The Issue Whether Respondent, L.M.I. East, Incorporated d/b/a L.M.I. Landscapers, Inc. and its surety, Western Surety Company owes Petitioner $4,210.00 for East Palatka Holly Trees.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner A.D. Andrews, Inc. is a producer of agricultural products, pursuant to Section 604.15 (9), Florida Statutes. Respondent L.M.I. East, Incorporated d/b/a L.M.I. Landscapes, Inc. is a dealer in agricultural products pursuant to Section 604.15 (2), Florida Statutes. Respondent’s surety is Western Surety Company Teal Pomeroy, a salesman for Petitioner, and Pat Tronzano, Purchasing Manager for Respondent, have a business history representing their respective principals. All previous dealings have been satisfactory, and they share a mutual respect. While at a trade show in Orlando, Florida, Teal and Tronzano entered into an oral agreement for the sale of 31 East Palatka Holly bushes/trees (30 at the rate of $135.00 each, and one for $160.00) at a total price of $4,210.00, due from Respondent to Petitioner. Neither participant in this arrangement testified to any oral terms covering “point of sale” or a guarantee of any condition of the hollies at a final destination. Neither participant testified that a standard course of business on these issues had arisen between them as a result of their prior transactions. On October 9, 2007, Mr. Tronzano sent a third party freighter (trucker) to pick-up the hollies at Petitioner's nursery in Chiefland, Florida, and transport them, at Respondent’s expense, to Selena, Texas, for planting and landscaping by Respondent. Mr. Tronzano did not accompany the third party freighter to Petitioner's nursery or on the subsequent trip to Texas. He never saw the hollies in question prior to loading or while they were still on the truck after loading. The trucker selected by Respondent was one specially skilled in the transport of landscape plants, and Respondent has successfully used him for prior purchases and transports. The third party freight truck arrived at Petitioner’s Chiefland, Florida, nursery at approximately 11:00 a.m. on October 9, 2007, before all the hollies had been dug up. However, the trees that were ready to load and those that had to be dug up were loaded by Petitioner, and by 2:00 p.m., the truck, fully loaded, left Petitioner’s property. Petitioner’s invoice clearly states: ATTENTION: If these trees are not in satisfactory condition when received, do not accept them. We do not replace trees. Please note any discrepancies or problems with materials. The invoice does not show the trucker noted any problems with the hollies. The trucker also signed the delivery ticket under the statement, “I acknowledge that trees were received in good condition.” Approximately 48 hours later, Mr. Tronzano received a report from Texas that when the freighter delivered the hollies to the Selena, Texas site, some hollies were dead and other were dying. Mr. Tronzano did not personally witness anything at the final destination. Respondent's photographs in evidence, the date of which has not been automatically printed on them, show some trees which had already been unloaded in Texas with dried- out root balls. They show no trees with dried-out root balls still on the truck. All photographs show intact root balls, although they are dusty and some trees are clearly dead or dying. One tree is dead in a pot. Although it had taken Respondent’s trucker approximately 48 hours to get the hollies to their ultimate destination in Texas, the normal driving time is 16-20 hours. Because federal regulations require a period of rest for commercial drivers every eight hours, Respondent put forth the theory that because there had been a delay of three hours at Petitioner’s nursery while some hollies were dug up and loaded, the delaying effect of three hours snowballed to a total delay of as much as 22-28 hours for the truck’s arrival time at the final destination. This theory is speculative and unsubstantiated by the evidence. Despite some earlier attempts, Respondent did not notify Petitioner of the condition of the hollies at the final destination until October 15, 2007. Respondent concedes that 11 of the 131 hollies were accepted in good condition. Whether one of the survivors was the single holly tree sold for $160.00, is not in evidence. Respondent has not paid Petitioner for any of the hollies. Mr. Tronzano has not had a dry-out problem like this one in ten years. Respondent's second theory of why the hollies arrived at the Texas destination in poor shape is an assertion that the way Petitioner processed and handled the harvesting of the hollies adversely affected their health. Respondent speculates that Petitioner’s digging and immediately loading the just-dug hollies onto the truck sent by Respondent resulted in shock to the hollies’ root systems so that the root systems dried out. Mr. Teal and Mr. Tronzano agree that previous trees (not necessarily East Palatka hollies) sold by Petitioner to Respondent had been "pre-dug" and "staged" by Petitioner in anticipation of the arrival of the freighter. “Staging” means that Petitioner dug up the trees, put them on a trailer, and took them to a centralized loading area at the nursery for Respondent’s pick-up. According to Mr. Teal, the foregoing “pre-dig and stage” method prevents "double-handling" of trees, but many trees are dug up only when a truck arrives at the nursery to take them away. Mr. Teal was not present at the nursery on October 9, 2007, but opined that if the hollies on this occasion had been pre-watered, they would be unlikely to die of shock, despite being dug up and loaded right away. Moreover, the particular trees sold to Respondent came out of a field that Petitioner irrigates, so "dry out" should not have been a problem. Mary Andrews works in Petitioner's business office. She did not know about Respondent's order until the truck arrived on October 9, 2007, but she managed the "dig and load" within