S. Mr. Leamy requested a hearing but did not appear at the hearing. On July 8, 1981, Hearing Officer William Thomas recommended revocation of Leamy's real estate license. (DOAH Case #80-1776). The Board of Real Estate adopted that recommendation in a Final Order filed on September 9, 1981. The order was not appealed. On February 24, 1983, the State of Wisconsin, Department of Regulation and Licensing revoked Leamy's Wisconsin real estate license after his ex-wife informed the agency that his Florida license was revoked. Darrell Leamy's account of the incidents leading to the 1981 revocation includes the admission of several material elements of the administrative complaint. He and his wife made an offer and purchased a house that, at the same time, he had shown in his professional capacity to prospective buyers. He presented an offer on behalf of those prospective buyers, while revealing to them only that other persons were very interested in the property "and that they should make their best offer". Later, with respect to that same transaction, he received a check in the approximate amount of $1,500.00, representing a share of the sales commission and payable to his broker-employer, United Farm Agency. His wife deposited the check in the couple's personal bank account. Although he found out about his wife's deposit within a day, he did nothing to correct the error. Mr. Leamy contends that the circumstances surrounding the incidents should exonerate him, that he did give the prospective buyers a fair opportunity to make a higher offer. Further, his wife (now his ex-wife) was jealous of his employer's daughter, who was making romantic overtures at the office, so she didn't want him to go back to that office to take the check. His failure to attend the prior administrative hearing was due to dire predictions of the outcome by his lawyer, the death of one of his witnesses, and the discovery that another witness had a drinking problem and could not remember him. Mr. Leamy's case for licensure concentrated on the peculiar circumstances of the prior charges and his assertion that those complaints were the only ones he experienced in his active real estate practice in Florida and Wisconsin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Darrell J. Leamy 834 Okaloosa Street Orlando, Florida 32822 Harold Huff, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Randy Schwartz, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 212, 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether the proposed repeal of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69I-44.021 amounts to an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of sections 120.52(8)(b) and/or (e), Florida Statutes, (2015).1/
Findings Of Fact Unclaimed Property The Department is responsible for administering and enforcing chapter 717, Florida Statutes. The aforementioned chapter is entitled as the “Florida Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act,” and it requires the Department to: (a) receive unclaimed property; (b) safeguard unclaimed property; and (c) process claims for the return of unclaimed property to its rightful owner. See generally ch. 717, Fla. Stat. Chapter 717 applies to property such as traveler’s checks, money orders, gift certificates, bank deposits, and proceeds from life insurance policies that have been outstanding, unredeemed, or inactive for a certain number of years. See §§ 717.104(1) & (2), .1045, .106, & .107, Fla. Stat. In return for a fee, licensed private investigators, certified public accountants, and attorneys research the Department’s unclaimed property records in order to assist their clients with making claims on unclaimed property. See §§ 717.124, .135 & .1400, Fla. Stat. Pursuant to sections 717.124 and 717.126, Florida Statutes, the Department is authorized to require proof of entitlement, personal identification, and (if applicable) proof of the filer’s authority to act as the claimant’s agent. See § 717.124, .126, Fla. Stat. Also, “the burden shall be upon the claimant to establish entitlement to the property by a preponderance of evidence.” § 717.126(1), Fla. Stat. Section 717.138, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to adopt rules to implement the provisions of chapter 717. The Department has utilized that authority to adopt Florida Administrative Code Rule 69I-20.0021, which sets forth the procedures for filing unclaimed property claims. Rule 69I-20.0021 has several provisions requiring claimants to demonstrate to the Department that they are entitled to the unclaimed property at issue. For instance, rule 69I-20.0021(1) provides that “[c]laims for unclaimed property in the custody of the Department shall be submitted to the Department on the form(s) prescribed and supplied by the Department, together with documentation proving entitlement to the unclaimed property.” (emphasis added). Rule 69I-20.0021(1)(b) mandates that “[a] complete paper format claim shall include the correct claim form identified in this rule, fully completed with all blanks filled in and manually signed and dated by all claimants or the Claimants’ Representative, proof of entitlement, and all supporting documentation as described and required by this rule, and Rule 69I-20.00022, F.A.C.” (emphasis added). Also, rule 69I-20.0021(2) provides that “[t]he Department will only review the merits of a claim that has been deemed complete as filed. The Department will determine whether the claimant has established ownership and entitlement to the unclaimed property.” (emphasis added). Rule 69I-20.0021 also incorporates by reference certain forms. For example, rule 69I-20.0021(4)(a) states that “[c]laims by apparent owners for unclaimed property shall be submitted on Form DFS-UP-106, entitled Claim Filed by Apparent Owner, which is hereby incorporated by reference, effective 1-3-05.” This form must be accompanied by “[p]roof demonstrating that the claimant is the owner and is entitled to the unclaimed property as required by Rule 69I-20.0022, F.A.C.