The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission should promulgate a rule establishing the Brooks of Bonita Springs Community Development District.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lincoln A. Herreid, was, at all times material hereto, licensed to practice land surveying in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3015. At issue in these proceedings are three surveys, which Respondent admits he performed, signed and sealed, to wit: A survey of the real property located at 9 East Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida; a survey of a portion of the real property located in Florida Fruitland Company's Subdivision No. One, Dade County, Florida; and, a survey of the real property located at 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue, Miami, Florida. 9 East Lucy Street Survey On December 17, 1983, Respondent signed and sealed a Sketch of Survey" for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Hays Subdivision, Plat Book 55, Page 53, Public Records of Dade County, Florida, commonly known as 9 East Lucy Street, Florida City, Florida. The Lucy Street property is rectangular in shape, and abuts streets on its north, east and west sides. The survey shows only one angle and no bearings, fails to reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection of a street or right-of-way, and fails to reflect whether any monument was found, or set, at the southeast corner of the property. The evidence establishes that no monument was found, or set, at the southeast corner of the property. Respondent avers that no monument was set because debris, composed of paints and chemicals, preempted the area and precluded the setting of a monument. However, no offset witness point was set, nor did the survey reflect why a monument had not been set. Florida Fruitland Company Subdivision Survey On February 24, 1984, Respondent signed and sealed a "Waiver of Plat," a survey of a portion of Tract 21, Section 15, Township 53 South, Range 40 East, of Florida Fruitland Company's Subdivision No. One, Plat Book 2, Page 17, Public Records of Dade County, Florida. The Waiver of Plat shows only one angle and no bearings, indicates the four corners of the property by "Pipe," without reference to whether the pipe was set or found, fails to reflect the measured distance to the nearest intersection or right-of- way, fails to reference the source documents for the legal description of the property, and fails to provide vertical datum and benchmark descriptions. Further, the survey incorrectly positioned the property, reflected inaccurate boundary measurements, and established an incorrect elevation. The property, which is the subject of the Waiver of Plat, is rectangular in shape, zoned commercial (no side set- backs required), and its front (the northern boundary of the property) abuts Northwest 70th Street, between N.W. 82nd Avenue and N.W. 84th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The evidence establishes that the north/south dimensions of the property, as reflected by Respondent's survey, were overstated by 2.1' on the west boundary line, and 2.01' on the east boundary line. Although Respondent correctly depicted the correct distances of the east/west property line, the positioning of that line in relation to the fractional line was in error by .12', and the northwest and northeast corner placements were in error by .24' and .20', respectively. The elevation established by Respondent's survey was in error by one foot. 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue Survey On June 13, 1984, Respondent signed and sealed a "Sketch of Survey," for Lot 17, Block 6, Addition J., South Miami Heights, Plat Book 68, Page 74, Public Records of Dade County, Florida commonly known as 20301 S.W. 117 Avenue, Miami, Florida. The Sketch of Survey reflects only one angle and no bearings, and failed to set a monument or offset witness point for the northeast corner of the property.
The Issue The issue is whether the application of Thomas J. White Development Company for the establishment of a uniform community development district under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The facilities and services that will be provided by the St. Lucie West Services District are the financing, constriction, ownership, operation, and maintenance of the surface water management and control system for the area, and necessary bridges and culverts. The land encompassed by the proposed development district is a development of regional impact. The final revised development order for the area was issued on February 27, 1989, by the City of Port St. Lucie. Exhibit 4. The land within the proposed district is composed of approximately 4,600 contiguous acres located in the city. The proposed district is bounded on the north and south by the city. The western and eastern boundaries are Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike, respectively. A map showing the location of the area to be serviced by the proposed district is found in Exhibit 2; a metes and bounds legal description of the proposed district is attached to the petition as Exhibit 1. The overall development to be serviced by the district will include a variety of single family and multifamily housing units, as well as commercial, industrial, and educational uses. A portion of the future land use map for the City of Port St. Lucie was received in evidence as Exhibit 3, and shows approved land uses for the St. Lucie West area. In the proceedings leading to the issuance of the development order, the city determined that the St. Lucie West development would be consistent with all applicable state, regional, and local comprehensive plans and policies. The proposed development of the district is consistent with the City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan: 1985, as amended. Exhibit 12. Ernest R. Dike, Jr. is the director of development of Thomas J. White Development Company. He is an expert engineer experienced in the planning, construction and management of large scale communities. Mr. Dike has substantial experience as a civil engineer, and holds an advanced academic degree in planning. He served as director of public works and as city engineer for the City of Port St. Lucie for the three years preceding his employment by White. As White's director of development over the last three and a half years, Mr. Dike assisted in the preparation of the petition; he also identified and explained the exhibits which were admitted into evidence. He assisted in crafting the development order for St. Lucie West which was adopted by the City of Port St. Lucie in February, 1987 and amended on February 27, 1989. Dike has been personally involved with the sales of land from White to other developers of property within the proposed district. All the owners of the real property to be included in the district have given their written consent to the establishment of the proposed district. Since the Thomas J. White Development Company purchased the approximately 4,600 acres which became St. Lucie West, Dike has directed the permitting and approval for all aspects of the project. In the design, White Development Company has accommodated the desires of St. Lucie County to obtain a spring training facility for a professional baseball team. White Development Company agreed to give the county 100 acres of land to build a training facility for the New York Mets. A predevelopment order for the stadium was obtained, which permitted the development of certain roads, a bridge over the Florida Turnpike, and an interchange with Interstate 95 which will all provide access to St. Lucie West These transportation facilities were completed without the use of any state or federal funds. None of these expenses will be born by the proposed district. The establishment of the district would not be inconsistent with any of the elements or provisions of the state comprehensive plan, the regional plan, or the local comprehensive plan. Creation of the district would be the best alternative available for providing water management and control facilities for the land encompassed by the proposed district. