The Issue This is an appeal from a resolution of the Monroe County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") granting the application of Barry J. Mankowitz, M.D., for a variance from the off-street parking requirements of the Monroe County Code. The appeal was transferred from the Planning Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article XIV, Monroe County Code, the Hearing Officer Appellate Article. The issue presented in the appeal is whether Resolution No. P33-97 of the Planning Commission should be affirmed, reversed, or modified.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was issued a permit to erect a sign on the site in question in 1971 and has renewed this permit annually since that time. At the time the initial permit was issued, the interchange to the 1-275 was not paved or opened to the public for access to the I-275. On October 19, 1971 Petitioner leased the property for this proposed sign at a minimum rental of $175 per month and has paid this rent since the execution of the lease (Exhibit 1). The boundary line between St. Petersburg and Pinellas County runs through the paved portion of the interchange in the vicinity of the site for the proposed sign. This site is outside St. Petersburg city limits. Petitioner now desires to erect the sign for which it holds a permit but, before spending the $40,000 estimated cost for this sign, reapplied for a permit to insure Respondent would not demand the sign be removed because it is within 500 feet of an interchange. The site of the proposed sign is located within 500 feet of the interchange to the I-275. The interchange is both within and without the corporate limits of St. Petersburg, and the site of the sign is outside the corporate limits of St. Petersburg in an unincorporated portion of Pinellas County. Since leasing the property, Petitioner has made lease payments in excess of $15,000 and has paid annual permit fees of $12 each to Respondent for the north and south facings of the permitted sign.
Findings Of Fact Lawrence Morehouse is employed as a full time faculty member by the University of South Florida (USF). At all times material to this case, parking of vehicles on the campus is regulated by USF authorities. USF parking regulations are enforced by personnel of the USF Division of Parking Services from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday. At all other times, USF parking regulations are enforced by campus police. A campus parking regulation violation is documented by a handheld electronic ticketing device which records the information and prints a notice of the violation. The printed notice is left at the vehicle for the driver to discover. A driver who believes a citation to be unfair may immediately bring the ticket to the counter clerk at the offices of the USF Division of Parking Services. The clerk is authorized to waive the fine if the individual circumstances of the case warrant waiver. The clerk records the waiver in the Division of Parking Services database. A written notice of the waiver is provided by the clerk upon the driver's request. In addition to appeal via the counter clerk, an aggrieved driver may also meet with a University Parking Appeals Mediator to discuss the matter. The driver may also file a written appeal of the ticket. If a driver remains unsatisfied after the matter is adjudicated by the mediator or by the committee which reviews written appeals, the driver may appeal the ticket to the USF Final Appeals Committee. The committee is made up of students, faculty and staff. A late fee of $13 is added to each fine imposed if the ticket remains unpaid more than ten days after adjudication is final. On June 14, 1993, Mr. Morehouse received a ticket for parking facing the direction of the traffic, a violation of campus parking restrictions. The fine for this violation is $10. Mr. Morehouse asserts that he immediately spoke to the counter clerk about the June 14 ticket and the fine was waived. There is no documentation to support his assertion. The testimony is not persuasive. On June 20, 1993, October 6, 1993, December 8, 1993, June 2, 1994 and June 7, 1994, notices of violation were provided to Mr. Morehouse for parking without a current university tag on his car. Mr. Morehouse testified that on one of these occasions, he filed a written notice of appeal. Although a hearing was convened, Mr. Morehouse did not attend the hearing because of a scheduling conflict. He did not inform appeals committee members of the conflict or advised them that he would not attend the hearing. There is no evidence that Mr. Morehouse made any attempt to appeal the four other tickets he received for parking without a current USF tag. The six tickets remain unpaid. An additional $13 late fee has been imposed on each ticket. Delinquency notices on all the tickets were sent to Mr. Morehouse. He made no apparent effort to respond to the notices. Toward the end of 1994, the matter was referred by USF Parking Services division to the USF Division of Finance and Accounting collections manager. The collections office issued monthly bills for the sum of the fines to Mr. Morehouse for approximately six months. There is no evidence that Mr. Morehouse responded to the billing. At the close of the six month billing period, a certified letter was sent to Mr. Morehouse, stating that the amount could be deducted from his paycheck and advising of his right to a hearing. Mr. Morehouse requested a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the University of South Florida enter a Final Order deducting the lump sum of $188 from the next salary warrant issued to Lawrence Morehouse. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 26th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2718 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order. Respondent The Respondent did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Castor, President Office of the President University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 241 Tampa, Florida 33620 Noreen Segrest, Esquire Acting General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620 Debra A. King, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620 Lawrence Morehouse 2610 Drumwood Place Valrico, Florida 33594