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69I-20.0021(4)(c)2. (emphasis added). Also, rule 69I-20.0021(6) states that “[a]ll claims for unclaimed property filed by a Claimant’s Representative shall be submitted on Form DFS-UP-108, entitled Claim Filed by Claimant’s Representative on Behalf of the Claimant, which is hereby incorporated by reference, effective 1-3-05.” This form must be accompanied by “[p]roof demonstrating that the person(s) or entity being represented is entitled to the property being claimed consistent with Rule 69I-20.0022, F.A.C.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69I-20.0021(6)(b)4. (emphasis added). Escheated Property The Department also plays a role in administering (and returning to its rightful owner) other types of property governed by other chapters within the Florida Statutes. For instance, the Department is involved with: (a) property resulting from judgments deposited with a court pursuant to section 43.19, Florida Statutes; (b) escheated property gathered pursuant to section 732.107, Florida Statutes; (c) property held by a personal representative pursuant to section 733.816, Florida Statutes; and (d) funds held by a guardian following the death of a ward pursuant to section 744.534, Florida Statutes. When a person dies with an estate but has no known heirs, the decedent’s property escheats to the state. See § 732.107(1), Fla. Stat. That property is sold, and the proceeds (i.e., the “escheated funds”) are paid to the Department for deposit into the State School Fund pursuant to section 732.107(2), Florida Statutes. In 2009, the Department was receiving repeated inquiries from claimants regarding the proper claim forms for property governed by sections 43.19, 732.107, 733.816, and 744.534, Florida Statutes. The Department responded by adopting rule 69I-44.021 which establishes a hard copy claim form specifically for the aforementioned properties. Unlike rule 69I-20.0021 which requires a claimant to demonstrate to the Department that he or she is entitled to the unclaimed property in question, rule 69I-44.021(1) requires a potential claimant to simply prove his or her entitlement to a court. That is consistent with provisions within chapter 732 that require courts (rather than the Department) to determine whether a claimant is entitled to escheated property. See §§ 732.107(3) and (4), Fla. Stat. (requiring an action to re- open the administration of probate and prove entitlement to a probate judge, while allowing the Department of Legal Affairs the right of intervention to protect the state’s interests). For those claimants who successfully demonstrate to a court that they are entitled to particular funds, rule 69I- 44.021 incorporates by reference a form (Form #198) that those claimants are to file with the Department.3/ Unlike the situation with claimants using the forms incorporated by reference in rule 69I-20.0021, claimants using the form incorporated by reference in rule 69I-44.021 are not required to prove to the Department that they are entitled to the property in question. In 2013, the Florida Legislature amended section 717.124, to provide that the claims procedure for unclaimed property also applies to property governed by sections 43.19, 732.107, 733.816, and 744.534. See § 717.124(8), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]his section applies to all unclaimed property reported and remitted to the Chief Financial Officer, including, but not limited to, property reported pursuant to ss. 43.19, 45.032, 732.107, 733.816, and 744.534.”). As a result of an internal review of its rules, the Department determined that rule 69I-44.021 should be repealed given that section 717.124(8), effectively made the procedure set forth in rule 69I-20.0021 applicable to escheated property. Choice Plus Pursues Escheated Property for its Clients Choice Plus is a private investigative agency licensed pursuant to chapter 493 that files claims with the Department as a claimant’s representative (“locator”). In exchange for its services, Choice Plus receives a fee paid from approved property claims. In addition to seeking the recovery of unclaimed property pursuant to chapter 717, Choice Plus also assists in the recovery of funds that have escheated to the State of Florida pursuant to section 732.107. Choice Plus files several hundred claims in Florida for unclaimed property each year. It files five to 10 claims in Florida each year for escheated property. The President of Choice Plus testified during the final hearing that Choice Plus had filed 19 claims for escheated property with the Department using Form #198 and attaching the pertinent documentation. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69I- 44.021(2)(a) (providing that “[t]he claim form must be accompanied by a certified copy of the final order or judgment awarding the funds to each claimant, supporting documentation establishing each claimant’s right to the funds, and a government-issued photographic identification issued to each claimant.”). According to the President of Choice Plus, the Department began to require Choice Plus to re-establish entitlement to escheated funds in 2013. In other words, the Department now allegedly conducts its own review of the evidence that a court already found to be sufficient for establishing entitlement. Choice Plus asserts that proving entitlement to escheated funds a second time causes it to spend additional time and money in making a claim. According to Choice Plus, this extra effort adds $5,000 to the cost of the average claim for escheated property. In fact, Choice Plus is currently appealing the Department’s denial of an escheated property claim. That appeal is proceeding under appellate case number 1D15-3184 before the First District Court of Appeal and involves the estate of a deceased Florida resident named Eleanor Rigley.4/ Because Ms. Rigley died intestate and without any known living heirs, the proceeds from the sale of her residence escheated to the State of Florida and were paid to the Department for deposit in the State School Fund. See § 732.107, Fla. Stat. Choice Plus learned of Ms. Rigley’s escheated property and hired a genealogist who found ten individuals related to Ms. Rigley. Choice Plus subsequently entered into contracts with each of the ten individual claimants authorizing Choice Plus to obtain the escheated funds on their behalf. In accord with section 732.107 and rule 69I-44.021, Choice Plus then petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to reopen Ms. Rigley’s estate and declare that the ten Choice Plus clients were Ms. Rigley’s heirs. On June 12, 2013, the Pinellas County Circuit Court entered an Order reopening Ms. Rigley’s estate and declaring the ten Choice Plus clients to be Ms. Rigley’s heirs. The Circuit Court then directed the Department to distribute the funds from Ms. Rigley’s estate to the claimants. On July 12, 2013 and as required by rule 69I-44.021, Choice Plus filed with the Department Form #198, a certified copy of the Pinellas County Circuit Court’s Order awarding the escheated funds to the claimants, supporting documentation submitted to the Circuit Court, and a photocopy of each claimant’s government-issued photo identification. However, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to deny Choice Plus’s claim on January 23, 2014, and ultimately issued a Final Order on June 29, 2015, denying the claim. In that Final Order, the Department allegedly concluded that it has sole jurisdiction to determine the disposition of funds within its possession, including escheated funds held pursuant to section 732.107. Accordingly, the Department concluded that the Circuit Court’s ruling was not binding on it. The Department also allegedly concluded that the denial was justified because Choice Plus failed to submit “appropriate documentation” connecting the individual claimants to Ms. Rigley by a preponderance of the evidence. In the ensuing appeal, Choice Plus argued that the Department’s Final Order must be reversed because the Department does not have the authority to determine entitlement to escheated funds held by the Department pursuant to section 732.107. As for why the Department lacks the necessary authority, Choice Plus argued that section 717.124 is the only provision within chapter 717 that applies to escheated funds held by the Department. The 2013 amendment to section 717.124, which added subsection (8), merely stated that “[t]his section applies to all unclaimed property reported and remitted to the Chief Financial Officer, including, but not limited to, property reported pursuant to ss. 43.19, 45.032, 732.107, 733.816, and 744.534.” (emphasis added). In contrast, the amendment did not state that “[t]his chapter applies to all unclaimed property reported and remitted to the Chief Financial Officer, including, but not limited to, property reported pursuant to ss. 43.19, 45.032, 732.107, 733.816, and 744.534.” (emphasis added). Thus, Choice Plus argued that the Department cannot apply section 717.126 to escheated fund claims because the Florida Legislature only made section 717.124 applicable to such claims. As noted above, section 717.126 mandates that “the burden shall be upon the claimant to establish entitlement to the property by a preponderance of evidence.” In other words, Choice Plus argued that the Department cannot second-guess the Pinellas County Circuit Court, an argument that carries over into this proceeding. The Department responded in its Answer Brief by asserting that it has correctly determined that the chapter 717 claims process applies to all unclaimed property once it is transferred to the Department, including unclaimed estate proceeds that may eventually escheat to the State of Florida.5/
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. In July, 1988, a Deposit Receipt and Purchase and Sale Agreement was entered into between the owner of the property at issue in this proceeding and the Applicants, R.L. Johnson Construction Co. and Developers Three, Inc. The sale of the subject property was conditioned on obtaining rezoning of the subject property from agriculture to residential. On October 25, 1933, the Clay County Board of County Commissioners granted a request to re-zone the River Bend Subdivision property from agriculture to residential. On December 3, 1988, the subject property was purchased by the Applicants. The Applicants, as R.L. Johnson Construction Co. and Developers Three, Inc., a Florida general partnership, began to develop the property as "River Bend Subdivision". The subject property was sold to Hutson Land Company (hereinafter referred to as "Hutson"), by the Applicants on or about November 19, 1992, pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Applicants