Recommendation Having found the Respondent technically guilty of a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), and thereby guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and based upon the matters in mitigation, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent receive a private letter of reprimand for his technical violation. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 30th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. David H. Otto 1527 C Road Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is a certified general contractor and has been issued license number CG CA03134. During November of 1978, Respondent, doing business through the entity of Creative Home Design, Inc., entered into a contract with Dr. Stephen Silverstein to construct a residence in Boca Raton, Florida, for the sum of $180,000. Respondent received from Dr. Silverstein a total of $140,500 for the construction he performed on the Silverstein residence. (Stipulation by the parties) Additionally, Dr. Silvertstein paid certain liens which were filed with regard to the construction performed by Respondent on his residence, to wit: P.N.A. Drywall: $5,260.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Pentagon Diversified: $3,801.34 (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) American Lumber: $8,217.50 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Lone Star Industries, (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 and 8) Inc. $1,293.50 Mack Industries: $4,604.29 (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 10) Smith and DeShield: $ 600.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 11) Certain contractors furnishing labor and materials for the Silverstein residence based on contracts entered into by wit: Respondent also filed liens, to A. A. Marini Septic Tanks, Inc.: (Petitioner's Exhibit 21) $1,700.00 Delano Pools, Inc.: (Petitioner's Exhibit 20) $4,539.00 William D. Adeimy, Inc.: 3/ (Petitioner's Exhibit 16) $3,183.75 Climate Control Services: (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) $1,882.50 Ballavia Construction (Petitioner's Exhibit Company: 24) $5,446.00 Temperature Control: (Petitioner's Exhibit 18) $ 678.00 J. Griffin Painting: (Petitioner's Exhibit 23) $3,795.00 Central Systems, Inc.: $1,018.80 (Petitioner's Exhibit 19) Dr. Silverstein also entered into another contract for the sale of the residence being built by the Respondent whereby Dr. Silverstein agreed to sell the residence to Respondent's son, Joseph Roberts, for the sum of $210,000. (TR pages 5-6) On February 15, 1980, a notice of code violation was issued by the building official for Palm Beach County, Florida stating that the pool which was installed at the Silverstein residence was not completely enclosed by a fence or dense hedge as required by Section 500.14F of the Palm Beach Zoning Code. Respondent has failed to correct that violation. Respondent completed the Silverstein residence to a degree of completion where it could be occupied and he could move into the residence with his family. Thereafter, Dr. Silverstein eventually filed suit and was awarded a judgment evicting Respondent from the residence. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) Respondent's son, Joseph, failed to consummate the agreement to purchase the residence. Respondent and his family vacated the Silverstein residence and, in the process, removed certain fixtures attached to the residence including carpeting, appliances, door knobs, air conditioning and air handlers, the sprinkler system, light fixtures, vanities, a whirlpool tub, washer, dryer, air conditioning vents, bidet, sprinkling pump timer, and a drop-in range. (TR pages 23-28, 128- 130, and 98-100) Dr. Silverstein filed a claim of loss with his insurance company and was paid a settlement for the loss, which included the certain charges for reinstallation and the reconnection of the various fixtures which had been removed for a total sum of $24,252.02. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13, TR 25-28) The Respondent's Position Respondent contended that he was authorized to occupy the Silverstein residence and this contention is not really in dispute herein. However, it later became necessary for Dr. Silverstein to evict the Respondent and his family from the residence when it became apparent that his son, Joseph Roberts, would not consummate the agreement to purchase the residence of Dr. Silverstein. Respondent admits to taking the fixtures and other items referred to hereinabove. Respondent was without authority to do so. Respondent contends that the various liens which were referred to hereinabove were not valid inasmuch as more than one year had elapsed during the time the work was performed and no claim of lien had been filed within that one- year period. Thus, Respondent contends the claims of lien were defective. Respondent offered no proof of payment of the various claims of lien. Additionally, Respondent states that several of the contractors did not perform work and therefore there were no amounts due and owing those companies. Specifically, Respondent contends that Marini Septic Tank did not install the septic tank but a former affiliate did and that there was an attempt to bill him twice. Additionally, Respondent contends that he paid Ballavia Construction Company for the amount claimed in cash, however he had no receipts or other documentary evidence to substantiate that transaction. As relates to the claim of Griffin Painting, Respondent contends that he paid all amounts due and owing them save $660.00. Respondent failed to introduce evidence to corroborate his claim in that regard and it is therefore rejected. Finally, Respondent furnished releases of liens and an invoice of the claim referred to hereinabove from Climate Control Services, Inc. indicating that they were paid in full. Documentary evidence received and testimony introduced herein substantiates Respondent's position and it is found that he, in fact, paid Climate Control Services, Inc. in full for the services they rendered. (Respondent's Exhibits, 4, 6, and 10) As noted hereinabove, it is found that the Respondent paid the amount due and owing William D. Adeimy, Inc., and a release of lien from that entity was received herein. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's certified general contractor's license number CG CA03134 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 24th day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Clearwater Beach Hotel, Inc., is the owner of Lots 1-5 and 49-52 at 490 North Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Florida. Lots 1-5 are located on the southwest corner of Baymont Street and Gulfview Boulevard and front directly on Clearwater Beach. They measure approximately one hundred feet in depth and one hundred forty-one feet at their widest point. Lots 49-52 lie immediately across the street from Lots 1-5 and are approximately one hundred feet south of Baymont Street. They form a square and measure one hundred feet on each side. Petitioner purchased the property in question in 1978. Prior to that time the two parcels of land enjoyed common ownership and a common development pattern for at least forty years. A twenty-two room facility presently sits on Lots 1-5 and is rented out as ten units. Lots 49-52 are used as a parking lot for the tenants and guests of the facility. The property is presently zoned CTF-28 (High Density Commercial Tourist Facilities), which provides for a complete range of motel/hotel developments. The major emphasis of the district is tourist oriented with a permitted maximum density of forty-two hotel or motel units per acre. Petitioner wishes to destroy the existing structure and replace it with a new rectangular-shaped facility containing approximately twenty-two motel or hotel units. Because of the need to comply with flood ordinances, it must be built on pilings or piers. The proposed new structure will consist of four living levels over grade level parking. Petitioner's property measures less than two hundred feet in depth; therefore, the maximum height of its proposed facility cannot exceed forty feet under existing zoning requirements. Other property owners whose lots exceed two hundred feet in depth may construct buildings not to exceed eighty feet in height. Under present plans, the proposed hotel will have a forty-four foot height, which will require a four-foot variance. Petitioner contends that the hotel cannot be built with smaller dimensions. It also contends that a vista or side setback on the northwest corner of the building is required since present plans call for a small portion of the building to project into the vista area. This is due to the north property line running at an angle to the south property line and the proposed building being rectangular in shape. This variance will be contingent upon the City vacating a right-of-way adjacent to Baymont Street, thereby giving Petitioner an additional twenty feet in which to build its new facility. The City opposes the application on the ground that all criteria necessary to grant a variance have not been met. It specifically points out that the problems encountered by Petitioner are not unique to Petitioner alone, but are hardships common to all area owners.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Al Paruas (Respondent), as a member of the town council for the Town of Golden Beach, Florida, improperly used his influence, as a public officer, to have his wife’s parking ticket voided in violation of Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was an elected member of the Town council. As such, the Respondent is subject to the mandates of the Code of Ethics for public officers and employees found in Chapter 112, Florida Statutes (2002). On February 10, 2000, at approximately 5:25 p.m. within the Town of Golden Beach, Florida, Dagmarra Paruas (the Respondent’s wife) illegally parked her motor vehicle in a handicapped zone at the public beach pavilion. Mrs. Paruas exited her vehicle for a short amount of time (to see about some tables at the pavilion) and when she returned to the car, Officer Santinello was at her vehicle preparing a citation. Had Mrs. Paruas been respectful, remorseful or apologetic at the time, Officer Santinello would have written only a citation warning as it is his policy to warn persons before writing a citation. Instead, Mrs. Paruas was disrespectful toward the officer. Based upon Mrs. Paruas’ parking violation and the disrespectful manner in which she exited the beach parking area, Officer Santinello decided he would let the citation stand. Factors contributing to the officer’s decision were: the aggressive backing out of the parking space causing Officer Santinello to move quickly out of Mrs. Paruas’ vehicle’s path; Mrs. Paruas’ demand to speak to Hernan (Hernan Cardeno, the Town’s police chief); and the way Mrs. Paruas threw the ticket back at him after he attempted to hand the citation to her. Mrs. Paruas is a member of the Town’s beach committee. At or near the time of the citation, Mrs. Paruas was checking on arrangements at the beach pavilion for the beach committee. She did not believe the citation was fair because she was at the pavilion for a short time and was there in her capacity as a Town beach committee member. After Mrs. Paruas advised the Respondent that she had received a citation for parking at the pavilion, the Respondent telephoned the Town’s chief of police. During the conversation with the chief (Hernan Cardeno) the Respondent stated he was unhappy with the way the police department was being run and was unhappy his wife had received a parking citation. Mr. Paruas did not understand why his wife had received the citation. At a subsequent meeting with the police chief at the police department, the Respondent asked when the Town started giving councilmen’s wives tickets. The Respondent again reminded the police chief