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent's proposed award of DCPHU Bid I-90 to the Intervenor, Meyers Parking Systems, Inc., for the management of a parking facility located at 1350 Northwest 14th Street should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact For approximately the last ten years, Kinney has operated the parking lot at the Dade County Public Health Unit building located at 1350 N.W. 14th Street in Miami, Florida (the "Parking Lot") pursuant to a contract with HRS. The existing contract between Kinney and HRS for the management of the Parking Lot was entered in June 1989 and was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1990. That contract included two one-year options to renew. The contract also included a provision that allowed either party to terminate the contract upon thirty days notice. The contracts for management of the Parking Lot in previous years were substantially identical in form to the existing contract. In February of each year, a contract review committee consisting of the head of the administrative services department of the facility (the "Contract Manager') and several other employees of the facility would meet to discuss the Parking Lot contract and to determine whether to renew the contract or rebid it. (This Committee will be referred to as "Parking Lot Committee.") The Contract Manager (whose title has been recently changed to Administrative Services Director) essentially chaired the Parking Lot Committee and appointed the other employees who served on the Committee. For the last ten years the Contract Manager has been responsible for overseeing this contract. During this time, his main contacts at Kinney were Chuck Adams, who was usually at the Parking Lot on a daily basis, and Mr. Adams' supervisor, Ken Deutsch. Both Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Adams left the employ of Kinney sometime prior to February, 1990. The exact date of their departure was not established. Both Mr. Deutsch and Mr. Adams now work for Meyers. Kinney's new representative with respect to the Parking Lot contract was Tony Benyon, who assumed those responsibilities on February 1, 1990. Mr. Benyon had previously worked for Meyers and was on the job only twenty two days before the decision was made to rebid the contract. On February 22, 1990, the Parking Lot Committee met and determined not to renew the contract with Kinney. At the time this decision was made, the Contract Manager was aware that the former Kinney employees had switched jobs and were now working for Meyers. However, it does not appear that he brought the job changes to the attention of the Parking Lot Committee because at least one member of the Committee was not aware of the job changes. On or about March 23, 1990, HRS issued an invitation to bid for the management and operation of the Parking Lot (the "Invitation to Bid.") Although the evidence did not establish exactly how many time this contract had been bid in the past, it appears that bids were solicited for this contract on at least two prior occasions during the ten years that Kinney had been operating the Parking Lot. On each occasion, the Invitation to Bid form was substantially identical to the form used in March of 1990. Page 6 of the Invitation to Bid requested bidders to submit a resume of their backgrounds. Page 8 of the Invitation to Bid was entitled "Bid Sheet" and required bidders to submit the following information: "(1) Proposal for Operating the Lot; (2) Proposed Rates, (3) Proposed Net Income Distribution." The Invitation to Bid did not require the bidders to provide any documentation regarding their financial condition nor did it indicate that prior job performance would be considered in evaluating the bids. The Invitation to Bid contained a provision that "any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening." Between the time the Invitation to Bid was sent out and the bids were received, the Contract Manager admits that he "probably" had conversations with some of the bidders and responded to questions about the bid. The Contract Manager could not specifically recall any such discussions with potential bidders between the time the Invitation to Bid was sent out and the date the bids were submitted. However, he admitted that it was likely that some discussions took place. Kinney was never advised of any such discussions between the Contract Manager and other potential bidders. Three sealed bids (including proposals from Kinney and Meyers) were received and opened by HRS at a bid opening on April 4, 1990. A fourth bid was disqualified because it was not sealed. The members of the Parking Lot Committee and representatives of the bidders were present at the bid opening. The bid submitted by Kinney proposed a net income distribution to HRS of 82.5 percent with the remaining 17.5 percent being retained by Petitioner. The Kinney bid also contained a specific breakdown of anticipated costs, fees and expenses to be deducted from the projected gross income to achieve projected net income, a resume and a list of references regarding other-lots being managed by the Petitioner in the area. Meyers and Hi-Rise Parking Systems, Inc. ("Hi- Rise") also submitted bids. Both of those bids contained a proposed net income distribution of 90 percent to HRS. Neither the Hi-Rise nor the Meyers' bids contained a resume or a list of local references of other lots being managed by the companies nor did they contain a listing of anticipated costs, fees and expenses. At the bid opening, the Contract Manager indicated that the bids submitted by Meyers and Hi-Rise were the low bids and the Parking Lot Committee would meet to determine how to "break the tie." At this point, Kinney was effectively eliminated from consideration. By letter dated April 10, 1990, the Contract Manager requested additional information from Meyers and Hi-Rise as follows: Company background information including officers, organization and latest financial/management audit; [and] At least three references to include name of contact person, firm, mailing address and telephone number. The Contract Manager did not request any additional information from Kinney or the disqualified bidder. On or about April 16, 1990, Meyers submitted the requested information to the Contract Manager. On or about April 17, 1990, Hi-Rise submitted the requested information to the Contract Manager. Thus, it is clear that information regarding the financial condition of Meyers and Hi-Rise was not submitted until after the bids were opened. On May 1, 1990, the Parking Lot Committee met to discuss the additional information received from Meyers and Hi- Rise. At that meeting, the members of the Committee completed a "bid selection review form" that listed (1) net income distribution (2) references and (3) company management and financial condition as the criteria for evaluation of the bids. The Committee determined that Meyers and Hi--Rise were "tied" in all categories except financial condition. At best, the submitted financial information provides a cloudy picture of Meyers' financial status. The information indicates that Meyers showed an income loss for the year 1988-1989 of $3,670,000. While a large portion of this loss is apparently related to corporate restructuring, it does not appear that any members of the Parking Lot Committee understood or fully considered this financial information nor did they seek to have the submitted financial information reviewed by an accountant. Hi-Rise's financial records indicate that it is a significantly smaller company, but its records indicated a positive cash flow for the preceding year. Notwithstanding these facts, the Committee decided to award the contract