and Hutson Land Company entered into on or about August 25, 1992. Although the Applicants are no longer the owners of the subject property, they are still responsible for development of the property on behalf of Hutson. Therefore, the Applicants will be treated as having filed the Application on behalf of Hutson. Government Action Relied Upon Before the Applicants' Sale of the Property. On March 30, 1989, a preliminary plat for River Bend Subdivision was submitted to the Clay County Development Review Committee. The preliminary plat for the development of River Bend Subdivision was approved by the Clay County Development Review Committee on or about May 8, 1989. On January 17, 1990, the Clay County Planning Commission completed a preliminary plat review checklist after review of the River Bend Subdivision preliminary plat. The preliminary plat for River Bend Subdivision reflected that the development would include a ten-year, twenty-four hour retention basin. The Applicants also obtained permits and instituted other reviews by other government agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Clay County was directly involved in these reviews or permit approvals. A traffic impact analysis performed by the Florida Department of Transportation and dated January 15, 1991, was sent to the Clay County Zoning Department by the Department of Transportation. On March 4, 1991, the Clay County Engineer completed an initial review of the proposed project. The engineer noted that drainage calculations were needed in a letter dated March 6, 1991, reflecting the results of his review. By letter dated February 26, 1991, the Clay County Engineering Department informed the land surveyors for the project that certain changes to the plat for the project were needed. The plat was to be submitted to the Clay County Board of County Commissioners at a March 12, 1991, meeting. By memorandum dated March 18, 1991, the Clay County Engineering Department informed the Clay County Clerk of Court that the final plat for River Bend Subdivision had been approved by the Clay County Board of County Commissioners at its March 12, 1991, meeting. The final plat approved by the Clay County Board of County Commissioners provided for a ten-year, twenty-four hour retention basin. Subsequent to the approval of the final plat, the Applicants' engineer responded to the Clay County engineer's letter of March 6, 1991. Drainage calculations requested by the Clay County engineer were provided. By letter to the Applicants dated June 6, 1991, the Clay County engineering division indicated that the plans for River Bend Subdivision had been re-reviewed. Pursuant to the re-review, it was determined for the first time that the retention basis required for the project should be a twenty-five year, twenty-four hour basin. A similar letter dated June 11, 1991, was also sent to the Applicants. On or about June 11, 1991, a FAX, with a copy of the June 11, 1991 letter from the Clay County engineering division to the Applicants, was sent to the Applicants. Pursuant to the copy of the June 11, 1991, letter the Applicants were informed that the determination that a twenty-four year, twenty- four hour retention basin would be required for the project had been eliminated by the Clay County Public Works Director and the Clay County Director of Development. The reason for eliminating the twenty-four year, twenty-four hour retention basin was explained by the Clay County engineering division to the Director of the Clay County Director of Development in a letter dated June 29, 1991. On August 14, 1991, a Notice to Proceed was issued by the Clay County engineering division to the Applicants. The Notice to Proceed indicates that the plans for the project, including drainage calculations based upon a ten- year, twenty-four hour retention basin, were approved. Hutson was not involved in any manner in the actions addressed in the foregoing findings of fact. Extension of Time for Vested Development of the Project. In July, 1991, the Applicants requested that the Clay County Board of County Commissioners extend the vesting date for developed subdivisions from July 1, 1992, to December 31, 1992. This request was approved. The approved extension of the vesting date for developed subdivisions was not, however, included in the Clay County Comprehensive Plan adopted on January 23, 1992, due to an oversight of Clay County. Hutson was not involved in any manner in the action addressed in findings of fact 24 and 25. Hutson Land Company's Involvement. On or about August 25, 1992, Hutson entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Applicants. Pursuant to the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Hutson agreed to purchase the subject property from the Applicants subject to the following conditions, among others: CONDITIONS AND CONTINGENCIES: This sale is contingent upon BUYER confirming that the project is financially feasible and all permits, and/or approvals for the development have been obtained and are currently valid, including, but not limited to: All required permits and/or approvals from Clay County including compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, St. Johns River Water Management District, DER, and the U.S. Corp. of Engineers. . . . . It is understood by all parties that if any of the conditions or contingencies for development are not fulfilled or obtained, the BUYER may elect to receive the return of the binder deposit or at BUYER's option, BUYER may consummate this sale. . . . BUYER will have a total of 60 days from the