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the City of Port St. Lucie have concluded that when fully developed, the land would discharge no additional water into the city's stormwater system as compared to the contribution of stormwater by the land made before it was developed by White. Mr. Dike also testified about the debt service required to amortize the debt on any benefit bonds issued by the proposed district, and the cost of operation and maintenance of the surface water control facilities to be constructed by the proposed district. Mr. Dike prepared a spread sheet entitled "Projected Statement of Cash Flow for the Years 1990-2000". (Exhibit 18). The estimated construction costs for water management facilities in the projection are reasonable. Based on White's plans for the district, and utilizing the assumptions for absorption of the residential and commercial space to be constructed, the benefit and maintenance taxes are projected to begin at $114 per taxable unit per year. These benefit and maintenance taxes will rise to no more than $170 per taxable unit per year in 1996. These projections are consistent with the testimony of Mr. Dike and of Dr. Henry Fishkind, an economist. All assumptions made in projecting future benefit taxes are reasonable. While these projections do not bind the district, which is not yet formed, and the district's electors could ultimately decide to assume additional responsibilities, the evidence shows that the benefit and maintenance taxes projected are adequate to pay the debt to be incurred by the proposed construction of surface water management facilities. Lester L. Solin, Jr., testified as an expert in land use planning. He was a planning consultant with the City of Port St. Lucie when the development of St. Lucie West by White Development Company was first under consideration, and worked with the city to formulate the overall development plan. St. Lucie West has been integrated into the future land use map for the City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan: 1985. Mr. Solin is also familiar with the state comprehensive plan. He has reviewed the application for development approval for the St. Lucie West development of regional impact. The proposed district would be consistent with the state comprehensive plan, Chapter 187 Florida Statutes. Mr. Solin is also familiar with the City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan: 1985 (Exhibit 12). The creation of the St. Lucie West Services District would not be inconsistent with any of the goals, objectives or policies in that plan. Peter L. Pimentel is the current executive director of the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District (NPBWD). Mr. Pimentel testified as an expert in special district management, planning, staffing, reporting, and coordination with local governments. As the director of the Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District, he oversees a staff which works with other regulatory agencies on permitting, implementation, planning, construction and operation of water management systems. He coordinates construction with contractors, and engineers, and works with lawyers in carrying out the policies established by the district board of directors. The land encompassed by the NPBWD is approximately 200,000 acres. Mr. Pimentel has substantial experience, having worked as the executive director for two large independent special taxing districts, which are similar in structure and have similar powers as the community development district which White Development Company wishes to establish. Mr. Pimentel's testimony was especially persuasive due to his experience with water control entities. The proposed district is the best alternative available for financing, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining the surface water management and control facility for the area encompassed by the proposed district. It provides a more efficient use of resources, and provides the opportunity for new growth in the district to pay for its own surface water management, rather than imposing that cost on general government. The proposed district would not be incompatible with the capacity or uses of existing local and regional community services and facilities. The area to be served by the proposed district is amenable to separate special- district government. Henry H. Fishkind, Ph.D. testified as an expert economist about the economic consequences of establishing a community development district under Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, the economic consequences of financing the surface water management and control system through the use of tax exempt bonds, and the cost of operating and maintaining those structures by a community development district. Dr. Fishkind prepared the economic impact statement for the proposed district required by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The costs to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, and to state and local agencies in reviewing the petition are minimal. The costs to the City of Port St. Lucie and to St. Lucie County have been covered by the $15,000 filing fee which White paid to each of those governments. The cost to the City of Port St. Lucie once the district is operating would be negligible. The potential debt of the proposed district will not become general obligations or debts of the city or county governments. The cost of the surface water improvements will be paid by those who benefit from them. The economic impact statement is adequate, and meets the requirements of Section 124.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes. During the first six years, the proposed district would be controlled by Thomas J. White Development Company since White still would be the largest landowner. Tax exempt benefit bonds would be issued to construct the surface water management facilities. Both White and residents of the proposed district would share the burden of amortizing these bonds through benefit taxes. According to Dr. Fishkind, whose opinion is credited, from an economic perspective: The creation of the St. Lucie West District is not inconsistent with the state and local comprehensive plan; The land to be served by the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as a functional interrelated community; The proposed district is the best alternative for providing surface water management for the community, since other alternatives such as municiple service taking units or homeowners' associations are more expensive or more cumbersome; The area to be served by the proposed district is amenable to separate special-district government. All factors which are required to be considered in establishing a community development district under Section 190.005(1)(e), Florida Statutes, were analyzed by the witnesses presented by the Thomas White Development Company. Their testimony was persuasive, and the application meets all requirements of Chapter 190.
Conclusions Based on the record made, it is concluded: That all statements contained in the petition are true and correct; The creation of the proposed district is not inconsistent with any applicable element of the state comprehensive plan, or the City of Port St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan; The area in the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developed as one functional, interrelated community; The district is the best alternative for delivering water management services to the area to be serviced by the district, and would be superior to the creation of a municipal service taxing unit, a homeowner's association, or to providing water management by the general county government of St. Lucie County; The community development services provided by the proposed district will not be incompatible with the capacity or uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities; The area to be served by the proposed district is amenable to separate special district government. Accordingly it is recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the petition of the Thomas J. White Development Company and adopt a rule pursuant to Section 190.005(f), Florida Statutes (1987), establishing the St. Lucie West Services District. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. William R. Dorsey, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of September, 1989 APPENDIX A Case No. 89-0072 Witnesses Earnest R. Dike, Jr., 590 NW Peacock Loop, Port St. Lucie, Florida. Lester L. Solin, Solin and Associates, 901 Douglas Avenue, Suite 207, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Peter Pimentel, 5725 Corporate Way, Suite 203, West Palm Beach Florida. Dr. Henry H. Fishkind, 201 North New York Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, Florida. APPENDIX B Case No. 89-0072 List of Documentary Evidence Exhibit 1. Petition for Rulemaking filed by Thomas J. White Development Company, Inc., including seven exhibits. Exhibit 2. Location Map for the proposed St. Lucie West Services District. Exhibit 3. Future Land Use Map for the area Exhibit 4. Resolution 89-R7 of the city council of Port St. Lucie, Florida, which is the development order for the St. Lucie West Development of Regional Impact. Exhibit 5. Transmittal letter for the Petition for the establishment of the Services District to the City of Port St. Lucie and filing fee, and transmittal letter for the St. Lucie West Development District to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners, and filing fee. Exhibit 6. Transmittal letter for the Petition for the establishment of St. Lucie West Services District to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Exhibit 7. Letter from the staff of the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission determining that the Petition appears to satisfy the requirements of Section 190.005, Florida Statutes, and Rule 42-1.009 Florida Administrative Code. Exhibit 8. Resolution 89-R6 from the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida supporting the petition of the Thomas J. White Development Company, Inc. for the establishment of the St. Lucie West Services District. Exhibit 9. Resolution 89-41 of the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County supporting the petition of Thomas J. White Development Company, Inc. for the establishment of the St. Lucie West Services District. Exhibit 10. Proof of publication in the local newspapers and in the Florida Administrative Weekly of the Notice of the Hearing on the petition for the establishment of the community development district and notices to other interested persons. Exhibit 11. Copy of the State Comprehensive Plan Chapter 187, Florida Statutes (1987) Exhibit 12. Copy of the Comprehensive Plan: 1985 of the City of Port St. Lucie, Ordinance 85-102. Exhibit 13. Resume of Ernest R. Dike, Jr., P.E. APPENDIX B CONT. Case No. 89-0072 Exhibit 14. Permit granted to Thomas J. White Development Company, Inc. by the South Florida Water Management District for the construction and operation of a water management system. Exhibit 15. The prepared testimony Lester L. Solin, Jr. Exhibit 16. The resume of Peter L. Pimentel. Exhibit 17. The prepared testimony of Henry H. Fishkind, Ph.D. Exhibit 18. The additional prepared testimony of Mr. Dike including the computer generated spread sheet. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Lee Worsham, Esquire HONIGAMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ and COHN 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 600 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James C. Vaughn Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 William Buezett The Governor, Legal and Legislative Office The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Carla Stanford, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerville Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 David McIntyre, Esquire County Attorney 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Roger Orr, Esquire City Attorney 220 South Second Street Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Patty Woodworth, Director Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Planning & Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Talbott and Drake, Inc. is and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker corporation. William F. Talbott is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. Paul P. Drake is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. Helen C. Drake is now and was at all times alleged herein a registered real estate broker and active firm member of Talbott and Drake, Inc. On or about January 18, 1977, William F. Talbott, on behalf of Talbott and Drake, Inc., negotiated a contract for sale and purchase between the High Ridge Water Company -- John H. McGeary, Jr., sellers, and William Montaltos and Genevieve L. Montaltos, his wife, buyers, for the purchase of lot in a new housing area known as River Forest in the Boca Raton area, Palm Beach County. A copy of said contract, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, is received into the record pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Said contract, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, was subject to the declarations of restrictions filed by High Ridge Water Company as seller on June 28, 1976, wherein, in Paragraph 7, the developer retained the right to approve or disapprove the plans and specifications for the construction of any structure, building, fence, wall or sign in the River Forest area. A copy of said declarations of restrictions is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 2, pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. As a part of the restrictions and provisions of the contract, the purchasers, Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos, were required to use a builder selected from a list of designated builders, approved and designated by Talbott and Drake, Inc. and the High Ridge Water Company. Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos decided to build on the subject property and contacted numerous builders designated by Talbott and Drake, Inc. to submit the bids for the construction of a home on the property. On or about June 9, 1976, the McGeary partnership, as developer of the River Forest area, entered into a joint venture agreement with Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc., whereby Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. purchased lots in the River Forest area and agreed to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a five-percent commission on all homes constructed on said lots by Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. in the River Forest area. A copy of said joint venture agreement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 3 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 recites on the first page of said agreement as follows: WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, by that certain Purchase Agreement intended to be executed this date, BUILDER (Group Six Collaborative, Inc.) is agreeing to purchase certain real property as set forth herein, a copy of which Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; . . . (emphasis added) WHEREAS, the parties hereto are desirous of forming a joint venture for the purpose of finan- cing, constructing and selling single family residences upon the property described in Exhibit 1; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the pro- mises and of the mutual covenants of the parties hereto, and for other good and valuable considera- tion, the parties agree as follows: 9. BROKER. The parties agree that TALBOTT AND DRAKE, INC., a Florida real estate brokerage corporation, shall have an exclusive listing agree- ment with BUILDER, as owner and joint venturer, for the sale of residences to be constructed pursuant to this Agreement, a copy of which Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. As a commission for their services, which shall include but not be limited to, advertising, manning model houses, showing receiving of deposits, qualifying prospects, assisting in obtaining financing for purchasers, they shall receive five percent (5 percent) of the pur- chase price, according to the provisions contained in Exhibit 2. The joint venture agreement, Petitioner's Exhibit 3, is clearly limited to houses to be constructed on the lots purchased from the McGeary partnership. The agreement does not constitute an agreement to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a