to Meyers. This decision was essentially made on the recommendation of the Contract Manager. The bid selection review form stated as follows: Based on bids and additional information provided, the Parking Lot Management Bid Selection Team recommended award of DCPH Bid No. I-90 to Meyers Parking System, Inc. On May 9, 1990, HRS provided all interested parties with a notice of its selection of Meyers as the successful bidder. In the Notice of Selection, HRS indicated that Meyers had been selected based on the proposed net income distribution, references, background and financial condition. Petitioner timely filed a protest of the proposed award of the contract. The Parking Lot Committee excluded Kinney from consideration based solely upon the net income distribution percentage. However, since the Invitation to Bid did not require the bidders to specify or limit in any way the expenses that could be deducted from gross revenues prior to distributing proceeds to HRS, there was an insufficient basis to accurately evaluate the proceeds that HRS could reasonably expect pursuant to any of the bid proposals. HRS and Meyers have argued that, because HRS has many years experience and expense records relating to the operation of the Parking Lot, the information provided pursuant to the Invitation to Bid provided HRS with sufficient information to make a reasonable evaluation of the financial terms of the proposals. This contention is rejected. To permit such uncertainty and discretion to be built into the bid process would substantially undermine the integrity and dependability of the process. Item 12 on page 6 of the Invitation to Bid required that "bidders will submit a resume of their background and other local lots they are currently managing." No such resume or lists were provided by Meyers. Meyers contends that its response to Item 1 on Page 8 of 8 adequately addressed this requirement. That response provided as follows: PROPOSAL FOR OPERATING LOT. Meyers Parking System, Inc. proposes to operate the Dade County Health department's parking lot with the same high degree of professionalism that we are known for and have demonstrated to our other clients throughout the county. The facility will be managed by trained, uniformed, courteous employees and supervised regularly and closely with our field supervisors and our Regional Vice-President... This statement is not a sufficient response to Item 12 of the Invitation to Bid. During the Parking Lot Committee meeting on February 22, 1990, several complaints were made regarding Kinney's performance under the existing contract. However, no efforts were ever undertaken by HRS to terminate the existing contract with Kinney. While HRS contends that the complaints were part of the reason for deciding to rebid the contract, no steps were taken to disqualify Kinney from bidding on the new contract. In any event, most of the complaints voiced on February 22, 1990 would have been the responsibility of the prior managers of Kinney who now work for Meyers. In February and March of 1990, the disbursements to HRS under the existing contract diminished significantly. This decrease in payments was the result of embezzlement by Kinney employees. While HRS has cited this shortage to justify its decision in awarding the contract to Meyers, there is no evidence that HRS ever attempted to terminate the existing contract nor does it appear that the Parking Lot Committee considered this fact in deciding to eliminate Kinney's bid from consideration. Similarly, the evidence established that there have been problems during the months of March, April and May of 1990 with attendants failing to appear at work on time or leaving the job site. Again, however, there is no indication that HRS attempted to terminate the existing contract or that the Parking Lot Committee relied upon these factors in deciding to eliminate the Kinney bid from consideration. There have been recurring complaints made to Kinney under the existing contract regarding excessive towing of cars from the Parking Lot. The problem of parking lot attendants ordering cars towed without the permission of HRS has existed off and on for sometime. Even though HRS representatives had voiced complaints about the. towing policies, the evidence indicates that this recurring problem became worse in the late spring and early summer of 1990. Nonetheless, HRS never sought to terminate the existing contract because of the towing problems nor did the Parking Lot Committee rely upon this fact in deciding to eliminate the Kinney bid from consideration.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order rejecting all bids for DCPHU Bid I-90 and issue a new Invitation to Bid. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31 day of October, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 31 day of October, 1990.
The Issue This matter concerns the issue of whether the Respondents' public lodging establishment license numbers 27-01381H and 27-01382H should be suspended four allowing the premises of the Coachman's Inn and the Coachman's Inn Annex to be used for prostitution On December 20, 1982, the Director of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants entered an emergency order of suspension of the public lodging establishment, license numbers 27-01382H and 27-01381H, and caused this emergency order to be personally served upon the Respondents. Simultaneous with the emergency order of suspension, the Director caused to be served upon the Respondents a notice to show cause as to why the above-referenced licenses should not be suspended or revoked for the reasons set forth in the notice to show cause. The notice to show cause specifically alleged: On or before and subsequent to November 1, 1982, to the date of this Notice, investigation has revealed that the Coachman's Inn has been established, continued and maintained as a premises or place which tends to annoy the com- munity, injure the health of the com- munity, or injure the morals and manners of the people of the community, as a premises or place of prostitution, assigna- tion, lewdness, or place or building where A any law of the state is violated contrary to F.S. 823.05 and F.S. 509.032(1) and F.S. 509.261. Since on and before November 1, 1980 and subsequent thereto the date of this Notice, investigation has revealed that the Coachman's Inn has been maintained and operated as a place for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitu- tion or a house of ill fame in violation of F.S. 796.01, F.S. 796.07, F.S. 509.032 (1) and F.S. 509.261. The Respondent was advised of his right to request a formal hearing and having filed a timely request, a formal hearing was held in this matter on December 29, 1982, at the Regional Service Center, Pensacola, Florida. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants called as witnesses, Mr. Brian Barton, a police officer for the City of Pensacola assigned to the Major Crimes Division, Vice and Intelligence. The Division also called Mr. Paul Silivos, the owner of a restaurant called Skopelo's which is located across the street from the Coachman's Inn and also called Mr. John W. Peaden, an investigator for the State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit and assigned to the Fort Walton Beach office. The last witness called by the Division was Mr. William Snow, also of the Pensacola Police Department. The Respondent called as its witness Mr. Thomas Pelt, the previous owner of the Coachman's Inn; Mrs. Patel, the wife of the present owner; Ronald J. Stafford, a realtor in the Pensacola area; and Mr. Arvin Patel, the Respondent. In rebuttal, the Division called Mr. Steven Paul Bolyard, an investigator with the State Attorney's office of the First Judicial Circuit and assigned to the Escambia County office. Petitioner offered as exhibits a drawing of the Coachman's Inn which was admitted-as Exhibit No. 1; an order of temporary injunction dated November 24, 1982, which was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2; and two (2) newspapers published in the Pensacola area which were marked as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, but not accepted into evidence. The Respondent offered six (6) exhibits consisting of: Exhibit No. 1, the sales agreement for the purchase of the Coachman's Inn; Exhibit No. 2, a promissory note executed in connection with the purchase of the Coachman's Inn; Exhibit No. 3, a bill of sale for the purchase of personal property; Exhibit No. 4, a security agreement executed in connection with the purchase of the Coachman's Inn; Exhibit No. 5, the registration cards for the Coachman's Inn and Annex since April, 1981; and Exhibit No. 6, the 1980 tax return for the Coachman's Inn. All six (6) of the exhibits offered by the Respondent were admitted into evidence without objection from the Petitioner. Counsel for both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that such findings of fact were not adopted in the Recommended Order, they were rejected as being irrelevant to the issues In this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Present owner of the Coachman's Inn purchased the Coachman's Inn in April, 1981. The motel was purchased for a price of $625,000.00, with $100,000.00 of that amount being paid in cash by the present owner at or before closing. Since the purchase of the motel, the owner has made approximately $25,000.00 worth of improvements to the motel. These improvements consist of new carpet and bedding. The Coachman's Inn and Annex are located at 1801 West Cervantes Street in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The motel consists of one main area adjacent to the motel office and an annex located to the west of the main area. The motel has sixty-six (66) rooms of varying sizes and prices. The motel is bordered on the west by a liquor store and across the street by a restaurant. The Coachman's Inn is located in an area which has had ongoing problems with prostitution since at least 1979. Numerous known prostitutes have operated primarily in the area in and around the Coachman's Inn and the liquor store located to the west of the Coachman's Inn. During 1982, known prostitutes were observed on numerous occasions flagging down and waving to passing motorists from the balconies and parking lot of the Coachman's Inn. Specifically, since July of 1982, police officers of the Pensacola Police Department and Investigators of the State Attorney's office observed on numerous occasions know prostitutes operating on the premises of the Coachman's Inn. They would stand in the parking lot area of the Coachman's Inn and in front of the rooms or on the balconies of the Coachman's Inn and flag down passing traffic. In July of 1982, Officer Brian Barton of the Pensacola Police Department spoke with Mr. Patel about the prostitutes and informed him that he was going to have to do something to prevent his premises from being utilized for the purposes of prostitution. He was advised at that time that his license would be in jeopardy if he did not take proper steps to eliminate the prostitution. At that time Mr. Patel acknowledged that he was aware of the prostitution problem and that the individuals who were engaged in prostitution were in fact guests in his motel. Since July of 1982, Mr. Barton has made spot checks on a weekly basis and during August and September had ongoing investigations involving the Coachman's Inn. Following his July conversation with Mr. Patel he observed no efforts on the part of the management to stop prostitution. He also observed no decrease in the prostitution activities taking place on the premises of the Coachman's Inn. The previous owner, Mr. Thomas Pelt, had problems with prostitutes operating in and around the Coachman's Inn from the time he purchased the motel in January, 1978. At the time he sold the motel to the Respondent, he informed him of the various problems he had had with Prostitution. In his first year of operation, Mr. Pelt estimated that he made at least two hundred (200) calls to the Pensacola Police Department and many times was required to make several calls in a single day in order to have the police come out and remove prostitutes from the premises of the Coachman's Inn. During that same time period he hired, for several months, a part-time security guard who was an off- duty Pensacola police officer. The security guard was allowed to wear his Pensacola police uniform and was very effective in finally helping to eliminate the prostitutes from operating on the premises of the Coachman's Inn. Mr. Pelt, as a result of his efforts, was successful in ridding the Coachman's Inn of Prostitutes operating on the premises. On September 15, 1982, Officer Barton, while working a vice operation with two (2) other officers in the area of the Coachman's Inn, was approached by a white female named Betty Salter in the parking lot area of the Coachman's Inn. This contact took place in area adjacent to Room 159 of the motel. Following a short conversation, Officer Barton was invited by Betty Salter and another white female into a room of the motel where he was solicited for prostitution. He then placed Betty Salter under arrest. On November 6, 192, Mr. Barton accompanied Officers William Snow and Perry Osborne in a vice operation in the area of the Coachman's Inn. Officer Snow's vehicle was wired with a recording device. As Officer Snow passed the Coachman's Inn he was flagged down by a female impersonator named Chris Cambria. Officer Snow pulled into the parking lot of the Coachman's Inn where he was approached by Chris Cambria and invited into a room of the motel. The room was located in the center of the horseshoe shaped area in the eastern portion of the motel. Once in the room, Officer Snow was solicited for sexual acts for pay by Chris Cambria. Mr. Cambria was then placed under arrest. At the time that Officer Snow was originally flagged down by Chris Cambria, Mr. Cambria was standing in the doorway of Room 269 