three hours of the truck’s arrival. She testified that Petitioner digs trees throughout the year so that when a truck arrives, the trees have not been sitting dry in a field for lengthy periods of time. Petitioner sold 3500 similar trees in the previous year without any dry-out problems. Petitioner had admitted in evidence, without objection, Florida Division of Forestry rainfall records for three locations near Petitioner's nursery. All three official records show six inches of rainfall for the week immediately preceding October 9, 2007. Petitioner maintains that the trucker should have watered the hollies en route. Respondent believes the trucker did water them, but the trucker did not testify, so there is no direct evidence that the trucker watered the hollies en route. The parties have tried to work this situation out, but their respective offers of compromise are not admissible herein, pursuant to Section 90.408, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered that Respondent L.M.I. East, Incorporated d/b/a L.M.I. Landscapers, Inc., shall pay Petitioner, A.D. Andrews Nursery, Inc., the sum of $4,210.00, and that if L.M.I. East, Incorporated d/b/a L.M.I. Landscapers, Inc., fails to pay Petitioner, A.D. Andrews Nursery, Inc., within 30 days of the final order, then Respondent, Western Surety Company, shall pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Teal Pomeroy Qualified Representative A.D. Andrews Nursery, Inc. Post Office Box 1126 Chiefland, Florida 32644-1126 Pat Tronzano Qualified Representative L.M.I. East, Incorporated d/b/a L.M.I. Landscapers, Inc. 1437 Halsey Way Carrollton, Texas 75007-4410 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Western Surety Company Post Office Box 5077 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5077
The Issue Whether Respondent, Xencom Facility Management, LLC (Xencom), terminated the employment of Petitioners solely because the contract under which they were working ended.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group), operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order denying the petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 15th day of May, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Norman Padgett, holds a haul seine permit, issued by the Commission, which authorizes Respondent to operate a haul seine net on Lake Okeechobee. The permit is renewable annually and is one of ten such permits issued by the Commission. The Lake Okeechobee Haul Seine Permits authorize their holders to fish by haul seine and to harvest game fish in commercial quantities, activities not legal absent such a permit. To minimize conflicts between sport fishermen and commercial haul seine permittees on Lake Okeechobee, the Commission has, by rule, prohibited seining activities in certain areas. Among the areas closed by rule to haul seining is the area south of a line that connects the northernmost point of Kreamer Island to the northernmost point of Ritta Island. That line is approximately five miles long and can be readily determined since the northernmost point of either island is visible from the other island. Also closed by rule to haul seining are those areas shoreward of a line delineated by the Commission's commercial fishing boundary buoys. The boundary line is approximately one mile lakeward of emergent aquatic vegetation. The Commission, by rule, has prohibited the use of "short" haul seines as an aid to its enforcement against haul seining in closed areas. "Sport" nets are prohibited because of the ease with which they can be deployed and retrieved. During the time period pertinent to these proceedings, the Commission's rules prohibited use of haul seine nets of less than 350 yards in length. On June 18, 1984, a crew was conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit. The crew was operating in the closed area south of the line established by the northernmost points of Kreamer and Ritta Islands and was warned by a Commission employee that use of a haul seine in that area was prohibited. On June 19, 1984, a crew was again conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit in the closed area south of the line established by the northernmost points of Kreamer and Ritta Islands. The seining operations were being conducted from one-half to one mile within the closed area. On June 20, 1984, a crew was again conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit. On this occasion the crew was operating in a closed area shoreward of a line delineated by the Commission's commercial fishing boundary buoys. The haul seine net being used measured 277 yards in length. Respondent was not on board the fishing vessels during the foregoing events. However, consistent with the Commission's rule, the crews were in possession of his permit. At hearing Respondent offered no evidence of what, if any, efforts he took to supervise or maintain control of the haul seine crews. His testimony established, however, that he was aware the haul seine net was less than 350 yards in length. By letter dated March 28, 1985, the Commission informed Respondent of its intent to revoke his Lake Okeechobee Haul Seine Permit. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-1312. By letter dated July 23, 1985, the Commission informed Respondent of its intent to deny his application for renewal of his haul seine permit, predicated on their prior decision to revoke his permit. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, assigned Case No 85-2612, and consolidated with Case No. 85-1312.