fee of five percent of the construction cost of any custom home built by one of the designated builders on a lot purchased by an individual. When Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos received the bid statement from Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc. there was noted thereon: "Add Real Estate Commission as per Talbott and Drake contract." A copy of said bid statement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Although Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos were informed that Talbott and Drake, Inc. was to be paid a ten-percent commission by the seller on the sale of the property to Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos, they were at no time informed directly by the Respondents that the builders on the "approved list" were required to pay a five-percent commission to Talbott and Drake, Inc., nor that the said five- percent commission would be passed on to Mr. and Mrs. Montaltos when they contracted with an "approved" builder to construct a home on the subject property. On or about February 4, 1977, William F. Talbott, on behalf of Talbott and Drake, Inc., negotiated the contract for sale and purchase between High Ridge Water Company, as seller, and Donald James Kostuch and Mary Louise Kostuch, his wife, buyers, for purchase of a lot in the River Forest area of Palm Beach County. A copy of said contract is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 5 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. Mr. and Mrs. Kostuch were required by the contract to select a builder from an approved list of designated builders approved and supplied by Talbott and Drake, Inc. and seller, High Ridge Water Company. Mr. and Mrs. Kostuch selected Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. from the list supplied by Talbott and Drake, Inc. Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. had an agreement with the McGeary partnership and Talbott and Drake, Inc. similar to that outlined in the joint venture agreement between the McGeary partnership in Group Six Developers Collaborative, Inc., Petitioner's Exhibit 3, whereby Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. agreed to pay Talbott and Drake, Inc. a five-percent commission on any residence that Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. built in the River Forest area. The bid supplied by Snow Realty and Construction, Inc. on March 7, 1977, to Talbott and Drake, Inc. contained a listing of real estate commission to Talbott and Drake, Inc. in the amount of $3,652. A copy of said bid statement is received into the record as Petitioner's Exhibit 6 pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties. The Kostuchs were advised of a five-percent fee to be paid by the builder by a salesman working for another broker who first introduced the Kostuchs to the real property in River Forest. The salesman advised the Kostuchs prior to their entry into the contract for the purchase of the lot in River Forest in which they agreed to limit their choice of builder to one approved by the McGeary partnership and Talbott and Drake, Inc. This disclosure would be sufficient to comply with the provisions of Rule 21V-10.13, Florida Administrative Code, because the fee was revealed by a salesperson involved in the transaction prior to the execution of the contract under which the favor, if any, was granted. Talbott and Drake, Inc., in addition to performing services as listing agent for the sale of homes in River Forest, also functioned as the prime developer in this project pursuant to an agreement with High Ridge Water Company and the McGeary partnership. Regarding the Montaltos' transaction, the limitation of the owners to the use of one of the approved builders constitutes the granting or placement of favor, because it narrows the competition to one of five builders out of all the builders available in the Fort Lauderdale area. The affidavits introduced indicate that, notwithstanding the absence of a written agreement, the designated builders had agreed to pay to Talbott and Drake, Inc. a fee of five percent of the cost of construction of any custom home as compensation for the efforts of Talbott and Drake, Inc. in developing the property. While compensation for these services is reasonable, it still constitutes a fee to be paid Talbott and Drake, Inc. from one of the five designated builders who would benefit from the contract. The potential adverse effect of this arrangement was to transfer a cost generally allocated to the cost of the lot to the cost of the house. Therefore, people shopping for a lot could be misled in the comparison of similar lots in different subdivisions in the absence of being advised of the fee to be paid by the builders to Talbott and Drake, Inc. However, the evidence shows no attempt to keep this fee a secret and thereby mislead buyers. The existence of such a fee is referred to in sales literature prepared by Talbott and Drake, Inc. The Kostuchs were advised of the fee by a participating salesman for another real estate company. The builders set out the fee as a separate cost item as opposed to absorbing it in general costs within their bids. While the Respondents could not produce evidence that the Montaltos' had been advised of the existence of the fee, and the Montaltos' testified that they had not been advised, this appears to be an isolated incident as opposed to a course of conduct. Notwithstanding proof of the above, no evidence is presented that the Montaltos' contracted with a designated builder to build their house, and that a designated builder paid a fee to Talbott and Drake, Inc. To the contrary, the testimony of William Talbott was that the Montaltos' had breached the terms of their contract regarding the use of a designated builder.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a letter of reprimand to Talbott and Drake, Inc. which, in fairness to the Respondents, should set out the specifics of the violation and to further apprise other registrants of the potential dangers of such fee arrangement. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Charles M. Holcomb, Esquire 653 Brevard Avenue Post Office Box 1657 Cocoa, Florida 32922
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Martin S. Steinhardt was president of FGCRE and was a qualifying real estate broker for this corporation. Steinhardt was also the president and operator of Gold Coast School of Real Estate III, Inc. (GCSRE), which is not a party to this proceeding, during the pertinent period. On May 8, 1979, Steinhardt, on behalf of GCSRE, entered into a lease with Robin Cook pertaining to two units of a condominium office building in West Palm Beach. Numerous problems arose thereafter culminating in the eviction of GCSRE by Court Order issued on September 30, 1981. Petitioner established that the lease was in violation of the condominium association by-laws. This was, however, the responsibility of the lessor who was a member of the association and bound by its rules. The disputes which arose over parking, noise, damage to property, etc. were landlord-tenant matters and are not relevant to the statutes under which Respondents are charged here. Steinhardt and GCSRE violated local ordinances by failing to obtain an occupation license, a building permit, and a certificate of occupancy. However, these violations were resolved when the necessary documents were secured, and no formal legal action was taken. Vannoy Banks was associated with Steinhardt in the operation of FGCRE. He obtained a listing on a house which was subsequently purchased by an employee of FGCRE. Banks believed he was entitled to 50 percent of the $1,300 sales commission, which had been reduced and deferred to accommodate the buyer. Following this sale, Banks and Steinhardt dissolved their relationship and have subsequently been involved in disputes and litigation over other matters. Banks has not been paid a share of this commission nor has he received an accounting on the transaction. The testimony of the buyer and seller established that a commission of $1,300 was paid on the transaction. Steinhardt concedes that he did not deliver any of these funds to Banks nor did he furnish a formal accounting. However, he contends that Banks was not due a separate commission since he shared in the corporate profits and that Banks never demanded a commission share or an accounting.