that he was unhappy with the police department. At the time, the Respondent was serving as vice mayor for the Town. The Respondent was not persuaded by the information provided to him regarding the ticket. He continued to complain regarding the citation to the police chief and to Officer Santinello. At some point during the meeting at the police office, Officer Santinello was told it would be in his best interests to take back the citation. When Officer Santinello asked whether his job was being threatened, he advised the Respondent and the police chief that he would contact the police union. The Respondent told Officer Santinello to take back the ticket and apologize to his wife. A short while later (after the Respondent had left the police office), the police chief suggested to Officer Santinello that he should void Mrs. Paruas’ ticket. The next day, Officer Santinello voided the citation by preparing a County Court Cancellation Form for the ticket. Mrs. Paruas was not required to pay the citation or appear in court or have any adverse entry on her driving record. Officer Santinello voided the citation because he was afraid of losing his job. He did not want additional conflict over the matter. Officer Santinello did not want to get on the Respondent’s bad side, given his position in the Town. Officer Santinello would like the entire incident to be forgotten. Officer Santinello expressed regret over the incident as it has potentially damaged his employment future with the Town. Mrs. Paruas and the Respondent benefited from the cancellation of the citation. Had the Respondent not challenged Officer Santinello as he did, and had he not been a member of the Town council, the citation would not have been voided. Neither Mrs. Paruas or the Respondent took responsibility for the fact that she had, in fact, parked illegally at the beach pavilion. Mrs. Paruas is not entitled to park in a handicapped zone. Members of the Town council and their spouses are not entitled to park illegally as an extra benefit of their public roles within the Town.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Ethics Commission enter a Final Order and Public Report concluding that the Respondent, Al Paruas, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2002). The Respondent should be subject to a public reprimand and the imposition of a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000. S DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. Parrish 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 29th day of July, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Macclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Macclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5709 James H. Peterson, III, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 James J. Birch, Esquire Law Office of Stuart R. Michelson 200 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on January 22, 1981, and issued certificate number 02-26745, which he still holds. On July 11, 1987, Respondent was employed by the City of Pompano Beach as a police officer. He had been employed in this capacity for approximately the previous seven years, during which time he had received merit pay increases and very good evaluations. Katrina Lynn Turner is now in her early thirties. She is an alcoholic who started drinking more than 15 years ago. She first received treatment for her drinking problem in August of 1987. In July of 1987, Turner drank heavily and often, at times to the point where she would lose consciousness. Turner suffered such an alcohol-induced blackout on July 11, 1987. She had spent most of that day with her friends at the beach drinking a considerable amount of beer. After leaving the beach and going to the local Western Union office to pick up $500.00 she had been wired by her boyfriend, Steven Bols, who lived in Chicago, Illinois, Turner went to the Doll House, a drinking establishment that offered adult entertainment. There, she continued her drinking, consuming a substantial amount of hard liquor. Turner left the Doll House in a taxi cab. While in the cab, she lost consciousness. The taxi driver became concerned and called for emergency assistance. At approximately 7:40 or 7:45 p.m., two City of Pompano Beach fire rescue units arrived on the scene. Richard Hall, a City of Pompano Beach firefighter/EMT who was among those to respond to the call, approached the cab and spoke with the taxi driver. The driver told Hall that he was unable to awaken Turner and therefore thought that she might be dead. Hall then directed his attention to Turner, who was laying unconscious in the back seat of the cab reeking of alcohol. Hall's initial efforts to arouse Turner were unsuccessful. Finally, after rubbing her sternum with his knuckles, shaking her, pinching her arm and yelling at her, he got her to open her eyes, which were glazed and bloodshot. Shortly thereafter, however, Turner closed her eyes and Hall had to awaken her again. Turner's vital signs were taken. They were within the normal range. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Richard D'Agostino, a City of Pompano Beach police officer who was on road patrol duty that evening, arrived on the scene. By this time, Turner had regained consciousness, but was still acutely intoxicated. She was disoriented, had slurred speech and was unable to stand or walk without assistance. D'Agostino attempted to question Turner. Because of her condition, it was very difficult for him to get understandable responses to his questions. In response to one of D'Agostino's questions, Turner told D'Agostino that the last thing she remembered was drinking and having a good time in some topless bar. After discovering a Colorado driver's license in Turner's purse, D'Agostino asked Turner where she was staying locally. Turner was unable to provide D'Agostino with an address. D'Agostino also inquired of Turner if there was anyone who would be able to pick her up and care for her that