The Issue Whether the comparable replacement dwellings used by the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (JTA) in the computation of the replacement housing payment offered to Petitioner were sufficient under the requirements of Title 49 C.F.R., Part 24, as adopted under the Florida Department of Transportation Right of Way Manual (Right of Way Manual), and whether Petitioner's property had water access which could be considered a compensable major exterior attribute of Petitioner's residential dwelling.
Findings Of Fact The JTA is a state-chartered authority which is responsible for providing mass transit and building roads and bridges in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner is a commercial fisherman who owned two parcels of land in the eastern part of Jacksonville. He fished the local waters utilizing a boat which he owned. The two parcels of land owned by Petitioner were taken by the JTA under threat of condemnation. The JTA required this land so that it could be used in connection with a road construction project known as the Wonderwood Connector. The two parcels of land were situated adjacent to and on the south side of an unimproved public right-of-way known as Wonderwood Drive. The two parcels of land were internally identified by the JTA as Parcels 400 and 404. Only Parcel 404 is the subject of this case. Parcel 404 had an appraised value of $32,300.00 which the JTA offered to Petitioner for the fee simple title, and which Petitioner accepted. In addition to the value of the fee simple property, Petitioner was also eligible under the applicable statutes and guidelines to an RHP. Petitioner was eligible for a RHP because the cost of comparable replacement housing was in excess of the fair market value of $32,300.00 for Parcel 404. Respondent offered Petitioner an RHP of $35,600.00, which was based on an analysis of three comparable replacement dwellings in accordance with the requirements and procedures of Title 49, C.F.R, Part 24, as adopted by the Right of Way Manual. The JTA uses the Right of Way Manual in its acquisition programs for road, bridge, and highway construction. The comparable replacement dwellings used for computing the RHP were single family houses located 6.5 miles, 7.4 miles, and 6.4 miles from Parcel 404. They were functionally equivalent to Petitioner's displacement dwelling. Additionally, the comparable replacement dwellings used performed the same function, and provide a comparable or better style of living, as the displacement dwelling. The comparable replacement dwellings were reasonably accessible to Petitioner's place of employment. In other words, they were reasonably located near saltwater. Parcel 404 was not adjacent to any body of water. The title to Parcel 404 did reserve to the owner the right to use a platted easement for pedestrian access to Greenfield Creek, which was a saltwater creek. This easement was located south of Wonderwood Drive. This easement was not, by its terms, available for commercial uses and in fact was not used by Petitioner. North of Parcel 404, and slightly to the east, across Wonderwood Drive, Petitioner, prior to his difficulties with the JTA, maintained a floating dock on Greenfield Creek at which he moored his commercial fishing boat. Access to the dock was located on a right-of-way owned by the City of Jacksonville. It was convenient for Petitioner to walk across the road, embark on his boat, and go about his business as a fisherman. Petitioner believed that he had a right to ingress the area of the floating dock and believed he should have been compensated for the loss of this convenience as part of his RHP. The comparable properties used to determine the RHP were not so convenient to saltwater and, had Petitioner lived on any of the properties, he would have found it necessary to pull his boat on a trailer to a public launching ramp in order to conduct his fishing business. Because Petitioner had no right, title, or legal interest in the floating dock or the ground beneath it, the use of the area could not be considered to be a major exterior attribute of Parcel 404. There was no legal connection between Parcel 404 and the city's right-of-way on the saltwater creek, which Petitioner had used for his fishing business.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued denying Petitioner's claim for additional compensation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 22nd day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Thomas Route 1, Box 223T Nahunta, Georgia 31553 David Cohen, Esquire John C. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Edwards & Cohen, P.A. 200 North Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioners’ failure to appear at the scheduled telephonic final hearing.
Findings Of Fact Upon receipt of the Petitions for Relief at the Division, Initial Orders were issued on October 24, 2012, requiring Petitioners to coordinate a joint response to provide certain information within seven days or to file a unilateral response if a joint response was not possible. Neither Petitioners nor Respondents responded to the Initial Order in either case. Case I was initially set for final hearing on December 17, 2012, by video teleconference at sites in Pensacola and Tallahassee, Florida. Case II was initially set for final hearing on December 27, 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. Prior to consolidation of the cases, Respondent Hamilton requested a continuance of the final hearing scheduled in Case I. Hamilton’s correspondence, which was taken as a motion, represented that Hamilton had attempted to contact Petitioners to determine whether they would agree to a continuance, that Hamilton had left a voice message with Petitioners, and that Petitioners had not responded. At the direction of the undersigned, the Division also attempted to contact Petitioners to determine their position on the requested continuance. Division personnel also left voice messages with Petitioners. On December 10, 2012, Michael Edwards contacted Division staff, identified himself as Petitioners’ son, stated he had received the messages, and represented that Petitioners had no objection to a continuance. Further, Mr. Edwards explained that a continuation would be needed because Myrna Edwards was recovering from major surgery and McArthur Edwards was suffering with complications from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Having received confirmation that Petitioners did not oppose continuance, and would likely have been unable to attend the final hearing as scheduled, the undersigned entered an Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance on December 10, 2012. The Order required Petitioners to confer with Respondents’ counsel and advise as to the status of the matter no later than January 30, 2013. Further, Petitioners were required to include in the status report mutually-agreeable dates for scheduling the final hearing if Petitioners intended to pursue the matter. The cases were consolidated on December 17, 2012, thus the Order was binding in both cases. Neither the original Notice of Hearing nor the Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance mailed to Petitioners was returned as “undeliverable.” On January 30, 2013, Respondent Bristol filed a status report representing that Bristol had not been contacted by the Petitioners to coordinate the status report as directed in the Order. Further, Bristol represented that it had attempted to reach Petitioners by phone the previous day and had left a voice message, but had received no return call from Petitioners. Despite the fact that Petitioners did not comply with the Order, the undersigned requested Division personnel to contact Petitioners to determine whether Petitioners intended to pursue the matter. Division staff called Petitioners’ residence and left messages for Petitioners to contact the Division regarding this case. The Division received no return call. In an abundance of caution, the undersigned scheduled the case for telephonic final hearing on February 28, 2013. Telephonic hearing was chosen to afford Petitioners, now residing out of state, every opportunity to be heard on their complaints. The undersigned also issued an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions (Order) requiring the parties to confer no later than seven days prior to the final hearing to determine whether the matter could be resolved amicably and to exchange witness lists and copies of proposed exhibits. Neither the Notice of Telephonic Hearing nor the Order mailed to Petitioners was returned “undeliverable.” On February 20, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed its witness list and served proposed exhibits on all other parties. On February 21, 2013, the same Respondents provided copies of proposed exhibits to the undersigned. On February 21, 2013, Respondent Bristol filed its witness and exhibit lists and provided copies of proposed exhibits to the undersigned. Petitioners filed neither a witness list nor an exhibit list and did not provide the undersigned with any proposed exhibits. On February 21, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed a Notice of Attempt to Comply in response to the undersigned’s Order. The Notice documents Respondents’ unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioners to confer and exchange witness lists and proposed exhibits. On February 22, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, to Close the Case. The Motion represented that Petitioners had not contacted Respondents as required by the Order to confer and exchange witness lists and exhibits. The Motion was denied. The final hearing commenced as scheduled, via telephone, on February 28, 2013. Respondents Hamic and Bristol entered appearances. Petitioners did not appear. The undersigned allowed 20 minutes from the noticed hearing time, 9:30 a.m., for Petitioners to make an appearance. None was made. Respondent Hamic offered Exhibits 1 through 41 into evidence, which were received without objection. Respondent Bristol offered Exhibits B-1 through B-8 into evidence, which were received without objection. No witnesses were called. The proceedings closed at approximately 10:00 a.m. No transcript of the proceedings was made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioners McArthur and Myrna Edwards’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioners in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to release them from a 20-year affordable housing deed restriction.