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings, it is RECOMMENDED: The Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia G. T. Allen, Esquire Gerald S. Lesher, Esquire 189 Bradley Place Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Rod Tennyson, Esquire 325-C Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Vernon J. Quigley 8920 North Military Trail Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' Motions for Attorney's Fees should be granted, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of counsel, the papers filed herein, and the underlying record made a part of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this attorney's fees dispute, Petitioners, Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. (Anderson Columbia) (Case No. 00-0754F), Panhandle Land & Timber Company, Inc. (Panhandle Land) (Case No. 00-0755F), Support Terminals Operating Partnership, L.P. (Support Terminals) (Case No. 00-0756F), Commodores Point Terminal Corporation (Commodores Point) (Case No. 00-0757F), and Olan B. Ward, Sr., Martha P. Ward, Anthony Taranto, Antoinette Taranto, J.V. Gander Distributors, Inc., J.V. Gander, Jr., and Three Rivers Properties, Inc. (the Ward group) (Case No. 00-0828F), have requested the award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in successfully challenging proposed Rule 18-21.019(1), Florida Administrative Code, a rule administered by Respondent, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board). In general terms, the proposed rule essentially authorized the Board, through the use of a qualified disclaimer, to reclaim sovereign submerged lands which had previously been conveyed to the upland owners by virtue of their having filled in, bulkheaded, or permanently improved the submerged lands. The underlying actions were assigned Case Nos. 98- 1764RP, 98-1866RP, 98-2045RP, and 98-2046RP, and an evidentiary hearing on the rule challenge was held on May 21, 1998. That proceeding culminated in the issuance of a Final Order in Support Terminals Operating Partnership, L.P. et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 21 F.A.L.R. 3844 (Div. Admin. Hrngs., Aug. 8, 1998), which determined that, except for one challenged provision, the proposed rule was valid. Thereafter, in the case of Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 748 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), the court reversed the order below and determined that the rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners then filed their motions. Fees and Costs There are eleven Petitioners seeking reimbursement of fees and costs. In its motion, Anderson Columbia seeks reimbursement of attorney's fees "up to the $15,000 cap allowed by statute" while Panhandle Land seeks identical relief. In their similarly worded motions, Support Terminals and Commodores Point each seek fees "up to the $15,000 cap allowed by statute." Finally, the Ward group collectively seeks $9,117.00 in attorney's fees and $139.77 in costs. In the Joint Stipulations of Fact filed by the parties, the Board has agreed that the rate and hours for all Petitioners "were reasonable." As to all Petitioners except the Ward group, the Board has further agreed that each of their costs to challenge the rule exceeded $15,000.00. It has also agreed that even though they were not contained in the motions, requests for costs by Support Terminals, Commodores Point, Anderson Columbia, and Panhandle Land in the amounts of $1,143.22, $1,143.22, $1,933.07, and $1,933.07, respectively, were "reasonable." Finally, the Board has agreed that the request for costs by the Ward group in the amount of $139.77 is "reasonable." Despite the stipulation, and in the event it does not prevail on the merits of these cases, the Board contends that the four claimants in Case Nos. 00-754F, 00-755F, 00-0756F, and 00- 757F should be reimbursed only on a per case basis, and not per client, or $7,500.00 apiece, on the theory that they were sharing counsel, and the discrepancy between the amount of fees requested by the Ward group (made up of seven Petitioners) and the higher fees requested by the other Petitioners "is difficult to understand and justify." If this theory is accepted, it would mean that Support Terminals and Commodores Point would share a single $15,000.00 fee, while Anderson Columbia and Panhandle Land would do the same. Support Terminals and Commodores Point were unrelated clients who happened to choose the same counsel; they were not a "shared venture." Each brought a different perspective to the case since Commodores Point had already received a disclaimer with no reversionary interest while Support Terminals received one with a reversionary interest on June 26, 1997. The latter event ultimately precipitated this matter and led to the proposed rulemaking. Likewise, in the case of Anderson Columbia and Panhandle Land, one was a landowner while the other was a tenant, and they also happened to choose the same attorney to represent them. For the sake of convenience and economy, the underlying cases were consolidated and the matters joined for hearing. Substantial Justification From a factual basis, the Board contends several factors should be taken into account in determining whether it was substantially justified in proposing the challenged rule. First, the Board points out that its members are mainly lay persons, and they relied in good faith on the legal advice of the Board's staff and remarks made by the Attorney General during the course of the meeting at which the Board issued a disclaimer to Support Terminals. Therefore, the Board argues that it should be insulated from liability since it was relying on the advice of counsel. If this were true, though, an agency that relied on legal advice could never be held responsible for a decision which lacked substantial justification. The Board also relies upon the fact that it has a constitutional duty to protect the sovereign lands held in the public trust for the use and benefit of the public. Because lands may be disclaimed under the Butler Act only if they fully meet the requirements of the grant, and these questions involve complex policy considerations, the Board argues that the complexity and difficulty of this task militate against an award of fees. While its mission is indisputably important, however, the Board is no different than other state agencies who likewise are charged with the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. The Board further relies on the fact that the rule was never intended to affect title to Petitioners' lands, and all Petitioners had legal recourse to file a suit to quiet title in circuit court. As the appellate court noted, however, the effect of the rule was direct and immediate, and through the issuance of a disclaimer with the objectionable language, it created a reversionary interest in the State and made private lands subject to public use. During the final hearing in the underlying proceedings, the then Director of State Lands vigorously supported the proposed rule as being in the best interests of the State and consistent with the "inalienable" Public Trust. However, he was unaware of any Florida court decision which supported the Board's views, and he could cite no specific statutory guidance for the Board's actions. The Director also acknowledged that the statutory authority for the rule (Section 253.129, Florida Statutes) simply directed the Board to issue disclaimers, and it made no mention of the right of the Board to reclaim submerged lands through the issuance of a qualified disclaimer. In short, while the Board could articulate a theory for its rule, it had very little, if any, basis in Florida statutory or common law or judicial precedent to support that theory. Although Board counsel has ably argued that the law on the Butler Act was archaic, confusing, and conflicting in many respects, the rule challenge case ultimately turned on a single issue, that is, whether the Riparian Rights Act of 1856 and the Butler Act of 1921 granted to upland or riparian owners fee