execution of this contract to satisfy the conditions and contingencies for its development. Prior to entering into the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the President of Hutson, Donald P. Hinson, met with Philip L. Leary, Planning and Zoning Director for Clay County. The purpose of the meeting was to allow Mr. Hinson to insure himself that the project could be completed as planned. Mr. Hinson was "told by Mr. Leary that this project was vested and that [he] could rely on his representations to [him] that [they] could secure all necessary permits from Clay County if [they] purchased this project." Mr. Hinson relied upon Mr. Leary's representations and Mr. Leary was aware that Mr. Hinson would rely upon his representations. At some time after the Purchase and Sale Agreement was entered into, Hutson requested that Clay County provide a letter to Hutson that the approved development of the subject property was vested if built before December 31, 1992. The letter requested by Hutson was apparently not provided by Clay County because it was discovered that the Clay Comprehensive Plan did not provide that the vesting date for subject property development was December 31, 1992, instead of July 1, 1992 as approved by Clay County. It was suggested by Clay County Planning staff that the Applicant apply for a Concurrency Reservation Certification in order to extend the time for infrastructure construction. The Applicants filed an application for a concurrency reservation certification in September, 1992. The application for Concurrency Reservation Certification filed by the Applicants was a form application provided by Clay County. The form specifies, consistent with existing law as of September, 1992, that the retention basin for the development of the subject property must be designed based upon a twenty- five year frequency, twenty-four hour duration. Or or about October 13, 1992, Clay County issued an Interim Concurrency Reservation Certification, Residential. Completion of infrastructure construction was required by the Certification to be completed by October 13, 1992. Having satisfied itself that the project could be vested if infrastructure construction was completed by October 13, 1992, and that permits necessary for the proposed development had been issued, Hutson purchased the subject property from the Applicants on or about November 19, 1992. The Applicants have also cited certain representations the Applicants made to Hutson concerning the development of the subject property. Those representations are not relevant. At issue are representations by Clay County to Hutson. Clay County cannot be estopped by actions or representations from the Applicants. The Applicant's and Hutson's Detrimental Reliance. The Applicants have suggested that they will suffer certain consequences if the subject equitable vested rights certificate is not issued. Those consequences are not, however, relevant. The Applicants are no longer the owners of the subject property and are, therefore, not entitled to a vested rights certificate. Additionally, in light of the conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, it is not clear that the alleged consequences will occur if the certificate sought by the Applicants in this matter is not granted. Hutson has incurred the costs of $367,414.21 for the installation of water, sewer, roads and drainage improvements to the subject property. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Hutson, if required to build a twenty-five year, twenty-four hour retention basin, will be required to redesign, re-permit and re-plat the development. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended by Clay County Ordinance 92-22 have been met.
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this case had previously been owned by an individual who had begun development of the subject property and adjoining property (hereinafter referred to as the "Dawkins' Property"), in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Part of the Dawkins Property was developed and has been sold (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank Tract"). The subject property (hereinafter referred to as the "Golden Tract"), was acquired by Golden/Jacksonville Co. in December, 1986. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied Upon by the Applicant. Most of the Dawkins Property, including most of the Golden Tract, was approved and zoned in 1977 by Clay County for development as a shopping center. A part of the Golden Tract (hereinafter referred to as the "Multifamily Tract"), however, was not zoned for development as a shopping center at that time. Part of the Dawkins Property (the Bank Tract) was fully developed as a bank. Various environmental permits required to further develop the Dawkins Property, less the Bank Tract and the Multifamily Tract, as a shopping center were acquired by the previous owner of the property. Permits were issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the St. Johns Water Management District. Prior to purchasing the Golden Tract, the Applicant sought assurance of Clay County that the Golden Tract (but not the Multifamily Tract) was zoned for development as a shopping center. Clay County, in a letter dated December 9, 1985, confirmed that development of the Golden Tract as a shopping center was consistent with the then current zoning for the property. In confirming the zoning of the Golden Tract, Clay County notified the Applicant that it would be necessary that a traffic signal be installed at an intersection on Blanding Boulevard which