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that Mr. Discher is handicapped, as indicated in his medical records, for purposes of the Fair Housing Act. John and Ruth Discher own the property located at 22916 Bluegill Lane, Cudjoe Key, Florida, with the following legal description: Lot 32, Block 10, Cudjoe Ocean Shores, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 76, of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida. At the time of hearing, the Dischers did not live in the residential home on the property but rented it. No dispute exists that Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida having regulatory jurisdiction over the Dischers’ property. Since around 1979, Monroe County has been designated as an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). As an ACSC, increased State oversight of and involvement in local planning decisions is required by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Administrative Commission, and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as the State land planning agency. The Florida Legislature imposed a series of “principles for guiding development” in the Florid Keys. § 380.0552(7), Fla. Stat. One of the principles for guiding development imposed by the State is “to make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.” § 380.0552(7)(j), Fla. Stat. In 1992, the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) was adopted by the Florida Administrative Commission on behalf of Monroe County in order to limit growth in the Keys. The purpose and intent of ROGO was to facilitate implementation of goals, objective and policies set forth in Monroe County’s comprehensive plan relating to many areas of concern, including the protection of the environment (including endangered species and species on the concerned list), residents, and visitors; hurricane evacuation; road improvement; property and property development. ROGO consists of a competitive point system, based on a complex scoring system, and those who obtain the top points receive allocations. Point values are accessed on and using a number of criteria. Under the ROGO system, property owners, who wish to build houses on vacant land, must compete to receive a limited number of residential allocations. The yearly number of building allocations is limited by state administrative rule. Property owners seeking building allocations compete against each other in order to receive one of the limited number of allocations. In 1996, Monroe County’s comprehensive plan was effective. Prior to 1996, Monroe County received very few applicants for ROGO; however, after the comprehensive plan became effective the competition under ROGO increased tremendously. Developers and persons with high economic means became the majority of those able to receive points in order to obtain the majority of the limited allocations. With the increase in competition, affordable housing became a concern. The ultimate goal of Monroe County under the ACSC program is for it (Monroe County) to get into the position of being able to protect the environmental resources, provide for hurricane evacuation, and do everything that is required in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and be removed or “de-designated” as an ACSC. Applicable to the instant matter, affordable housing was defined in Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations, Section 9.5-4, which provided in pertinent part: (A-5) Affordable housing means housing which: * * * With respect to a housing unit to be occupied by moderate-income persons, that monthly rents, or monthly mortgage payments, including taxes and insurance, do not exceed thirty (30) percent of that amount which represents one hundred twenty (120) percent of the median adjusted gross annual income for households within Monroe County, divided by 12 for a period of twenty (20) years. The dwelling unit must also meet all applicable requirements of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development minimum property standards as to room sizes, fixtures, landscaping and building materials, when not in conflict with applicable laws of Monroe County. For the purposes of this section, “adjusted gross income” means all wages, assets, regular cash or noncash contributions or gifts from persons outside the household, and such other resources and benefits as may be determined to be income by rule of the department of community affairs, adjusted for family size, less deductions allowable under section 62 of the Internal Revenue code; and In which, if permitted by law, preference is given to local contractors. The threshold for a household’s income to qualify for affordable housing was set by this regulation. Further, Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations, Section 9.5-266, applicable to the instant matter, provided in pertinent part: (a) Affordable Housing: (1) Notwithstanding the density limitation in section 9.5-262, the owner of a parcel of land shall be entitled to develop affordable housing as defined in section 9.5-4(A-5). . . . * * * Before any certificate of occupancy may be issued for any structure, portion or phase of a project subject to this section, restrictive covenant(s), limiting the required number of dwelling units to households meeting the income criteria described in paragraph (4)(a)-(f) of this subsection (a) running in favor of Monroe County and enforceable by the county, shall be filed in the official records of Monroe County. The covenant(s) shall be effective for twenty (20) years but shall not commence running until a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the building official for the dwelling unit or units to which the covenant or covenants apply. In order for the owner of a parcel of land to be entitled to the incentives outlined in this section, the owner must ensure that: a. The use of the dwelling is restricted to households that derive at least seventy (70) percent of their household income from gainful employment in Monroe County; and * * * e. The use of the dwelling is restricted for a period of at least twenty (20) years to households with an income no greater than one hundred twenty (120) percent of the median household income for Monroe County . . . . This regulation sets the limitation for covenants at 20 years, with the time period beginning to run at the issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the building department. Under the ROGO plan, a person was awarded additional points if the person agreed to the imposition of an affordable housing deed restriction. Being awarded the additional points meant that a person would receive an allocation in a shorter period of time. At that time, Mrs. Discher was an employee of the Monroe County Sheriffs Department. The Dischers completed a ROGO application. They wanted to be awarded additional points to reduce the period of time for them to receive an allocation for the construction of their home. The Dischers completed an Annual Affidavit of Qualification for Affordable Housing (Residential Dwelling Unit). The Affidavit provided, among other things, an acknowledgement by the Dischers that the Affidavit was a waiver of payment of the required impact fees; that Mrs. Discher was an employee of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department and at least 70 percent of the household’s income was derived from that employment; that the single family home was restricted for 20 years to household’s with adjusted gross income of a certain amount; that the Dischers would file an approved deed restriction indicating “that, either (1) the deferred impact fees shall become due and owing if the unit no longer qualifies as Affordable Housing, or, (2) that the dwelling unit shall be restricted by the affordable housing criteria for twenty years commencing from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy”; and that the Dischers understood that, if affordable housing was used to gain points in the allocation system, the single-family home would be restricted by the covenants for 20 years. Mr. Discher prepared an affordable housing deed restriction for a residential dwelling unit