simple title to the adjacent submerged lands which were filled in, bulkheaded, or permanently improved. In other words, the ultimate issue was whether the Board's position was "inconsistent with the . . . the concept of fee simple title." Anderson Columbia at 1066. On this issue, the court held that the State could not through rulemaking "seek to reserve ownership interests by issuing less than an unqualified or unconditional disclaimer to riparian lands which meet the statutory requirements." Id. at 1067. Thus, with no supporting case law or precedent to support its view on that point, there was little room for confusion or doubt on the part of the Board. E. Special Circumstances In terms of special circumstances that would make an award of fees unjust, the Board first contends that the proposed rule was never intended to "harm anyone," and that none of Petitioners were actually harmed. But the substantial interests of each Petitioner were clearly affected by the proposed rules, and the appellate court concluded that the rule would result in an unconstitutional forfeiture of property. The Board also contends that because it must make proprietary decisions affecting the public trust, it should be given wide latitude in rulemaking. It further points out that the Board must engage in the difficult task of balancing the interests of the public with private rights, and that when it infringes on the private rights of others, as it did here, it should not be penalized for erring on the side of the public. As previously noted, however, all state agencies have worthy governmental responsibilities, but this in itself does not insulate an agency from sanctions. As an additional special circumstance, the Board points out that many of the provisions within the proposed rule were not challenged and were therefore valid. In this case, several subsections were admittedly unchallenged, but the offending provisions which form the crux of the rule were invalidated. Finally, the Board reasons that any moneys paid in fees and costs will diminish the amount of money to be spent on public lands. It is unlikely, however, that any state agency has funds set aside for the payment of attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes (1999).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Deltampa, Inc., a Florida corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of the Deltona Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is the owner of approximately 5,408 acres of property located in northern Hillsborough County, Florida. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 4) Petitioner proposes to develop its property into a functionally interrelated residential community called Tampa Palms, which will ultimately consist of approximately 13,500 single-family and multiple-family dwelling units, a regional shopping center, an industrial park, golf courses, parks and related recreational facilities, commercial and office facilities, and educational facilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 6) The proposed name of the new district shall be the Tampa Palms Community Development District, and its external boundaries are set forth in the Legal Description at Exhibit 4. (Exhibit 4-5) The Tampa Palms development is planned to be constructed over a period of 20 years in four phases of five years each. The total area to be developed consists of approximately nine square miles of which some 60 percent or about 3,000 acres will involve low-density housing or open space, parks, and golf courses. Residential development will take place over 1,651 acres or about 30 percent of the site. A full range of community support facilities planned to meet the needs of the residents will include two school sites, 20 park sites, six church sites, two fire station sites, and two public facility sites, totalling about 300 acres or some six percent of the site. There will be 3,000 single-family residential units and about 10,500 multiple-family units. Density of the 1,650 acres of residential development will be approximately 8.5 units per acre, with 2.2 units per acre for single family units. Maximum density in the multifamily area will be 35 units per acre, and overall density for the entire site is projected to be 2.5 units per acre. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 1A) The site in question is a contiguous parcel which is bordered on the east generally by the lower Hillsborough River flood detention area and the proposed 1-75 right-of-way for the interstate highway which is under construction at the present time. The Hillsborough River runs across the southern portion of the site and Cypress Creek, an ill-defined, non-navigable water course, is on the western portion of the site. The site is approximately 10 miles northeast of Tampa. The property is bisected diagonally northeast to southwest by State Road 581. Interstate highway 1-75 passes by the property at the northwest corner and will eventually merge with the 1-75 Tampa bypass north of the site. The City of Tampa Morris Bridge Water Treatment Plant is located adjacent to the property at the northeast corner on a 60-acre site donated to the city by Deltona and will provide service to residents of Tampa Palms. Hooker's Point Wastewater Facility has a force main within one mile of Tampa Palms and will service the proposed community. The University of South Florida is located immediately to the south of Petitioner's site. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 5) A proposed industrial area will be located in the northeast corner of the property consisting of approximately 75 acres. It is contemplated that only light industry of a research and development type will be conducted there. Additionally, about 150 acres in that general area will be used for shopping centers, hotel, and office facilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz; Exhibits 1, 6) Potable water for the future residents of Tampa Palms will be supplied by the City of Tampa, which operates a water treatment plant adjacent to the northeast corner of the proposed development. Non-potable water will be developed by on-site wells to supply irrigation water to the proposed golf courses. The city water treatment plant has sufficient capacity to supply adequate water supplies to the estimated peak population of 31,700. Off-site wastewater treatment will be provided by the City of Tampa advanced wastewater treatment plant at Hooker's Point. No septic tanks will be used at the Tampa Palms development. Wastewater will be collected by a central system and pumped off site for treatment. Solid waste generated by the development will be collected twice weekly by the Hillsborough County Solid Waste Control Department and will be disposed of at a county landfill site. (Testimony of Apthorp; Exhibits 1, 6) The Hillsborough River has a history of flooding in periods of high water and heavy rainfall in the area surrounding Tampa. Several years ago, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Corps of Engineers entered into a program called the Lower Hillsborough Flood Detention Program which would attempt to restrict the flooding downstream by acquiring some 17,000 acres to the east of the Tampa Palms site, and constructing a dam at the southeast corner of the Tampa Palms property. It is an open structure through which the river flows in normal conditions, but has the capability of being closed in periods of high water and creating a temporary impoundment. This system also includes a levee which parallels the eastern side of the development site, thus providing flood protection from that direction. To prevent flooding of the site from the Cypress Creek system on the west, Petitioner plans to construct an earthen levee along the western boundaries of its property in a north-south direction and laterally across the northern border in an easterly direction until the elevation is sufficient to preclude flooding problems. The structure will have a maximum height of about six feet in the southernmost section and be as high as only two to three feet in the northern portions. It will have a freeboard or additional dirt belt above the 500-year flood level of Cypress Creek of one-and-a-half feet. The levee will