would be impacted by the shopping center. In 1987, the Applicant sought and obtained approval of the rezoning of the Multifamily Tract for development as a shopping center. The Applicant submitted a revised site plan for the proposed shopping center dated August 27, 1987 to Clay County for approval in connection with the request to rezone the Multifamily Tract. The site plan included the development of 264,000 square feet of commercial space. The August 27, 1987 revised site plan was approved by Clay County in November, 1987. In May, 1988, the Applicant applied with the Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "DOT"), for a drainage connection permit and a driveway connection permit in connection with providing access to the proposed shopping center. As a condition of issuing the required permit, DOT required that Clay County construct certain intersection improvements on Blanding Boulevard, the main traffic artery adjacent to the Golden Property. The Applicant entered into negotiations with Clay County in order to get the Blanding Boulevard intersection improvements required by DOT completed. On January 9, 1990, the Applicant and Clay County entered into an agreement wherein the Applicant agreed to pay Clay County 50% of the costs (up to a total of $23,000.00) of the DOT-required intersection improvements. The Applicant's Detrimental Reliance. In reliance on Clay County's actions in informing the Applicant that it would be required to provide a traffic signal in order to proceed with the development of the Golden Tract, the Applicant had the traffic signal installed at a cost of $7,500.00. Following approval of the August 27, 1987 revised site plan by Clay County, the Applicant spent approximately $128,000.00 to construct a stormwater retention pond required by the St. Johns River Water Management District. Part of the costs of intersection improvements required by DOT were incurred by the Applicant. The weight of the evidence failed to prove how much the Applicant actually spent, however. The Applicant also proceeded with the development of the Golden Tract, incurring architecture and engineering fees and other costs associated with the proposed development of the Golden Tract. A detailed breakdown of various expenses incurred by the Applicant was included at tab 25 of the documentation filed in support of the Application. Although not all of the expenditures listed at tab 25, i.e., taxes and costs associated with the purchase of the Golden Property, are relevant to the issues in this proceeding, some of the expenditures were incurred in reliance on the actions of Clay County other than approval of zoning of the Golden Tract. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Pursuant to the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan, there are insufficient "peak hour trips" available on the roads impacted by the Golden Tract to accommodate the peak hour trips required for the Golden Tract if it is developed as a shopping center. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended by Clay County Ordinance 92-22 have been met.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Llera Realty, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker, and J.M. Llera is the active real estate broker in that corporation. Llera Realty, Inc., and J.M. Llera represented the buyers in the negotiations for purchase and sale of the subject real property. Coral Realty Corporation is a corporate real estate broker, and Alberto E. Trelles is the active real estate broker with that corporation. Coral Realty Corporation and Alberto Trelles represented the seller in the negotiations for purchasee and sale of the subject property. The property in question was owned by Saul Lerner, who was represented in these negotiations by Julius Friedman, attorney at law. The purchasers were Messrs. Delgado, Salazar and Espino, who are officers of Inter-America Housing Corp., said corporation eventually being the purchaser of the subject property. Lerner made an oral open listing on a piece of real property which included the subject property. Trelles, learning of the open listing, advertised the property to various brokers. Llera was made aware of the availability of the property through Trelles' ad and presented the property to Delgado, Salazar and Espino. Lengthy negotiations followed during which various offers were tendered by the buyers through Llera to Trelles to Friedman in Lerner's behalf. These offers were rejected. Eventually, negotiations centered on a segment of the property, and an offer was made by the buyers for $375,000 on this 7.5-acre tract. This offer was made through Llera to Trelles to Friedman, and was also rejected by Lerner. The buyers then asked to negotiate directly with the seller and agreed to pay a ten percent commission to the brokers in the event of a sale. The buyers then negotiated with the seller and eventually reached a sales price of $410,000 net to the seller for the 7.5 acres which had been the subject of the preceding offer. Buyers executed a Hold Harmless Agreement with the seller for any commission that might become due, agreeing to assume all responsibility for such commissions. The buyers through their corporation, Inter-America Housing Corp., purchased the property and refused to pay commissions on the sale and purchase. Thereafter, the Respondents brought suit against the buyers and their corporation. The Respondent's suit alleges the facts stated above in greater detail and asserts that the buyers took the Respondent's commission money to which they were entitled under the oral agreement with the buyers and used this money to purchase a portion of the property. The Respondents asked the court to declare them entitled to a commission and declare an equitable lien in their behalf on a portion of the subject property together with punitive damages. In conjunction with this suit, counsel for the Respondents filed a Notice of Lis Pendens. The Respondents questioned the propriety of this in light of Section 475.42(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and were advised by their counsel that the filing of Lis Pendens in this case was proper. The court subsequently struck the Lis Pendens on motion of the defendant buyers; however, the court refused to strike the portion of the complaint asserting the right to and requesting an equitable lien in behalf of the Respondents.