in 1997. The Affordable Housing Deed Restriction, prepared by Mr. Discher, was executed by the Dischers on July 2, 1997. Provision II of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provided, among other things, an acknowledgement that “fair share impact fees” shall be paid by any person prior to receiving a building permit for any new land development. Provision III of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provided, among other things, an acknowledgement by the Dischers that they were being exempt from payment of their fair share impact fees for the single family home to be constructed by them on their property. Provision IV of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provided, among other things, that the sale, transfer or rental of their single family home shall only be to persons who qualify under Monroe County’s current affordable housing eligibility requirements as established and amended from time to time. Provision V of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provides, among other things, that the covenants shall be effective for 20 years and shall begin to run at the issuance of certificate of occupancy by the building department. Provision VI of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provides, among other things, that the Dischers used the affordable housing program to gain additional points in the permit allocation system. The Affordable Housing Deed Restriction contains no provision for removal of the affordable housing deed restriction. The Dischers were given additional points. Their wait-time for an allocation was reduced, and they received an allocation to build their single family home. The Dischers attempted to pay impact fees on or about October 2, 1997. They were informed by the building department that they were not required to pay the impact fees and their check for the impact fees was returned to them. They obtained a mortgage loan and completed their single family home. A certificate of occupancy was issued on June 30, 1999. Mr. Discher testified at hearing that the only reason that he and his wife applied for the ROGO program and that he prepared and he and his wife executed the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction was because an employee of the Monroe County Building Department informed him that they (the Dischers) could be released from the affordable housing deed restriction simply by paying the fair share impact fee at any time. Before ROGO, Monroe County had an affordable housing ordinance that permitted the removal from affordable housing by paying the impact fees. A household benefited by not initially paying impact fees; but, the household could later decide to pay the impact fees, come forward and pay the impact fees, and be removed from affordable housing. However, after ROGO was adopted, the option to later pay the impact fees and be removed from affordable housing no longer existed. ROGO contained no mechanism for a person to pay the impact fees and be removed from affordable housing before the time limit expired or to be removed from affordable housing before the time limit expired. At hearing, the building official was identified but did not testify. Insufficient evidence was presented to ascertain whether the building official had the apparent authority to allow the Dischers to pay the impact fees and remove them from the affordable housing restrictions prior to the 20 years. Consequently, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Dischers reasonably relied upon the building official’s representation to support a release from the affordable housing restrictions. No copy of any release from the affordable housing deed restrictions recorded in the official records of Monroe County was presented at hearing. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Monroe County had released any persons from affordable housing deed restrictions. In 2005, the Dischers made a request to Monroe County for removal of the affordable housing deed restrictions. The Dischers were notified by Monroe County that no provision existed in the Monroe County Code or Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan for removal of the affordable deed restrictions prior the effective date of their expiration or termination and that its Comprehensive Plan provided that affordable housing projects shall be required to maintain the project as affordable housing on a long-term basis in accordance with deed restrictions. Furthermore, the Dischers were notified by Monroe County that prospective occupant(s) of the affordable housing must meet the qualifications for affordable housing. The Dischers attempted to pay the impact fees in order to be released from the affordable housing deed restrictions. They attempted to pay the impact fees on at least two occasions— March 20, 2006, and February 20, 2007. On each occasion, their payment was refused by Monroe County. Monroe County determined that payment of the impact fees would not release the Dischers from the affordable housing deed restrictions, and, therefore, refused and returned the Dischers’ payments. Moreover, no provision in the Monroe County Code permitted the removal of the affordable housing deed restrictions. Monroe County admits that, under the guidelines in place when the Dischers obtained affordable housing, the Dischers are not restricted to a selling or renting price for their single family home. However, they are restricted as to the income of prospective buyer(s) or renter(s), i.e., the prospective buyer(s) or renter(s) must meet the income guidelines set forth in the Monroe County Code. Prior to and during the entire process involving the ROGO program, Mr. Discher was disabled. A copy of a letter written by the Dischers in September 1997, in which Mr. Discher indicated his disability, was forwarded to Monroe County. After the completion of the Dischers’ home, Mr. Discher’s health deteriorated. At hearing, Mr. Discher admitted that, prior to filing the discriminatory fair housing complaint, he had never mentioned his disability to Monroe County in relation to having the affordable housing deed restrictions removed. Moreover, at hearing, he admitted that Monroe County had not discriminated against him on the basis of his disability by refusing to remove the affordable housing deed restrictions. Mr. Discher’s physicians recommended to him that he move away from the Keys to improve his health. Furthermore, eventually, Mr. Discher needed to be closer to the locations where he was receiving his medical treatments, which were outside of the Keys. The Dischers finally moved away from the Keys to be closer to the locations where Mr. Discher was receiving his medical treatments. They rented their single-family home in Monroe County. Mrs. Discher was forced to return to work. If the Dischers are released from the affordable housing deed restrictions or if the affordable housing deed restrictions are removed, the Dischers would sell the single-family home. A Senior Planner with DCA, Ada Mayte Santamaria, testified at hearing as an expert in community planning. Ms. Santamaria testified that neither Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan nor its Land Development Regulations allow for the removal of the Dischers’ affordable housing deed restrictions; and that, if the affordable housing deed restrictions were released, DCA would probably issue a notice of violation against Monroe County for not properly implementing its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and probably recommend to the Administration Commission that Monroe County’s allocations for the year following such release be reduced because of the failure of Monroe County to enforce and implement its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Ms. Santamaria further testified that Monroe County is allowed to submit two proposed comprehensive plan amendments per year; and that, because of the process involved in proposed amendments, including review by DCA, a proposed amendment by Monroe County to release affordable housing deed restrictions would take a minimum of six months and could take up to a year and a half to complete the process. At a Monroe County Commission meeting held on January 17, 2007, the Dischers requested to be released from their affordable housing deed restrictions based on hardship due to Mr. Discher’s medical conditions. At the meeting, copy of his medical documents, identifying his disability, was distributed to the Commissioners. The Commissioners denied the Dischers’ request. However, the Commissioners also decided that they wanted to address extreme hardship situations and unanimously voted to direct its staff to begin work on an “exit strategy” for affordable housing deed restrictions on the basis of extreme hardship situations. The Commission staff represented at the meeting that such a process would take at least three months and indicated that Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan may have to be amended in conjunction with what the Commission wanted. At the time of the final hearing in the instant matter, approximately a year and a half later, no “exit strategy” had been brought before the Commission. No evidence was presented that the Commission had decided that it no longer wanted to develop an “exit strategy.” No evidence was presented as to why the process had not begun. The Dischers are convinced that Monroe County wants to take their property. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Monroe County wants to take the Dischers’ property.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Monroe County Commissioners did not commit a discriminating housing practice against John and Ruth Discher in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to release or remove the affordable housing deed restrictions. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner rented the residence at 1881 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida (displaced residence), where he lived with his wife and four children for four years prior to being displaced by Respondent in 1990. The displaced residence was approximately 1100 square feet of livable space and contained two bedrooms and two baths. Petitioner owned an import business which imported baby strollers from outside the United States for resale in the United States. Petitioner used approximately 150 square feet of space in one of the rooms of the displaced residence to store these baby strollers. William Sawyer was the owner of the displaced residence and the real property on which it was situated. Mr. Sawyer rented the residence to Petitioner and his wife pursuant to a lease dated July 2, 1986. The monthly rental for the residence was $475.00 (which was later verbally increased to $500.00). In addition to the residence, the property on which the displaced residence was located contained approximately 100 feet of frontage on the south side of the Miami River with a dock that was capable of mooring seagoing vessels. The property also contained a small warehouse. Pertinent to this proceeding, the lease contained the following provisions: #10. It is understood by Tenant that Landlord must have access through Drive-Way to Warehouse Building on property and that some of Landlord's equipment may be stored on property. #11. It is further understood and agreed by Tenants that Warehouse Building and all Dock Space area of property is reserved for the exclusive use and purposes of Landlord & free access to same is to be granted by Tenants at all times. Said Warehouse & Dock Space may be rented out by Landlord as he sees fit. Respondent purchased the subject property from Mr. Sawyer1/ in order to widen Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida, as part of a federally funded project. Petitioner was displaced from his residence and became entitled to relocation benefits provided by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Program, 49 CFR 24. The program, as it pertains to projects within the State of Florida, is administered by Respondent. Under the relocation program, Respondent is required to locate a functionally equivalent replacement dwelling taking into consideration the needs and the life-styles of the persons being displaced. The amount of the relocation benefits is calculated pursuant to a formula by which the difference between the rent and utilities for the original residence and the rent and utilities for the replacement residence is determined and thereafter multiplied by 42. Respondent calculated the benefits to which Petitioner was entitled as being in the amount of $23,821.14. Petitioner accepted that amount under protest and reserved his right to challenge in these proceedings his right to additional benefits, contending that the replacement residence was not functionally equivalent to the Sawyer property for two reasons: First, the replacement residence did not have access to deep water. Second, zoning of the replacement residence did not permit the operation of his import business from his home as did the Sawyer property.2/ Petitioner's testimony that he was initially attracted to the displaced residence because its zoning permitted him to operate his business from his residence and because of the river frontage is found to be credible and is accepted. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner owned a steel- hulled sailboat that is 70 feet in length and 20 feet in beam. The river frontage adjacent to the Sawyer property was important to Petitioner because it gave him deep water access and protection during the hurricane season. The river frontage provided security for his boat and allowed him quick and easy access to it. The depth of the river at the Sawyer property was approximately 10 feet and was sufficient depth for Petitioner's boat. Petitioner could have sailed his boat from the Sawyer property into the Atlantic. For one month in either late 1987 or early 1988, Petitioner rented the dock from Mr. Sawyer at the rate of $270.00 per month. Petitioner did not lease the dock from Mr. Sawyer or have the right to moor his sailboat at the dock at any time other than the one-month period in late 1987 or early 1988. At least during part of the time Petitioner resided at the Sawyer property, the sailboat was moored approximately 150 yards from the Sawyer property where it was undergoing a complete overhaul of its masts. The work that was being done on the sailboat could not have been done at the Sawyer property because there was insufficient access for the heavy-duty crane that was required for the work. Although Petitioner testified that he could have rented the dock at any time he wanted at the rate of $270.00 per month, and that he intended to rent the dock from Mr. Sawyer after extensive repairs had been made to his boat, there was no evidence that Petitioner actually used the dock at the times pertinent hereto or that he had the right to use the dock. Petitioner's ownership of the boat was an important part of his and his family's life-style. Petitioner had built the sailboat himself, he had invested considerable sums in the boat, he and his family had traveled extensively on the boat, and he and his family had lived on the boat at one time. When Respondent's displacement specialist first met with Petitioner, Petitioner was informed that the river frontage would be included in calculating the displacement benefits.3/ The river frontage of the displaced residence was considered by Respondent to be water view only since Petitioner had no legal right to use the frontage and because Petitioner was not in fact using the dock. The zoning of the displaced residence permitted Petitioner to operate his import business from the residence. This business consisted of importing items, such as baby strollers, from out of the United States for resale in the United States. Petitioner utilized approximately 150 square feet of the space of the displaced residence to store those items from time to time. Petitioner located a dwelling that Respondent used as the replacement dwelling in calculating the benefits that were paid to Petitioner. Petitioner used the benefits he received from Respondent as a down-payment on his purchase of that dwelling. All comparables considered by Respondent in determining the displacement benefits to which Petitioner was entitled, including the replacement dwelling purchased by Petitioner, had water view. The replacement dwelling purchased by Petitioner has no access to deep water on which he can sail his boat. The zoning of the replacement dwelling purchased by Petitioner does not permit the operation of Petitioner's business from the residence. The replacement dwelling, as compared to the displaced dwelling, is larger (1,400 square feet vs. 1,100 square feet), has more bedrooms (3 vs. 2), and has more total rooms (9 vs. 6). The replacement dwelling also has a garage and a screen porch whereas the displaced residence did not. Respondent established that Petitioner has been properly compensated for the displacement if Petitioner's claims for additional compensation are rejected.4/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Petitioner was properly compensated under the relocation program and which denies Petitioner's appeal. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 9th day of July, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the citations he received on February 6, 1997. If so, what amount, if any, should he be fined.