which is the room located in the center of the horseshoe area to the east of the office. On November 9, 1982, Mr. John W. Peaden, an investigator with the State Attorney's Office for the First Judicial Circuit, conducted an undercover investigation at the Coachman's Inn. Prior to going to the premises of the Coachman's Inn, Mr. Peaden was briefed and shown photographs of known prostitutes in the area. Upon arriving there he saw several known prostitutes in the Darking lot and on the balconies of the Coachman's Inn. On the night of November 9, Mr. Peaden checked in as a guest. Mr. Patel and a lady who appeared to be his wife were in the lobby at the time that Mr. Peaden checked in. From the lobby, Mr. Peaden observed several known prostitutes on the premises of the Coachman's Inn. After leaving the lobby, Mr. Peaden was approached by a black female who asked if he wanted some company for the night. She followed him to the door of his room and as he opened the door, she pushed her way into the room. After entering the room, she made offers of sexual acts for pay. Prices were quoted by her and agreed upon by Mr. Peaden. Mr. Peaden then left the premises of the Coachman's Inn. When he returned to the Coachman's Inn, he spoke with Mr. Patel who told him to stay away from the black prostitutes because they were bad. Mr. Peaden then asked him about the white prostitutes and their availability. While Mr. Peaden was talking with Mr. Patel in the lobby, a white female and known prostitute named Brenda Howard came into the lobby and appeared to be disoriented and spaced out. She went up to Mr. Patel and asked for a room. At that moment Mr. Patel looked at Mr. Peaden and nodded to Mr. Peaden in a way that appeared to Mr. Peaden to suggest that this was a young lady who was available for prostitution. Mr. Patel gave the young lady Room 213 which is right next door to Room 214 which had been assigned to Mr. Peaden. The young lady wrote only her name on the card and Mr. Patel, as he pulled the card away, said that was enough. Mr. Peaden was charged approximately eighteen dollars ($18.00) for his room and Brenda Howard was charged just over twenty dollars (- $20.00) for her room. In Composite Exhibit 5, there is a registration card dated November 9, 1982, for a Brenda Howard who was assigned to Room 213 and with incomplete information on the card. After Brenda Howard left the lobby, Mr. Peaden asked Patel how he could make contact with her and Mr. Patel said she is in Room 213 and he could call her on the motel phone. Mr. Peaden returned to his room and attempted to call the young lady in Room 213 but received no answer. He then returned to the lobby of the Coachman's Inn where he contacted Mr. Patel again and informed him that he was unable to get in touch with Brenda Howard. Mr. Patel then tried to call her from the lobby but also received no answer. Mr. Peaden then asked Mr. Patel if she was okay and if there were any problems with diseases. Mr. Patel responded "no"' and said "she will be all right tomorrow, come back then." Mr. Peaden then left the premises of the Coachman's Inn. On November 10, 1982, Mr. Peaden returned to the Coachman's Inn and again observed known prostitutes on the premises of the Inn. Mr. Peaden was again solicited for sexual acts for pay by a black female L. T. Manuel. Through L. T. Manuel, Mr. Peaden also contacted Brenda Howard at Room 201 and made arrangements for Brenda Howard and several other women to provide sexual acts for pay for that night. Later in the evening of November 10, 1982, Mr. Peaden and an Officer West were approached by two (2) known prostitutes, Pat Smith and Rosa Robinson, in the parking lot of the Coachman's Inn. They offered to perform sexual acts for pay for Mr. Peaden, Officer West, and two (2) other undercover officers. It was agreed that the two (2) women would obtain two (2) other prostitutes to also perform sexual acts for the four (4) investigators. Pat Smith and Rosa Robinson returned with two (2) other women and at that time each woman was paid twenty- five dollars ($25.00) each with marked money for the sexual acts to be performed. After the money was exchanged, the four (4) women were arrested. On December 8, 1982, Officer Brian Barton observed Phyllis Ford, a known prostitute, talking to a gentleman in a black cadillac in the Coachman's Inn parking lot. She directed him to the area of Room 240 where Chris Cambria was waiting. Room 240 is in clear view of the Coachman's Inn lobby and office and Mr. Patel was in the lobby. After spotting one (1) of the undercover officers, Chris Cambria left the area of Room 240, proceeded to the lobby and was observed talking and laughing with Mr. Patel. On December 13, Mr. Peaden went with an Officer Jack Kliger to the Coachman's Inn. Upon arriving at the Inn, he again observed known prostitutes in the area. He specifically observed Phyllis Ford in the eastern most area of the Coachman's Inn and Murray Anne Hill walking down the street and into the parking lot of the western annex building of the Coachman's Inn. Both Phyllis Ford and Murray Anne Hill are known prostitutes. He observed Phyllis Ford walk out of Room 260 toward the lobby of the motel. Mr. Peaden then pulled into the parking lot in the area of Room 260. At that time Phyllis Ford was standing at the door of Room 260 and came to the passenger door of his car. She engaged him in conversation and then solicited sexual acts for pay. A price was agreed upon and Mr. Peaden asked her to get into the car to leave the area and she said no, "If you want it, you've got to come into my room." Mr. Peaden then left the area to set up a plan for arrest and upon returning to the Coachman's Inn observed Phyllis Ford in the window of Room 260. She came out of the room and saw Officer West and recognized him and then tried to go back into the room. She was then placed under arrest by Mr. Peaden. The prostitution on the premises of the Coachman's Inn was "wide open" and overt. As late as December 13, known prostitutes were still operating on the premises of the Coachman's Inn in an open and overt manner. The young ladies who were operating as prostitutes in and around the Coachman's Inn were generally dressed in a casual manner and the clothes they wore were not provocative. Room 214, Room 201 and Room 260 were rooms which were not visible from the office of the Coachman's Inn. As a part of the November 9 and 10 investigation by Mr. Peaden and the other officers, seven (7) persons were arrested. These people included Jacqueline Blount, Patricia Smith, L. T. Manuel, Brenda Sue Howard, Rosa Hawkins, Rosa Robinson, and Mr.. Patel, the owner. On November 24, 1952, Circuit Judge Joseph Q. Tarbuck entered an order of temporary injunction. That injunction provided in relevant part: The Court being advised that the parties have stipulated to entry of the below temporary injunction enjoining the defendant or agents from knowingly, intentionally or negligently allowing acts of