have a 10-foot wide top and a six to one foot slope. It will be sodded and grassed to prevent erosion. There will be several drainage structures throughout the levee to allow drainage from the property to pass into Cypress Creek when the waterway is at a low flow level. These will consist of culverts with gate structures which will require monitoring and continuing maintenance to be performed by Petitioner or its successors. Petitioner plans an extensive drainage system for its property to maintain the integrity of the wetlands areas and to prevent pollution and excessive surface runoff into the Hillsborough River. The proposed drainage system for the project will consist of a network of 15-foot wide grassy swales adjacent to streets and rear yards from which runoff will flow into wetlands or lakes, and then through storm water structures to ultimate outfall into the Hillsborough River. The system is designed to permit drainage by gravity through extensive areas of natural vegetation to remove pollutants and result in approximately the same flow into receiving waters as existed prior to development of the property. Some 180 acres of lakes will be created from areas dredged to secure fill for the development. All lake areas will be deeper than six feet to lessen the establishment of aquatic plants and will be monitored for water quality as necessary. About twenty 50-foot long concrete seawalls will be built near the lakes to impound water, thereby creating additional storage, and equipped with piping which will allow the water to slow the drain down after storm events. It is anticipated that such controlled structures will eliminate the potential for any flood-type impacts to downstream users and allow more contact time with natural wetland vegetation. The drainage system will be operated and maintained by Petitioner until such time as an acceptable and qualified public entity assumes such responsibilities. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 14) Fire and police protection will be provided to the proposed district by Hillsborough County. In addition, the County will provide for solid waste collection and issuance of building permits. (Testimony of Motchkavitz, Exhibit 1) Pursuant to application of the Deltona Corporation on November 8, 1979, for approval of a development of regional impact pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.06, F.S., the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners, by Resolution adopted October 1, 1980, issued a Development Order approving the application, subject to various conditions. In the Development Order, the Board of County Commissioners concluded that the development would not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted state land development plan applicable to the area and was consistent with local land development regulations, and with the report and recommendations of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. (Exhibit 7) By Resolution dated May 6, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners expressed its opinion that Petitioner should continue its efforts to establish a community development district for the Tampa Palms development and specifically found that: The creation of a community develop- ment district in conjunction with the development of Tampa Palms is not, in the Board's opinion, inconsistent with the approved Hillsborough County Com- prehensive Land Use Plan or other local land use regulations, and A community development district appears, in the Board's opinion, to be the best alternative available for delivering to and maintaining the com- munity development services and facil- ities in the Tampa Palms area, and The services and facilities to be operated and maintained by the proposed district do not appear to be, in the Board's opinion, incom- atible with the capacity and uses of existing and proposed local and regional community development ser- vices, and The Tampa Palms development, due to its size and location and the extent of community services and facilities to be created within the development appears to be, in the Board's opinion, amenable to separate special district government. (Exhi- bit 2) The five persons designated to serve as initial members of the Board of Supervisors of the proposed community development district are Frank E. Mackle, III; Richard F. Schulte, William I. Livingston, Paul M. Schaefer, and Edward G. Grafton. It is intended that they shall serve as the Board of Supervisors until replaced in accordance with Section 190.006, F.S. (Petition) The following ultimate findings are made based upon the testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing: All statements contained within the Petition have been found to be true and correct. (Testimony of Apthorp) The creation of the district is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. This finding is supported by the Development Order and subsequent Resolution issued by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners. (Exhibits 2, 7) The area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. This finding is supported by the previous findings of fact concerning the size of the proposed district and the fact that the 5,400 acres are in one contiguous parcel. The district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. This finding is supported by the Development Order issued by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners and its subsequent Resolution acknowledging that a community development district would be the best alternative available for such purposes. Hillsborough County is presently not in a position to provide many of the essential services required by a community of the contemplated size of Tampa Palms, including but not limited to public streets and an extensive surface water management system. The proposed development will result in a substantially self-contained community which will be comprehensively planned so as to provide necessary services required by its residents. A community development district will be in a position to provide reliable operation and maintenance of those services and facilities not otherwise conducted by the County or other appropriate unit of local government. (Exhibits 2, 7) The community development services and facilities of the district will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The proposed development of the property is scheduled, in accordance with the terms of the County Development Order, to coincide with the provision of essential area services which will not be provided by the district. (Exhibits 2, 7) The area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special-district government. This finding is supported by the foregoing findings of fact which establish that the nature and location of the proposed Tampa Palms development would be facilitated and best served by the establishment of a separate special-district government under all of the facts and circumstances.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law hereby submitted, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant the Petition of Deltampa, Inc., and adopt a rule which will establish the Tampa Palms Community Development District, pursuant to Section 190.005(1), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Schumaker, Esquire Deltona Corporation Post Office Box 369 Miami, Florida 33145 Honorable John T. Herndon Secretary, Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing Chapter 253, Florida Statutes on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board). The Board holds title to submerged sovereign lands pursuant to Sections 253.03 and 253.12, Florida Statutes, and Article X, Section 11, Florida Constitution. Fraraccio, together with his wife, owns a parcel of real property located in section 13, township 38 south, range 41 east which is commonly known as 26 High Point Road and which is located in Martin County, Florida. The southern boundary of the Fraraccio's property (subject property) borders the St. Lucie and Indian Rivers. In June, 1987, Fraraccio filed an application for permission to alter mangroves which grow along the shoreline of the subject property. It was Fraraccio's intention to cut the tops of the trees in order to