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner owned and operated two apartment buildings located (adjacent to each other) at 732 and 740 Joe Louis Avenue in Pahokee, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the 732 Apartments and the 740 Apartments, respectively). Each building contained ten apartments used to house migrant farmworkers and members of their families, including their children. Among Petitioner's tenants was Speedy Martin. Petitioner paid Martin to help him maintain the buildings and grounds. Michael Menor is a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with the Department. He is assigned to the Department's Belle Glade office. In his capacity as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist, he inspects migrant farmworker housing to ascertain whether there is compliance with applicable statutory and rule requirements. Menor conducted inspections of the 732 and 740 Apartments on January 14, 1997. The inspections revealed the existence of violations at both locations. Following his inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the two locations at the time of the inspections and which gave notice that these violations needed to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on January 28, 1997. Before leaving, he handed these inspection reports to one of Petitioner's tenants, Marlo Camble. Approximately a week later, Camble provided the reports to Speedy Martin, who, in turn, notified Petitioner of the contents of the reports. The inspection report describing the condition of the 732 Apartments and grounds at the time of the January 14, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Repair cracks in building, south side. Replace 11 bathroom screens missing from building. Broken window [in] Apt. # 5 and two broken windows [in] Apt. 4. Repair or replace covers for water meters. Clean out garbage, litter and debris from east side of b[ui]ld[ing]. Replace missing screens [in] Apt[s]. #1 [and] 2. Provide or repair heat [in] Apt. #2. Exposed wires [hanging from two] public lighting . . . fixtures [on] west side of b[ui]lding. Exposed wires in meter room. Empty out storage area and repair door under stairs. Repair wall on side of storage area. Repair public lighting on 2nd floor. Repair or replace stove [in] Apt. #9. Repair or replace stove [in] Apt. #2. Note: Smoke detectors missing [from] Apt. #8. Fire extinguisher missing [from] Apt. #2. All fire extinguishers require reinspection and retag. The inspection report describing the condition of the 740 Apartments and grounds at the time of the January 14, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Replace missing screens in Apt[s]. #4 and #5. Repair leak on overhang, [in] front of Apt[s]. #4 and #5. Clean out garbage, litter and debris from east side of building. Repair heater [in] Apt. #4. Repair broken windows [in] Apt. #4. (2 windows broken). Remove or repair screen door [on] Apt. #3. Repair public lighting. Repair screen [in] Apt. #1. Exposed electrical wires [in] front of Apt. #1. Repair door frame and screen in meter room. Clean room. Provide cover for electrical wires in meter room. Repair overhang [on] corner of b[ui]ld[ing's] west side. Remove wooden poles [on] south side of building. Repair broken window [in] Apt. #3 [on] south side of building. Repair wall [on] south side of building. Provide covers for water meters. Replace 2 missing bathroom screens [on] south side of building. Repair public lighting [on] 2nd floor. Replace missing screen [in] Apt. #7. Repair 2 broken windows [in] Apt. #6. Exposed wire [on] west side of Apt. #6. Repair storage door under stairs and clean storage room. Note: All fire extinguishers require retag and reinspection. Replace fire extinguisher and smoke detector [in] Apt. #2. Menor returned to the 732 and 740 Apartments on January 31, 1997, to conduct follow-up inspections.1 The follow- up inspections revealed that, although Petitioner had remedied some of the problems that Menor had discovered during his January 14, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections), most of the violations found during these earlier inspections had not been corrected. Following his January 31, 1997, inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the two locations at the time of the inspections and which gave notice that these violations needed to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on February 4, 1997. Menor, on February 3, 1997, "faxed" Petitioner copies of the inspection reports. He also spoke with Petitioner and advised him of the contents of the reports. The inspection report describing the condition of the 732 Apartments and grounds at the time of the January 31, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Repair cracks in building, south side. Replace 11 bathroom screens missing from building. Broken window [in] Apt. #5 and two broken windows [in] Apt. #4. Repair or replace covers for water meters. Clean out garbage, litter and debris [from] east side of building. Replace missing screens [in] Apt[s]. #1 [and] 2. Provide or repair heat [in] Apt. #2. Repair door to storage area under stairs. Repair or replace stove [in] Apt. #9. Repair or replace stove [in] Apt. #2. Provide effective extermination of rodents. The inspection report describing the condition of the 740 Apartments and grounds at the time of the January 31, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Replace missing screens in Apt[s]. #4 [and] #5. Repair leak on overhang, [in] front of Apt[s]. #4 [and] #5. Clean out garbage, litter and debris from east side of b[ui]ld[ing]. Repair 2 heaters [in] Apt. #4. Repair overhang [on] corner of building['s] west side. Repair broken window [in] Apt. #3 [on] south side of building. Repair wall [on] south side of building. Provide covers for water meters. Replace 2 missing bathroom screens [on] south side of b[ui]ld[ing]. Repair public lighting [on] south side of b[ui]ld[ing]. Repair broken window (2)[in] Apt. #6. Repair storage door und[er] stairs. Provide effective extermination of rodents. Menor next inspected the 732 and 740 Apartments on February 4, 1997. The inspections revealed that none of the violations that Menor had discovered during his January 31, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections) had been remedied, with the exception of the violation resulting from the broken heater in Apartment number 2 in the 732 Apartments, which had been repaired since the January 31, 1997, inspections. (One of the heaters in Apartment number 9 in the 732 Apartments, however, was now in disrepair.) Although Petitioner had taken steps to address some of these continuing violations, his efforts, as Menor's February 4, 1997, inspections revealed, were inadequate to correct the targeted problems. Petitioner had ordered meter covers from the City of Pahokee, but he had not yet received them nor had he placed any temporary coverings over the uncovered meters. He had attempted to repair the cracks in the building on the south side of the 732 Apartments; the door to the storage area under the stairs in the 732 Apartments; the overhang in front of Apartment numbers 4 and 5 in the 740 Apartments; the overhang on the west side of the 740 Apartments; the wall on the south side of the 740 Apartments; and the door to the storage area under the stairs in the 740 Apartments; but the repairs he had made had not been done properly. He had put rat poison under the buildings and given tenants rat traps in an effort to alleviate the rodent infestation problem at the 732 and 740 Apartments; however, he had not gone to the expense of hiring a professional exterminator to deal with the problem, even though it should have been apparent to him that the services of an exterminator were needed to effectively eliminate the rat population at the two locations. Following the February 4, 1997, inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the 732 and 740 Apartments at the time of the inspections and which gave notice that these violations needed to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on February 6, 1997. Menor spoke with Petitioner and advised Petitioner of the contents of the inspection reports and what Petitioner needed to do to remedy the violations noted in the reports. Menor returned to inspect the 732 and 740 Apartments on February 6, 1997. Upon his arrival, Menor met Petitioner, who had also just arrived on the scene. In Petitioner's car were screens and light bulbs that Petitioner intended to install in the apartments and public areas that needed them. Notwithstanding Petitioner's intentions, none of the violations that Menor had discovered during his February 4, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections) had yet been remedied. Inasmuch as the deadline that Menor had given Petitioner to correct these violations had passed, Menor issued Petitioner two citations, one for the continuing violations at the 732 Apartments and the other for the continuing violations at the 740 Apartments. Each citation directed Petitioner "to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00," but provided that Petitioner could "have the amount of the fine . . . reduced or waived completely by demonstrating good faith in correcting the violations or by presenting 'before and after' evidence to the Palm Beach County Public Health Unit within 48 hours of the time of the issuance of th[e] citation." Menor told Petitioner that he would be back to the apartments on Monday, February 10, 1997, to see if the violations had been corrected and if a reduction or waiver of the fines was warranted. On February 10, 1997, Petitioner telephoned Menor and advised him that he needed an extra day to bring the 732 and 740 Apartments into compliance. Menor responded by telling Petitioner that he would postpone his inspections of the apartments until the following day. The following day, February 11, 1997, Menor paid a return visit to the 732 and 740 Apartments to conduct post- citation inspections. Some of the continuing violations that Menor had discovered during his February 4, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections) had still not yet been remedied. These unremedied violations created conditions that posed a serious threat to the health and safety of the tenants. Following his February 11, 1997, inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the two locations at the time of the inspections and which gave notice that these violations needed to be corrected by 8:00 a.m. on February 17, 1997. Menor provided Petitioner, who was present during the