prostitution, assignation, lewdness and violance on the premises of the Coachman's Inn, 1801 Nest Cervantes Street, Pensacola. Escambia County, Florida. It is therefore, ordered that the defendant and his agents are hereby temporarily enjoined from maintaining a nuisance on the premises of said Coachman's Inn and, further, that the defendant and his agents shall refrain from allowing acts of prostitution, assignation, lewdness or violance on said premises either knowingly, intentionally or negligently, either through lack of ability or diligent effort. Following the entry of the temporary injunction, Mr. Patel and his wife claimed that they began a policy of not allowing prostitutes to register in the motel and on four (4) or five (5) occasions, called the police and complained. On at least one (1) occasion, which was witnessed by Mr. Thomas Pelt, Mr. Patel went out into the parking lot and asked a known prostitute to leave the premises. There was no other evidence presented as to steps taken by Mr. Patel in eliminating the prostitution problem following the entry of the temporary injunction on November 24. Known prostitutes continued to operate on the premises of the Coachman's Inn after November 24, 1982. The Respondent, Mr. Arvin Patel, has a substantial investment in the Coachman's Inn and will offer severe financial losses if he is unable to continue operating the motel. Mr. Patel testified that it was his plan to make some additional improvements and attempt to sell the motel by June 1, 1983, if he were allowed to reopen. The Previous owner would be adversely impacted by Mr. Patel's inability to make the four thousand dollar ($4,000.00) per month mortgage payment to the previous owner. During 1982, MT. Paul Silivos, owner of Skopelo's Restaurant had complaints from customers regarding the prostitution at the Coachman's Inn. He observed no visible prostitution when the Coachman's Inn was owned by Mr. Felt, but described the prostitution at the Coachman's Inn during 1982, as "wide open twenty-four (24) hours a day." All of the witnesses who testified for the Petitioner, described the prostitution at the Coachman's Inn as wide open and overt. This was not denied by Mr. Patel nor did he disagree with the descriptions of these witnesses. The Respondent, Arvin Patel, was aware prior to November, 1982, that Helen Merriweather was operating as a prostitute in and about the premises of the Coachman's Inn. In approximately April, 1982, Mr. Patel claimed that he had stopped renting a room to her. Mr. Patel was aware that Rosa Robinson, Murray Anne Hill, Chris Cambria, and L. T. Manuel a/k/a Tonya Tripp were prostitutes operating on and around the premises of the Coachman's Inn. This was revealed by Mr. Patel's claim that he had attempted to stop renting to these individuals at varying times during 1982 because of their prostitution activities. On December 18, 1982, Chris Cambria was observed by Officer Barton. Chris Cambria was picked up by a white male in a pickup truck and they then drove to Room 240 of the Coachman's Inn. At the time Mr. Patel was in the parking lot of the Coachman's Inn and had a clear, unobstructed view of Room 240.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That public lodging establishment license numbers 27-01382H and 27-01381H be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED: That the suspension be lifted prior to the end of the sixty-day Period, upon the Division of Hotels and restaurants being assured that adequate and reasonable steps have. been taken to prevent the use of the premises of the Coachman's Inn for the purpose of prostitution, DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 19th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F.X. Purnell, Esquire General Counsel January, Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William J. Green, Esquire GREEN, DEES and FRANCE 418 North Palafox Street Post Office Box 12602 Pensacola, Florida 32574 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sherman S. Winn, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANT, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-3467 H & R NOS. 27-01381H ARVIN JARAM and JAIRAM ISHWARLEL 27-01382H d/b/a COACHMAN'S INN and COACHMAN'S INN ANNEX, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact 10. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 26, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on September 17, 2009, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on December 1, 2009, the request to withdraw the Petition submitted on July 11, 2011, and the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File issued on July 13, 2011, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the Petition for Hearing, the Withdrawal of Petition, and the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-236-1A, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On August 26, 2009, the Department issued a Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to PHILIP'S PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, INC. 2. On August 26, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on PHILIP’S PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, INC. A copy of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On September 17, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to PHILIP’S PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty in the amount of $17, 852.18. 4, On September 19, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on PHILIP’S PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On October 8, 2009, PHILIP’S PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, INC. filed a Petition for Hearing (“Petition”), requesting review of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 17, 2011, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 11-2466. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On December 1, 2009, the Department issued a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to PHILIP’S PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, INC. The 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty in the amount of $7, 667.51. 