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the real estate licenses of the Respondents. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Harold E. Scherr, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Peter M. Lopez, Esquire 202 Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 ================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF LLERA REALTY, INC., J. M. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL LLERA, CORAL REALTY CORP. OF FLORIDA and ALBERTO TRELLES, THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 1980 Appellants, vs. BOARD OF REAL ESTATE (formerly Florida Real Estate Commission), Appellee. / Opinion filed July 1, 1980. An Appeal from the Board of Real Estate. Lopez & Harris and Peter M. Lopez, for appellants. Howard Hadley and Kenneth M. Meer and Salvatore A. Cappino, for appellee. Before NESBITT, PEARSON, DANIEL, JJ., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge. PEARSON, TILLMAN, (Ret.), Associate Judge. This appeal by respondents Llera Realty, Inc., J.M. Llera, Coral Realty Corp. and Alberto Trelles is brought to review the administrative decision of the Florida Real Estate Commission (now known as the Board of Real Estate), which suspended the licenses of the respondents for thirty days. The complaint filed by the Commission charge that the respondents had violated Section 475.42(l)(j), Florida Statutes (1977), by filing a notice of lis pendens on real estate in a court action brought to recover a real estate commission. 1/ The hearing officer entered a recommended order finding that the respondents had, in fact, recorded a lis pendens on real estate in order to collect the commission, and concluding that as a matter of law, the cited section was unconstitutional as applied in this case because "[o]n its face and without such limitations, the statute has a chilling effect on the right of the broker or salesman to seek redress in the courts because persons subject to the statute may have their license revoked or suspended and be prosecuted criminally." The commission rejected that portion of the hearing officer's conclusions of law which held the application of the statute to the respondents to be unconstitutional and, accordingly, the respondents were found guilty and their licenses suspended for thirty days. We affirm. The only substantial question argued in this court is whether the classification by the statute of real estate brokers and salesmen as a class of person who may not use the filing of a lis pendens in connection with a civil lawsuit filed in order to collect a real estate commission is a classification so unreasonable because real estate brokers and salesmen are privileged by the statutory law of this state in the collection of commissions. Section 475.41, Florida Statutes (1977), in effect, provides that only a real estate broker who is properly registered". . . at the time the act or service was performed "may maintain a court action for the collection of a commission for the sale of real estate. As stated in Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 425 (1927), with regard to the real estate business, "No business known to modern society has a longer or more respectable history." In this regard, the statutory law of this state demands a high standard of those engaging in the real estate business. Section 475.17 et seq., Florida Statutes (1977), through the onus of revocation or suspension of registration, demands an exemplary level of behavior within the profession; Section 475.42, Florida Statutes (1977), enumerates various violations and the consequent penalties to be exacted against those who are not properly registered; and Sections 475.482 et seq., by creating the Florida Real Estate Recovery Fund to reimburse persons who have suffered monetary damages at the hands of those registered under this chapter, demonstrate this state's recognition of the sensitive and privileged position of those engaged in real estate to the public at large. Furthermore, it is well- established by the case law of this state that real estate brokers and salesmen occupy a position of confidence toward the public. See the discussion in Foulk v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 113 So. 2d 714, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). And see Gabel v. Kilgore, 157 Fla. 420, 26 So.2d 166 (1946); and Ahern v. Florida Real Estate Commission ex rel. O'Kelley, 149 Fla. 706, 6 So.2d 857 (1942). The work of real estate brokers and salesmen is intimately connected with the transfer of title to real estate. It is natural that their experience and knowledge in such matters should be greater than that of the people they serve in their profession. The denial to this privileged group of the availability of a lis pendens when used to collect a commission on the sale of the same real estate on which they have secured, or have attempted to secure, the transfer of title is not the denial of a right of access to the courts. It is simply the denial of a special tool which might be misused by some members of his privileged group to the disadvantage of the public. Finding no error, we affirm the administrative decision.