Findings Of Fact Respondent David Halfen applied for a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation authorizing construction of a footbridge across Little Red Fish Lake in Section 7, Township 3 South, Range 19 West in Walton County, Florida. The footbridge would be 490 feet long and four feet wide with a raised area five feet high in the middle permitting small boat traffic underneath. The bridge would be constructed from treated pilings, timbers and planks and the pilings would be jetted down into the sub-strate or bottom of Little Red Fish Lake. Mr. Cliff Rohlke was accepted as an expert witness in water quality. He is employed by the Department as an Environmental Specialist with the specific duties of dredge and fill inspector. In this capacity he conducts field appraisals, reviews and makes reports of biological impacts of dredge and fill projects in conjunction with applications filed with the Department for dredge and fill permits. In this regard, Mr. Rohlke went to the site of the project and made an assessment of both the long and short-term impacts of the project on water quality in Little Red Fish Lake. Mr. Rohlke made a biological appraisal of the subject project in evidence in this proceeding as Exhibit 1. It was thus established that the short-term impacts of the project would be limited to minor turbidity and sub-strate disturbance related to the placement of the pilings. Long-term impacts will be insignificant. Based upon his long experience as a dredge and fill inspector and biologist, Mr. Rohlke established that no significant problems or impairment of water quality are associated with the construction of such a pier or footbridge by using treated pilings and timbers. Mr. Richard Fancher was accepted as an expert witness in water quality. He is the Environmental Supervisor of the Department's northwest district, supervising the Department's permitting and enforcement program in the area of dredge and fill permitting. In his years of experience with the Department, he has reviewed some 3,000 dredge and fill applications. He evaluated Mr. Halfen's application for the proposed footbridge. His review of the proposed project was conducted with a view toward whether it complied with the standards of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes and Chapter 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. He established that the water quality standards that the Department is charged with enforcing by these legal provisions would be complied with, with construction of the proposed project, in that the pilings for the pier or footbridge would be jetted into the sub-strate of the lake and turbidity curtains would be used to minimize the short-term deleterious effects of turbidity or sediment disturbance on the lake as a whole by confining such turbidity to the immediate area of the project. The project will not significantly affect fish and wildlife in the water body involved, nor impair water flow so as to be contrary to the public interest. Neither will any significant loss of fish or wildlife or fish or wildlife habitat be occasioned by installation of the subject bridge. Mr. Fancher was of the opinion that the bridge would impede and interfere with navigation to some extent, but not, in his opinion, so as to be contrary to public interest. Mr. Fancher, however, has not visited the site himself and has no direct knowledge as to how the lake is used in terms of navigation, fishing, water skiing and the like. Mr. Rohlke opined that navigation in terms of "normal boat traffic" would not be interfered with since on his brief inspection he saw no boats using the lake, and the bridge would have a single span raised to a five-foot elevation over the lake's surface for the purpose of permitting boats to pass under the bridge. Mr. Rohlke, however, spent only a period of less than an hour visiting the lake site and did not confer with any adjacent landowners to ascertain what uses they made of the lake. He did not measure the lake bottom depth but did acknowledge that it was of sufficient size to be used for both sailing and water skiing. He admitted that a portion of the lake would be cut off by the bridge, consisting of approximately two acres on the western side. The Petitioners, the Bannermans, as well as witnesses Klep and Hughes own property and homes on the western side of the lake and their access to the remainder of the approximately 50-acres of the lake would be partially cut off by the bridge. They would be denied some use and enjoyment of the majority of the lake. Mr. and Mrs. Bannerman have a home which fronts on the western edge of the lake. Mr. Bannerman has measured the lake and established that it is five to seven feet deep near the water's edge and approximately 12 to 15 feel deep in the center of the lake. He has a dock and a small boat on the lake and uses the boat for fishing and navigation of the lake. Fishermen frequently utilize the lake from a public access point. The lake is large enough to be used for normal recreational pursuits such as water skiing, sailing, and fishing. Mr. John Klep owns property bordering on the western edge of the lake. Access to the lake was an important consideration in his purchase of the property, and in his continuing use of it. The lake is in excess of six feet deep at his property and physically navigable. He does not wish his access to the entire lake to be restricted. Mr. Lyle Hughes has legal access to the lake conveyed to him by deed although his own property does not actually border the lake. Sailing has been his lifetime recreational pursuit and he desires to use the lake for sailing for himself and members of his family, especially the children in his family. The small sailboats for which the lake is suited generally have a mast of approximately 14 feet in height. Such a boat could not pass under the bridge if constructed as proposed, since the five-foot raised center span would only barely permit small power boats and their occupants to safely pass under it. In short, the subject bridge, while it permits small fishing and pleasure boats to pass under with their occupants, would preclude the adjacent landowners in the western end of the lake cut off by the bridge, from sailing beneath the bridge or water skiing on the lake, since their point of access for water skiing and other purposes is at their own