7. On February 10, 2011, the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on PHILIP'S PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, INC. A copy of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On July 11, 2011, PHILIP’S PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, INC. submitted a request to withdraw the Petition. A copy of the request to withdraw the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 9. On July 13, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact In late December, 1991, the Department decided to seek space for a move of its regional toll operations office currently located in Lake Worth, Florida. This office provides administrative support for toll personnel and the distribution of supplies and maintenance equipment for the nine toll plazas between Ft. Pierce and Lantana. This move was sought because the Department had outgrown its current office and concurrently therewith, a decision was made to seek a more centralized location to better service the existing and two additional toll plazas sought. Under the existing procedures before letting any lease the Department must seek and receive approval of the Department of General Services, (DGS), leasing office for the proposal. Consistent therewith, a letter of agency staffing was prepared to justify the amount of space the office would need. DGS approved the Department's request for the lease on December 27, 1991, and assigned lease No. 550:0234 to the procurement action. By that approval, the Department was authorized to begin soliciting quotes for the lease of 2,985 square feet of office space. Since the proposed lease was for less than 3,000 square feet, under existing DGS rules the procurement did not have to be competitively bid. The Department's request to DGS sought office space in either Jupiter or Palm Beach Gardens and described the requirement for the property as being centrally located on Florida's Turnpike between the Ft. Pierce and Lantana plazas. Six prospective landlords submitted quotes for this space. They were Worth Realty and Management Co. Inc.; Cascio Real Estate, Inc.; Elizabethan Interiors; Petitioner, Kohno Corporation, USA; Deitz Realty Company; and Paramount Real Estate Services, Inc. Several of the quotes submitted by other than Petitioner, Deitz Realty and Paramount Realty, were rejected right away for various reasons. The Worth Realty quote was rejected because the proposed location, (Lake Worth), the current location, did not meet the basic geographic criteria specified by the Department, and in addition, the future status of the building was uncertain because the owners had recently declared bankruptcy. Cascio Real Estate's bid required a $2,000.00 non-refundable deposit just to hold the space until a lease was signed, which the Department was not authorized to post, and Elizabethan's space was eliminated because it had been leased prior to the Department evaluation. This left three quotes for consideration - those of Petitioner, Deitz and Paramount. These three quotes were evaluated on the basis of the criteria, equally applied to all, which was specified by the Department's regional office in conjunction with its lease coordinator. Review revealed that Petitioner offered 2,925 square feet of space on the second floor of its building. The Department was seeking 2,985 square feet of space and any space for future growth over Petitioner's initial offering of 2,925 square feet would have been on a different floor, losing the contiguity of the office. The Department also preferred ground floor space for ease of access for the numerous deliveries and pick ups of supplies which takes place at the regional office as well as for the convenience of the many visitors to the office. Petitioner claims the distance from its parking area to its proposed office was minimal and serviced by elevator, but the Department's preference is still valid. In addition, the space offered by Petitioner included a private balcony and a private bathroom in that area which would be designated as the regional manager's office. This type of accommodation is considered inappropriate for state offices. In addition, Petitioner's space was not already built out and would have required some remodeling to be usable by the Department. The Director of the toll facilities office, who had the ultimate authority to select the best quote, rejected Petitioner's submittal as non- responsive because it contained 60 feet less than the 2,985 square feet called for. This 60 square feet, however, is well within the 3% leeway which Ms. Goodman indicated was the standard for determining the responsiveness of an offer. Notwithstanding the fact that the square footage was within acceptable parameters, this does not necessarily mean the evaluator had to consider it as functionally acceptable, and he did not. In addition, he considered the second story location and the unacceptable private bath and balcony as adverse factors. Petitioner's space was offered at $15.85 per square foot for the first year of a six year lease with an increase of 5% per year over the term of the lease. Deitz Realty's property was quoted at $22.65 per square foot for the first year of the least with a 4% increase per year over the term of the lease. Paramount's property in the Sun Bank Building was also offered at $22.65 per square foot with the same increase as Deitz. Petitioner's offer would have saved in excess of $100,000.00 over the term of the lease. Price, however, was not the primary consideration when the various quotes were evaluated. More important was the operational need of the regional office, and therefore, the Department did not attempt to negotiate a lower price with any of the offerors even though it was entitled to do so under DGS's interpretation of the controlling leasing procedures. Instead, the Department considered of higher priority the ground floor location; the location closer to a Turnpike entrance; the potential for growth and where that growth would be located; and whether the space offered was ready for occupancy or would require modification. Based on all those considerations, the Department determined that the space proposed in Fairway Center, at $22.65 per square foot was more desirable and better suited to its needs than that offered by Petitioner at a lower price. However, because of correspondence received from the Petitioner, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation ordered an internal audit of the lease process utilized here. As a part of that audit, the auditor interviewed the personnel who had participated in the lease process both at the Department and at DGS; reviewed the statutes and both Department's rules and procedures relevant to this procurement; and reviewed the lease proposals. The report of this audit, accomplished according to normal Departmental procedure, indicated that only two of the six quotes received were responsive - those of Petitioner and Elizabethan Interiors, whose property had already been leased prior to evaluation. The other four offers were determined to be non-responsive either because the price exceeded the maximum rate allowed or for being outside the defined geographic area even though the Governor and Cabinet could approve an exception. This included Fairway Center. The audit report also concluded that in conducting this procurement, the Department had complied with normal leasing procedures and guidelines for this type of procurement. The report thereafter recommended that because of the above, it was in the best interests of the state to begin to re-solicit offers for this procurement, and also recommended that all offers already received be rejected. It further recommended that in any future procurement the requisite criteria to be used be documented in advance even though the procedure for leases of