inspections, copies of the inspection reports. The inspection report describing the condition of the 732 Apartments and grounds at the time of the February 11, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Replace covers for water meters. . . . Repair door to storage area. Provide effective extermination of rodents. Repair cracks in building, south side. Screens missing from bathroom window[s]. The inspection report describing the condition of the 740 Apartments and grounds at the time of the February 11, 1997, inspection contained the following "comments and instructions": Repair overhang [on] corner of building['s] west side./Repair storage door. Provide covers for water meters. Repair 2 broken windows [in] Apt. #6. Provide effective extermination of rodents. Menor next inspected the 732 and 740 Apartments on February 17, 1997. The inspections revealed that at neither location had Petitioner yet "provide[d] covers for water meters" or "provide[d] effective extermination of rodents," although he had corrected the other violations Menor had discovered during his February 11, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections). Following his February 17, 1997, inspections, Menor prepared inspection reports which accurately described the violations that existed at the two locations at the time of the inspections. Copies of these inspection reports were "faxed" to Petitioner on February 18, 1997. On February 24, 1997, Menor received a complaint from a tenant living in Apartment number 4 in the 740 Apartments that there were "rats in [her] refrigerator." Later that day, Menor went to the 740 Apartments to investigate the complaint. His investigation revealed evidence that rats had entered the complainant's refrigerator through a hole. Menor spoke with Petitioner following his investigation and emphasized the importance of Petitioner providing his tenants with effective "pest control." Two days later, on February 26, 1997, Petitioner telephoned Menor and told Menor that he (Petitioner) had made arrangements for a "pest control" company, Glades Pest Control, to provide extermination services at the 732 and 740 Apartments, but that it would not be until March 4, 1997, that such services would be rendered. On April 18, 1997, Menor returned to the 732 and 740 Apartments to ascertain whether the continuing violations that he had discovered during his February 17, 1997, inspections (and had noted in his reports of those inspections) had been remedied. The inspections revealed that these violations had been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the February 6, 1997, citations and fining him a total of $1,000.00 ($500.00 per citation) for these violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1997.
Findings Of Fact In March, 1982, the Petitioner, Eleanor R. Booth, and her husband, Fred E. Booth, owned and lived upon a tract of land located at 4721 State Road 84, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The tract was taken by the Department of Transportation for road right- of-way, and the issue in this case is whether the Department of Transportation, pursuant to its policies, has properly calculated the amount to be paid to the Petitioner. Mr. Booth is now deceased. Mr. and Mrs. Booth lived on the property for thirty-four years. T. 48. The total tract was 19,593 square feet, which is somewhat less than one-half acre. T. 18, 21; P. Ex. 1. On or about October 15, 1982, which was the date of the appraisal of the property, there were seven trailers or mobile homes on the property. Two trailers were designated by the appraiser as storage and workshop, respectively. One trailer was designated by the appraiser as the mobile home of Mr. and Mrs. Booth. The others were not designated. The appraisal parcel sketch also showed a shed, a restroom, and a laundry. The shower and toilet (restroom) building was made of concrete and contained 58 square feet. A one story frame building of about 215 square feet was used as a laundry. The shed was a metal and frame shed measuring 8.5 by 8.0 feet. The appraiser considered the shower/toilet building and the laundry building to be real property improvements. The trailers were considered to be personal property. P. Ex. 1. The Department of Transportation selected as the comparable replacement dwelling a 1972 mobile home containing about 500 habitable square feet, 750 total square feet, and consisting of a total of 5 rooms, with 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom. R. Ex. 2; T. 18, 23. The selling price was $29,500. R. Ex. 2. The primary issue in this case is whether the replacement dwelling described above is comparable. This in turn depends upon an analysis of the manner in which Mr. and Mrs. Booth used the various trailers and buildings located on their property. The mobile home which contained the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom primarily used by Mr. and Mrs. Booth had about 322 habitable square feet and 390 total square feet. R. Ex. 2. It consisted of 4 rooms in total, 1 bedroom, 1 living room, 1 kitchen, and 1 bathroom. T. 71. The only evidence submitted by the Department of Transportation concerning the nature of the "dwelling" of Mr. and Mrs. Booth or the manner in which the additional trailers and other out buildings were used is the household survey, P. Ex. 1, which was signed on March 30, 1982, by Mr. Booth and B.A. Davis for the Department. This form was intended to identify the social and economic status of the family and to identify the number of rooms, number of baths, number of people, and similar data concerning the household, but the evidence shows that in part it was filled out incorrectly. P. Ex. 1 characterizes the "subject dwelling" as a mobile home consisting of 3 rooms, with 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. Mr. Davis did not testify, and Mr. Booth is deceased. Tracy Graff, who was called by the Department as its only witness, made it clear that he did not personally know the status of uses of the out buildings and trailers, but simply concurred with what he thought was the conclusion drawn by Mr. Davis on P. Ex. 1 as to what was the "dwelling" of Mr. and Mrs. Booth. See T. 35, 39, 41, 42. Mr. Graff did not testify that the tract of land was or had been used as a commercial trailer park with trailers for rent to the public, and neither did any other witness. Mr. and Mrs. Booth routinely used the laundry building, the toilet and shower building, and the shed located on the property for their personal, domestic use. T. 50, 67, 68. Mr. Booth was rarely in the mobile home when visited by his daughter, but was elsewhere on the property working. T. 59. Mr. Booth primarily kept tools, lawn equipment, paint, and other maintenance materials in the shed. T. 62, 68, 75. Two other trailers were used by Mr. and Mrs. Booth for storage of personal belongings. T. 62, 68. This was necessary because there was not room enough in the one mobile home for storage of personal property. T. 64. 68. Mr. Booth "had a flea market." T. 62. Some of the "flea market" materials were stored in the trailers. T. 63, 64, 76. Some of the "flea market" materials may have been stored in the shed but most of the "flea market" materials were stored under canvas covers adjacent to the shed. T. 73-74. There is no evidence in the record to explain the nature of the "flea market" activities of Mr. and Mrs. Booth. It is uncertain where the flea market was. In 1982, Mr. and Mrs. Booth were living on the property. The niece of the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Booth and her husband and two children, and the sister of the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Booth were also residing on the property in 1982. T. 54. Additionally, a nephew of the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Booth had a camper trailer parked on the property, and may have lived in it from time to time. T. 56, 61, 63. Finally, in 1982 Mr. and Mrs. Booth rented a space to a John Schneider to park his trailer, but apparently Mr. Schneider did not live on the property. T. 55. Thus, all of the persons residing on the property in 1982 were relatives of Mr. and Mrs. Booth. Id. Prior to 1982, one of the other trailers in which relatives lived in 1982 was used by Mr. and Mrs. Booth as a bedroom for their daughter, and as a place to live for their son and his two children. T. 64, 65. These family members were not restricted from using the laundry or toilet and shower buildings, T. 55, 56, and at times used these facilities. T. 71. When Mr. and Mrs. Booth moved from the property, they needed a three bedroom, two bath house and a shed measuring 54 by 25 feet (1350 square feet) to house all of the personal property moved to the new house and which they had had in storage and used in the trailers and shed on the original property. T. 65. Mr. and Mrs. Booth and their daughter considered the trailers to be part of their dwelling because they had pictures, books, and other personal item stored in them, T. 64, 65. The Respondent has adopted as policy the Right of Way Operating Procedures found in P. Ex. 2 and set forth in conclusions of law 4, 5, 6, and 8.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter its final order recalculating the replacement housing purchase additive due Eleanor Booth by reference to a comparable replacement dwelling the same as the comparable replacement dwelling initially identified by the Respondent, but having the major exterior attribute of another bathroom. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL 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 9th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following are rulings upon findings of fact proposed by the parties which have been rejected in this Recommended Order. The numbers correspond to the numbers of the proposed findings of fact as used by the parties. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: None. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 1. The second and third sentences are rejected because there is no competent evidence in the record that the trailers were rented to other parties or that the tract of land was operated as a "mobile home park." See finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Earls Arrow Consultants 3910 N. 65th Avenue Hollywood, Florida 23024 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye H. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful housing practice in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operated Hickory Hill Mobile Home Park where tenants could rent spaces or lots for the placement of their mobile homes. By notice dated August 26, 1993, all tenants were notified of the closure of the park, effective one year from the date of the notice. On Friday, August 26, 1994, Respondent's representative, Patricia Tripp, preparing for the closure of the park, was notifying persons still in the park that their motor vehicles would have to be moved. She "tagged" cars with notices to owners to the effect that the cars must be moved or the cars would be towed after the conclusion of that day. Extensions were given by Tripp to those persons who requested them if their cars were going to be moved within a few days. At least one extension was granted to a white female tenant who informed Tripp that her car would be gone within a specific number of days of the deadline of August 26, 1994. On August 13, 1994, Petitioner, who is African-American and the former lessee of lot 31, purchased the trailer on lot 25 from the lessee of that lot. The lessee of lot 25 subsequently vacated the premises. Following his purchase, Petitioner then moved into the trailer on lot 25 without formally notifying Respondent. Petitioner moved his original trailer from lot 31 and from Respondent's park on August 18, 1994, continuing to reside at the trailer on lot 25. Under provisions of the form lease between Respondent and tenants of the park, tenants were required to park vehicles in the driveway to individual lots. No parking of vehicles on the street was permitted. Additionally, all motorized vehicles were required to meet state legal requirements to be operated in the park. On August 26, 1996, Petitioner still had a number of vehicles in the park, in addition to his newly acquired mobile home. The vehicles included a bus, manufactured in 1950; a 1978 pickup truck; a 1948 Chrysler automobile; and an ice cream truck. Some of the vehicles were not parked on Petitioner's lot. Tripp questioned Petitioner on August 26, 1994, regarding whether the vehicles belonged to Petitioner. Petitioner responded that they did. Tripp told him that the vehicles would need to be moved since the park was closing and informed him of the deadline. The discussion between the two became heated and eventually Tripp, who felt threatened by Petitioner's attitude and actions, left. Petitioner did not request an extension of the deadline with regard to his vehicles. On Monday, August 29, 1994, Petitioner's vehicles had not been towed. Around 2 p.m. in the afternoon, a tow truck arrived accompanied by a law enforcement officer. After verifying that Petitioner's vehicles met legal requirements and speaking with Respondents' representatives at the scene, the law enforcement officer left. None of Petitioner's vehicles were towed away. Petitioner eventually moved from the park on September 12, 1994, and Respondent's threat to tow Petitioner's vehicles was never realized. Petitioner suffered no quantifiable damages. FCHR's Determination Of No Reasonable Cause was issued on April 5, 1996, documenting FCHR's determination of the non-existence of reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred. Petitioner subsequently filed his Petition For Relief on May 10, 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition For Relief. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Jerome Lee Post Office Box 1232 Hawthorne, Florida 32640 Claude R. Moulton, Esquire Emmer Development Corporation 2801 Southwest Archer Road Gainesville, Florida 32608 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioners maintained a separate household within a multiple occupant displacement dwelling for purposes of calculating the appropriate amount of their relocation assistance benefits.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioners, Anthony T. Black and Melissa Owen, formerly resided in a mobile home at 5315 Drew Street, Brooksville, Florida. Respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), recently began acquiring property for the construction of the Suncoast Parkway, a non-federal-aid, limited access toll facility which will run forty miles from just north of Tampa, Florida, to Brooksville, Florida. Among other properties, DOT has acquired parcel number 144.001T on which Petitioners once resided, and they have been forced to relocate to another residence. This controversy concerns a determination as to the appropriate amount of relocation benefits to which Petitioners are entitled. The amount of benefits due a displaced person is determined by a federally-mandated formula codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 24, and adopted by DOT. The regulations provide that if multiple persons live in the same dwelling, and those persons can establish that they maintained separate households within a single-family dwelling, they are entitled to greater benefits than if all persons are considered a single household. Federal regulations contain no definitive guidelines on this issue, but rather they leave that determination to the discretion of the state agency administering the program. In this unusual case, Petitioners contend that they were a "separate household" within a single-family dwelling which was jointly shared with another person. DOT contends, however, that Petitioners are entitled only to a prorata share of a single payment to all occupants of the dwelling. The seven-room mobile home at 5315 Drew Street was owned by Margie Black, the mother of Anthony T. Black. Beginning in January 1995, she allowed her son, his girlfriend, Melissa Owen, and a friend of her son, Daniel L. Bell, to live in the mobile home rent-free, but the tenants were required to pay for taxes, utilities, and the upkeep of the premises. At different points in time, other persons also shared the home, but they vacated the premises before this dispute arose. There was no written agreement between the three tenants on how to allocate living space or pay expenses, but they informally agreed that they would share in common expenses, such as utilties and maintenance repairs. Bell lived in one of the three bedrooms in the mobile home, while Petitioners shared another. In order to qualify for assistance, a tenant must have occupied the premises for at least 90 days before the displacement occurred, a requirement easily met by Petitioners. Also, replacement housing assistance is restricted to an amount not to exceed $5,250.00 per household. This cap may be exceeded when a person qualifies for a super rent supplement in order to place the displaced person in "last resort housing." In this case, Petitioners qualifed for such a supplement because there were no comparable mobile homes in the area. In calculating the amount of the super rent supplement, DOT is required to ascertain the amount of rent paid by the displaced persons, their income, and their monthly utility bills. To assist it in gathering this information, DOT utilizes a private consulting firm, Universal Field Services (UFS), whose representatives meet with the displaced persons. Although the parties have disagreed as to the degree of cooperation UFS and DOT received from Petitioners in verifying their income, utility bills, and rent, they have ultimately agreed that, if the three tenants are treated as multiple occupants of one displacement dwelling, then based on Petitioners' annual income and utility payments in 1995 and 1996, Petitioners are entitled to $9,027.08 in total relocation assistance payments, including the super rent supplement. This amount represents two-thirds of the total payment of $13,541.22, which is the product of a federally-mandated formula. Bell, the other tenant, received the remaining one-third of the payment. The parties also agree that if only a single household existed, DOT's calculation is correct. Petitioners contend, however, that they maintained a separate household from the third tenant, and thus they are entitled to a greater amount of assistance. Although there are no written state guidelines on how to make this determination, as a matter of policy, DOT requires that the tenants provide written documentation and other proof to establish that the tenants maintained