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. During 1973, Mode, Inc., applied for and obtained approval of Planned Unit Development (hereinafter referred to as "PUD") zoning for approximately 620 acres of real property known as Ridaught Landing located on County Road 209 in Clay County. In December of 1986, Mode, Inc., sold approximately 470 acres of Ridaught Landing to Village of Fireside, Inc. This 470 acre parcel (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), is the subject of this proceeding. Purchase money financing and construction financing for the purchase and development of the Property was provided by Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A. (hereinafter referred to as "Barnett"). In November of 1988 Barnett assigned its interest in the Property to the Petitioner simultaneously with the closing of financing by the Petitioner on the Property to Villages of Fireside, Inc. Villages of Fireside, Inc., subsequently defaulted on its indebtedness to the Petitioner and in April, 1992, the Petitioner accepted a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure for the Property. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied Upon by the Petitioner. In November of 1985, the PUD was amended. As a condition of the amendment, Clay County required that 212 acres of uplands and associated wetlands be dedicated to a homeowner's association associated with the Property. The 212 acres were to be used as preservation area and for the construction of nature walks, gazebos and recreational areas. In January of 1988 Villages of Fireside, Inc., applied for approval of a further amendment to the PUD. Among other things, approval of a separate entrance to the Property was requested. The amendment was approved. As a result of the January, 1988 amendment, the PUD properties are to be developed as two separate subdivisions, known as Ridaught Landing and the Villages of Fireside. Development of the Villages of Fireside subdivision was approved for up to 400 single-family dwelling units within the residential portion, (b) 16 acres of recreational and private services uses, including a day-care center and a private park, and (c) the 212 acre preservation area. Villages of Fireside, Inc., submitted a plat to Clay County for the Villages of Fireside subdivision Unit One in 1988. The final plat for Unit One was approved March 22, 1988. Clay County required that the entrance to Unit One be constructed with an 80 foot right of way to accommodate the development of the entire project as approved by the PUD, as amended. The Petitioner's Detrimental Reliance. In reliance upon Clay County's approval of the PUD and amendments thereto and approval of the final plat of Unit One Villages of Fireside, Inc.: Constructed master infrastructure improvements (water and sewer systems, master roads and an oversized drainage facility) for the project at a cost of approximately $706,427.00. These improvements were made between February and October of 1988. Constructed entry features for the project at a cost of approximately $21,465.00. These improvements were made between December of 1988 and June of 1989. Constructed a nature walk through the 212 acre preservation area at a cost of approximately $97,593.00. These improvements were made between November of 1988 and January of 1989. Upon the assignment of Barnett's interest in the Property to the Petitioner in November of 1988, financing by the Petitioner for the Property to Villages of Fireside, Inc., closed. The Petitioner, therefore, refinanced construction of improvements made by Villages of Fireside, Inc., in reliance on Clay County's approval of the PUD, with amendments, and the final plat for Unit One. The Petitioner refinanced the project in reliance upon Clay County's approval of the PUD, with amendments, and the final plat for Unit One. The Petitioner considered the PUD zoning to be true and correct at the time of refinancing and the Petitioner's loan officer believed that the Property was approved for development of at least 400 single-family residential units at the time of refinancing. In reliance on Clay County's actions, proceeds were distributed by the Petitioner for construction of the nature walk through the 212 acre preservation area. The Petitioner also released the 212 acre preservation area from the lien of its mortgage on the Property so that it could be conveyed to the homeowner's association as common area. This release was made in reliance on Clay County's actions. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. Development of the Property will impact County Road 220. Pursuant to the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan, there is insufficient capacity on the portion of County Road 220 that will be impacted by development of the Property to accommodate traffic projected to be generated by the Property as approved. If the Petitioner must comply with the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan it will be required to delay completion of the project until County Road 220 is improved. Such a delay will have a substantial adverse financial impact upon the Petitioner. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