under 3,000 square feet of property did not require such documentation. Department of Transportation procurement procedures require that at least three responsive quotes be forwarded to the Department of General Services for evaluation. In the instant case, the audit conducted at the behest of the Secretary established that only two responsive bids had been received. This situation req uired a re-bidding or a new solicitation and based on that determination, all bids, including Petitioner's, were rejected. Petitioner's protest was filed as a result of that rejection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order in this case dismissing the protest of Kohno Corporation, U.S.A., in regard to the Department's rejection of all offers in the procurement of lease No. 550:0234 for the Regional Toll Office of the Florida Turnpike Authority in Palm Beach County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 16th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted but location was not the only basis for not choosing Petitioner's property. Accepted. Size alone was not the disqualifying factor. Rejected as an exercise in semantics. The Department made it very clear that it desired its office to be on a floor which provided direct access to the public and for deliveries without the necessity for the use of an elevator. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Randy Cropp Corporate Representative Kohno Corporation, U.S.A. 1615 Clare Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 112.3143(3)(a), 112.3143(4), and 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), by committing the acts alleged in the Order Finding Probable Cause and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact All times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent served as a member of the Mexico Beach Planning and Zoning Board (Zoning Board). Respondent began his service on the Board in mid-April, 1994. In that public position, Respondent was subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. In late 1993, Respondent contracted with the owners of Toucans Restaurant (Toucans) to build an additional story on the existing building. Toucans is a bar/restaurant located on Highway 98 in Mexico Beach, Florida. The Zoning Board is empowered to make decisions relative to zoning and rezoning matters, including the granting of parking variances. In furtherance of his work for Toucans, Respondent sought a parking variance from the Zoning Board. To this end, Respondent appeared before the Zoning Board on three separate occasions. The last time Respondent appeared before the Zoning Board regarding the parking variance for Toucans was April 19, 1994, shortly after his appointment to the Zoning Board. At that meeting, Respondent was representing Toucans before the Zoning Board and attempting to secure a parking variance for Toucans. At the April 19, 1994 meeting, when Respondent presented the Toucans parking variance issue before the Zoning Board, he participated in the Zoning Board's discussion of the matter. Prior to his participating in the Zoning Board's discussion of the Toucans matter on April 19, 1994, Respondent failed to formally announce his interest in the Toucan project. Respondent failed to file a written memorandum disclosing his interest in the matter prior to the April 19, 1994 meeting. Respondent failed to orally disclose the nature of his interest in the Toucans project at the April 19, 1994 Zoning Board meeting. At its April 19, 1994 meeting, the Zoning Board voted on the Toucans project. Respondent abstained from voting on the Toucans parking variance request at that meeting, but did not file a written memorandum disclosing his interest in the project within fifteen days of the vote. Respondent filed a Memorandum of Voting Conflict with respect to the Toucans parking variance request on May 27, 1994.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Final Order and Public Report be entered by the Florida Commission on Ethics finding that Respondent, Jim McCoullough, violated Sections 112.3143(3)(a), 112.3143(4) and 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), and imposing a civil penalty of $300.00. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Scott, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Kerrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Mr. James Naus 115 Fifth Street Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Appellant owns the property located at 1430 Palmetto Street, Clearwater, Florida. The area is zoned RS-50, a zoning for single family residents. The house located thereon is a three-bedroom, two-bath home with a garage and carport. Appellant proposes to enclose the garage to provide two additional bedrooms and a bath. The lot on which this house is sited contains 13,000 square feet. The minimum lot size for RS-50 zoning is 5,000 square feet. The structure exceeds all setback requirements of the Code. Most of the homes in this neighborhood have driveways to the garages while Appellant's property has a circular drive in front of the house. The structure meets the City of Clearwater's fire code and to be licensed as an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) must meet all requirements of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Appellant has a housekeeper on the premises at all times to prepare the meals and take care of the residents. Appellant's son manages the property and the son's wife visits the premises daily to do the necessary shopping, take the residents to doctor appointments, shopping, or for outings. Only one automobile remains at the premises on a 24-hour basis. Some residents do not have any family locally and visitors average one every two weeks per resident. Use of this property as an ACLF is reasonably compatible with the neighborhood. Excessive traffic will not be generated by use of this property as requested and the requirements for on-site parking is satisfied. Although an ACLF is a business, it is operated similar to a home in that business hours are not such that any disturbance of the neighborhood will occur and insignificant additional traffic will be generated as a result of granting this special exception. Neighbors generally have no complaints regarding the operation of the existing ACLF with a total of five residents but strongly oppose any increase in the number of residents. As grounds for opposing the increase these witnesses cited expected decrease in property values, anticipated increase in traffic and traffic hazards to the elderly residents of the ACLF who may walk along the street, excessive numbers of vehicles at the premises for which off-street parking is not available, a general dislike for any business activity conducted in the neighborhood, their opinion that an ACLF is incompatible with the neighborhood, and that Appellant will reap a financial bonanza if the special exception is granted. No statistical evidence was presented to support any of these contentions.