separate households within a single residence. While it has never been confronted with a "separate household" claim before, to establish a good claim, DOT suggested that, at a minimum, the claimants would need to have a written lease by each of the tenants reflecting the rental of certain space for a specific amount of rent each week or month, and perhaps written rules regarding the use of the space that tenants must comply with. In addition, the dwelling would have to have separate and exclusive living areas for each tenant, such as separate entrances, kitchens or efficiency areas, that would not cross over into any common areas. Examples of such dwellings would be a boarding room, hotel, adult congregate living facility, duplex, or mother-in-law suite. In this case, there was no written lease agreement by any of the tenants concerning each tenant's respective space since all persons lived rent-free on the premises. There was also no formal agreement or rules governing the use of common living areas by the tenants. While it is true that Bell had a separate entrance to his bedroom, he was allowed to keep food in the same refrigerator used by Petitioners, he occasionally cooked or ate meals on the premises, and he was not prohibited from using other common areas of the home. Given these circumstances, and the lack of any documentation to the contrary, it must be found that all persons occupying the dwelling shared a single- family dwelling and that a separate household did not exist. Petitioners contended that the process was flawed because UFS personnel made only one visit to the premises before making a recommendation in the case. Petitioners were, however, allowed to submit further documentation after that visit to substantiate their claim, and at least one other UFS representative visited the premises on a later date. In addition, a DOT supervisor visited the home and made the final agency decision. Petitioners also suggested that the allocated benefits are insufficient to cover their new rent. But DOT has no discretion except to follow the federal formula in allocating benefits. Petitioners further asserted that the "comparable" property found by DOT to replace the rent-free mobile home was too expensive. Unfortunately, however, this concern is not an issue in this proceeding. Finally, Petitioners pointed out that other displaced persons have experienced difficulty in dealing with UFS personnel. Even if this were true, it would have no bearing on the issues in this case since all UFS determinations are preliminary in nature and subject to DOT review and an evidentiary hearing if requested by the parties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' request for greater relocation benefits, and that it reaffirm the amount previously awarded. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 16th of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diedre Grubbs, Agency Clerk Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-00458 Anthony Black Melissa Owen Post Office Box 10868 Brooksville, Florida 34603 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transporation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela S. Leslie, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner’s mother is eligible for a replacement housing payment in addition to funds already received from the Department.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner and his mother, Frances Scott, owned real property owned property located in Pasco County, Florida, some of which was taken, and all of which was affected by the construction of the Department’s project no. 97140-2303. The Respondent, Department of Transportation, is the state agency in Florida responsible for the construction of public roadways in this state. In the acquisition of land for the construction of this project, the Suncoast Parkway, the Department of Transportation utilized Gulf Coast Acquisition Company. Consistent therewith, Gulf Coast initiated relocation programs for the individuals whose property was being taken for the construction of the project. Its operation was overseen by an engineering company, PBS&J, to ensure that all relevant policies and procedures were followed correctly. In this as in all acquisition cases, an initial determination was made, prior to any offer being made, as to value of the property to be taken. After the offer was made, an order of taking was entered. Once Final Judgment was entered, the relocation specialists went back to the property owner to see if any modification was necessary. In dealing with relocation of property owners, a replacement payment is defined as the difference between the acquisition price paid for the property and what it costs for an equal replacement of the property. In the instant case, Frances Scott, Petitioner’s mother, an octogenarian not in the best of health, was determined to be eligible for a replacement payment as a 180-day homeowner occupant of the property acquired. Her property consisted of two acres on which a residence was located. The approved appraisal amount for her property was $39,400. The value of the acquired dwelling on the homesite represented 67.9% of the approved appraisal amount, as calculated by the Department, which was $26,750. The value of the comparable replacement dwelling offered by the Department was $33,900. Therefore, the replacement housing payment amount was $7,150, the difference between the appraisal value of the dwelling and the replacement dwelling cost. However, through mediation, at which the Scotts were represented by counsel, a settlement payment for the entire acquisition in the amount of $114,000 was arrived at. Of this figure, $52,952 was attributable to the land, mobile home, and septic and water systems belonging to Frances Scott. The second mobile home located on the land, an unrelated septic system, the land other than that owned by Frances Scott, and damages relating to the move of Petitioner’s business amounted to a total of $61,048. Taken together, the two parcels and accouterments totaled the $114,000. Since that $52,952 figure attributed to Frances Scott’s property exceeded the $33,900 cost of a comparable replacement dwelling, the entitlement to a replacement housing payment was nullified. Because of the taking in issue here, and because of Frances Scott’s advanced age and fragile health, it became necessary to move her residence onto Petitioner’s property to keep the family together. The relocation program is designed to reimburse the expenses of people who are displaced by highway projects. Implementation of the program is governed by both federal and state law. (Public Law 91-646 - the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970; and Sections 339.09 and 421.55, Florida Statutes.) These statutory bases and the rules of the Department implemented thereunder spell out how payments are to be calculated. Replacement housing payments relate to housing only. In the instant case, the issue was one of mixed use which had to be distributed. Frances Scott met the criteria for eligibility and was found to be entitled to $7,150 as a replacement payment. She received this amount, and more, as a result of the settlement reached through mediation by means of which she received more than the amount calculated initially. There is an internal Department process through which the determinations of eligibility and payment amounts made at District level can be reviewed at Departmental level. In this case, the Scott file, at their request, was forwarded to the Department’s Relocation Manager, Mr. Eddleman, in Tallahassee. Mr. Eddleman reviewed the file and discussed its contents with District personnel. Based on his review, Mr. Eddelman determined that the calculation made at the District was correct. It is his policy in this process to lean towards the side of the displaced person in those cases where there is some question as to either entitlement or amount. Here, Mr. Eddleman found the District acted properly in denying extra replacement housing payment. It is easy to see the basis for Petitioner’s dissatisfaction. He relates, and there is no basis for doubting him, that at the mediation he was led to believe by the mediator that the relocation payments had nothing to do with the settlement amount to which he agreed. In this, he was misled. Inclusion of the amount for replacement payment in the settlement figure excluded him from further compensation and served to increase the settlement amount on which his counsel’s fee was based. Mr. and Mrs. Scott seem to have been poorly served in the process. They did not understand the communications they received from the state, categorizing them as “legal mumbo- jumbo.” They do not understand how the figure upon which the settlement was based and do not understand the 67.9 percent calculation. It was again explained at hearing but they remain unsatisfied with the settlement amount.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order affirming the relocation assistance payment (replacement housing) previously calculated for Petitioner’s mother, Frances M. Scott. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: James O. Scott, pro se Post Office Box 11231 Spring Hill, Florida 34610 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: James C. Myers Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