property and it would be impossible to water ski in the lake since the bridge would not be navigable for water skiing boats and skiers. The only way sail boats could navigate under the bridge would be to use a motor, oars or paddles until the sailboat negotiates the bridge span, with attendant stepping and unstepping of the mast every time the boat passes under the bridge. This arrangement is totally impractical for those adjacent landowners to do in order to use the lake for sailing. Water skiers could not pass under a five-foot span for obvious reasons of safety. In short, it has been established that the proposed project comports with Department permitting requirements in terms of water quality impacts and impacts on fish and wildlife and fish and wildlife habitats. The project, however, has not been established to be in the public interest and not contrary to the public interest in terms of its impact on the rights of adjacent landowners to navigate the entire 52-acre lake which they presently have access to for the above-mentioned reasons. Any approval of the permit applied for must be in conjunction with a condition that the bridge be so constructed that sailboats can pass through without having to unstep their masts and water ski boats and skiers can pass through it, possibly through use of a movable span. An additional and more basic problem exists in approving this project as proposed. Department's Rule 17-1.203, Florida Administrative Code requires that a permit applicant execute and submit, with his application, an affidavit of ownership of the property involved in a dredge and fill project. The affidavit and rule requires that a permittee be either the record owner, lessee, record easement holder or an applicant to the record owner of the property for an easement to the property described in the application, and in the affidavit. Mr. Halfen submitted this affidavit with his application certifying that he was the record owner, lessee, or record easement holder of the property upon which the bridge was to be constructed and of the property landward of the construction site, and either had or would have the permission of all other persons with a legal interest in the property prior to undertaking the project. It is the policy of the Department to require the applicant to be the record owner of the submerged land, his lessee or easement holder and to submit the necessary affidavit of ownership or control. The rationale for this policy is so that the Department "will not knowingly issue a permit for dredging and filling or other activities which would constitute a trespass." 1/ The property involved at the project site is subject to an active title dispute being litigated in the Circuit Court. In dispute is the question of whether the title to the lake bottom is held by the Petitioners, the Bannermans or FDIC, Mr. Halfen or the State of Florida. The property was initially conveyed into private ownership by the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, in 1918 as shown by stipulated Exhibit 2 in evidence. The federal government thus conveyed the pertinent property, Lots 1 and 2 of Section 7 in Township 3 South of Range 19 West together with other unrelated land to one Carl Froholm. That conveyance transferred all of the land in Lots 1 and 2 without making reference to Little Red Fish Lake. It does not indicate any reservations of public rights in and to the waters located on that property. It does not indicate any reservation of title to the bottom of the lake to be held by the State or Federal governments. Thus, the legitimate title question now being litigated in the court, is whether the Petitioners, Mr. Halfen or the State of Florida own the lake bottom upon which the bridge will be constructed and not simply whether DNR approval for its use has been obtained. Resolution of that quiet title action is still pending and argument and legal authority has been extensively briefed and provided to the Hearing Officer in the form of the various parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and memoranda. 2/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application by David Halfen for a dredge and fill permit, as described above, be granted, provided the plans and construction of the proposed bridge are sufficiently altered so as to permit water skiers and sailboats to safely and simply navigate and pass under or through the area of the proposed bridge and provided that Mr. Halfen, at the conclusion of the pending quiet title action, can establish that he has ownership or other right of control of the property on which the project will be built. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 14th day of February, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: Petitioner is an employee of the Boromei-Mirabella Seafood Company, a licensed fish dealer located in Tampa, Florida. The scope of Petitioner's employment included the vehicular transport of fish for sale or purchase. While engaged in his employment, Petitioner was apprehended and arrested by officers of the Commission, and charged with violation of Rules 39-10.02(4) and 39- 10.02(5), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's arrest occurred in Highlands County, Florida, on or about December 11, 1980. Petitioner, for purposes of this proceeding, admits to the factual behavior alleged in the arrest citation issued by Respondent's offices. The rules challenged in this proceeding were promulgated by Respondent in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, also known as the Administrative Procedure Act. The challenged rules became effective on August 11, 1979. Both rules cite Article IV, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution and Section 372.021, Florida Statutes, as "specific authority" for promulgation of the rules. In addition, Section 372.65, Florida Statutes, is listed in the Florida Administrative Code, as the "law implemented" by the two challenged rules.