promote horizontal growth. This application was filed with and processed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). On September 1, 1987, DER issued a permit for the mangrove alteration. Pertinent to this proceeding is the following specific condition of the Fraraccio permit: 4. "No person shall commence mangrove alteration or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 16Q-14, if such work is done without consent, or if a person otherwise damages state land or products of state land, the Board of Trustees may levy administrative fines of up to $10,000 per offense. In October, 1987, the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping was asked to survey the west line of the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve (Preserve) at the confluence of the St. Lucie River. Terry Wilkinson, chief surveyor for the bureau, conducted the field survey on October 14-16, 1987. Mr. Wilkinson placed a metal rebar with a cap designating "D.N.R." at a point on the mean high water (MHW) line at the Fraraccio's property. Mr. Wilkinson also staked three points with lathe markers on a line northerly along the MHW line from the rebar monument. It was Mr. Wilkinson's opinion that the Preserve abutted the Fraraccio property from the point marked by the rebar monument northward along the coast. That portion of the Fraraccio property which was south and west of the rebar did not abut the Preserve. Fraraccio disputed the findings regarding the Preserve boundary reached by Wilkinson and did not concede that his property abuts the Preserve. On December 15, 1987, the issue of the Preserve boundary was taken before the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board at the request of the Department, Division of State Lands. Fraraccio was represented before the Board by counsel who argued against the staff recommendation. Mr. Wilkinson's interpretation of the boundary line for the Preserve was approved. That area waterward of the MHW line from the rebar monument northerly along the Fraraccio shoreline was, therefore, deemed to be part of the Preserve and sovereign submerged land. Prior to cutting any mangrove trees, Fraraccio telephoned Casey Fitzgerald, chief of the Department's Bureau of State Lands Management, to inquire as to whether Department permission was required to trim mangroves located above the MHW line. Fitzgerald's letter advised Fraraccio "that trimming mangroves located above the MHW line would not be within the purview of this department." Fitzgerald further recommended that Fraraccio "employ the services of a registered land surveyor to specifically identify the individual trees which are so located." Fraraccio did not obtain an independent survey. Instead, he relied upon the rebar monument and the lathe markers placed by Wilkinson, and contracted to have the mangroves landward of that line trimmed. One of difficulties encountered in determining the location of a mangrove in relation to the MHW line is the fact that one tree may have several trunks and prop roots which emanate from the center of the tree. Consequently, there is some uncertainty regarding how to locate the tree. One method used locates the centermost trunk and considers that point the tree location. Another method calculates the greatest percentage of tree mass and considers that point the center of the tree. This calculated center is then matched against the MHW line. Either method results in a judgment based upon visual inspection. This judgment may differ among reasonable men. In January, 1988, Fraraccio supervised the cutting of mangroves based upon the MHW line as established by the Wilkinson survey. Fraraccio did not intend to cut trees waterward of the MHW line. No trees were cut waterward of the Wilkinson line. A number of trees were trimmed landward of the Wilkinson line. There is no evidence that either the rebar monument or the lathe markers placed by Wilkinson were moved either prior to or after the mangrove alteration. Fraraccio was responsible for the direct supervision of the workmen who completed the mangrove trim. No work was done without Fraraccio's authorization. On March 22, 1988, Kalani Cairns, inspected the Fraraccio property. Cairns took field notes of the inspection. One of comments made at that time was that it was "difficult to determine if MHWL stakes have been moved." Based upon his review of the area, Cairns determined approximately 20 mangrove trees below the MHW line had been topped. Subsequently, the Department issued the Notice of Violation and Order for corrective action. Since Fraraccio did not believe he had cut waterward of the MHW line, no corrective measures were taken. Subsequent to the Notice, additional mangroves were not cut. Fraraccio timely sought review of the notice. In preparation for the formal hearing in this cause, the Department contracted with Greg Fleming to prepare a survey of a portion of the Fraraccio property. The purpose of this second survey was to locate the MHW line along the Fraraccio shoreline and to plot mangrove trees which had been trimmed and which were waterward of the line. Approximately 24 trimmed mangrove trees were located waterward of the MHW line as determined by the Fleming survey. The Fleming survey resulted in a MHW line which was upland of the line established by the Wilkinson survey. The trimmed trees in dispute are located between the two lines, as marked on the ground, by the lathes placed by the two surveyors. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify and no credible explanation was given for why the lines, as marked in the field, differ. At the time of the cutting, however Fraraccio believed the Wilkinson lathes marked the MHW line. This belief was based upon the representations that the Department had made regarding the rebar monument marked "D.N.R." and the fact that the placement of the lathe stakes had coincided with placement of the rebar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Violation against Charles A. Fraraccio. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4309 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted Wilkinson put down three lathes and that there is no evidence that those lathes were moved. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify and, therefore, no evidence was presented on the issue of the lathes. It is clear Fraraccio believed the lathes to be the MHW line. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The MHW line was correctly depicted on the ground and on paper by the Fleming survey which was done after-the-fact. Pertinent to this case is the fact that Fraraccio and DNR treated the Wilkinson survey on the ground (as shown by-the rebar and the three lathes) as the MHW line prior to the cutting. Paragraph 9 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, the record shows Fleming was contacted to perform the second survey in December, 1988, and that it was dated February, 1989. With that modification and clarification, paragraph 10, in substance, is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted to the extent that the two surveys differed on the ground (as opposed to on paper). Paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 accepted but are irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the workmen were instructed not to cut waterward of the MHW line. The remainder is irrelevant to this proceeding. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted Fraraccio cut or trimmed the trees based upon the Wilkinson survey as depicted by the rebar and 3 lathe markers. Otherwise, paragraph 19, is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 17 is accepted since both surveys coincided at the point of the rebar marked "D.N.R.;" otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence since the surveys differed as plotted on the ground. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. The number of trees cut waterward of the MHW line as established by the Fleming survey was approximately The size of the trees is irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Contole McManus, Wiitala & Contole, P.A. O. Box 14125 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Ross S. Burnaman Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