evening. Turner responded in the negative. Based upon his own observations, as well as the input he had received from the fire rescue personnel on the scene, D'Agostino determined that Turner was so intoxicated that she was not able to care for herself. He therefore took her into protective custody pursuant to Section 396.072, Florida Statutes, which is commonly referred to as the "Meyers Act." Before departing the scene, which was only one block from the City of Pompano Beach Police Department headquarters, where the City jail was located, D'Agostino paid the taxi driver with cash Turner had in her possession and explained to Turner that she was not under arrest and that she would be free to go when she sobered up. He then transported Turner to the jail. Michael Oliveri was the jailer on duty that evening. Oliveri was friendly with Respondent. Although they did not work on the same shift, they frequently conversed on the telephone when one or the other was assigned jail duty. D'Agostino informed Oliveri that Turner was being held in protective custody under the Meyers Act. Turner was wearing tennis shoes, sweat socks, shorts and a loose tank top without a brassiere. When D'Agostino brought her into the jail, Oliveri leered at her and made suggestive comments regarding her appearance. Turner giggled. She grabbed both D'Agostino and Oliveri by the arm and told them how cute she thought they were. Before locking Turner in a jail cell, D'Agostino asked her to take the laces out of her tennis shoes and give them to him. She complied with his request. When D'Agostino placed Turner in the cell, she became upset and started crying. D'Agostino reassured her that she was not under arrest. D'Agostino then left the jail to do some paperwork. He returned approximately 15 minutes later to find Turner outside of her cell in the booking area of the jail with Oliveri. There was no legitimate reason for Turner to have been in the booking area. Oliveri was taking pictures of Turner with a Poloroid camera that was supposed to be used to photograph arrestees booked into the jail. Turner was a very cooperative and willing subject. She posed for Oliveri. When he asked her to "show a little skin," she responded by exposing her breasts. Throughout this picture taking session, Turner was laughing and joking with Oliveri. When Turner started exposing her breasts, D'Agostino approached Oliveri and told him that he should put Turner back in her cell. Oliveri followed D'Agostino's suggestion. D'Agostino then left the jail to go back on road patrol. At the time of D'Agostino's departure from the jail, Turner still appeared to D'Agostino to be highly intoxicated. Sometime during D'Agostino's absence from the jail, Oliveri spoke with Respondent and made arrangements to have Respondent pick up Turner from the jail and take her to the Holiday Inn located on A1A in the City of Pompano Beach, where Respondent would be working a special detail later that evening. In July of 1987, City of Pompano Beach police officers working special details were considered to be on duty, acting in their capacity as City police officers with full arrest powers, from the time they called in on their police radios until they signed off. They were required by the City, which coordinated all special detail hiring, to wear their full police uniforms and carry their police-issued guns and radios while on their special details. City police officers working special details at the Pompano Beach Holiday Inn were responsible for patrolling the grounds, safeguarding the motel property and otherwise providing security for the motel management and their guests. It was the officers' duty to ensure that persons did not enter or use any of the motel rooms without authorization. They themselves were not authorized to use any of the motel rooms for non-work related purposes. If they wanted to use a room for such purposes during their off-duty time, they had to register and pay in advance at the front desk like any other guest. Shortly before 10:00 p.m. that evening, approximately two hours after Turner had been taken into protective custody, Oliveri took her from her cell and walked her to the curb outside the front door where Respondent was waiting in his personal vehicle. 3/ Respondent was in full police uniform and had with him his police-issued gun and radio. Along with Oliveri, he helped Turner get into the car. Neither Oliveri nor Respondent explained to Turner the circumstances under which she was being released from the jail. They simply told her that Respondent was going to take her to the Pompano Beach Holiday Inn. Turner assumed that once she and Respondent arrived at the motel, she would be free to leave. Turner went willingly with Respondent. While she had slept during a portion of her stay at the jail, at the time she left the jail she was still not completely sober. In July of 1987, the City of Pompano Beach had no written policies on how long a Meyers Act detainee should be kept in protective custody. Oliveri's supervisor, however, had provided his subordinates with some guidance on the matter. He had verbally instructed them that they should release such a detainee as soon as possible, but in no event before the detainee was able to take care of himself. On the average, Meyers Act detainees in the City of Pompano Beach jail remained in protective custody for six hours. With Turner as a passenger, Respondent drove directly to the Pompano Beach Holiday Inn. Oliveri remained behind at the jail to finish his shift. D'Agostino returned to the jail shortly after Respondent and Turner had left. He noticed that Turner was not there and asked Oliveri about her. Oliveri told D'Agostino that he had released Turner to her mother. Respondent arrived at the Pompano Beach Holiday Inn with Turner a short time after 10:00 p.m. He parked his car in the motel parking lot across the street from the motel lobby. Respondent asked Turner to stay in the car. Turner inquired if Respondent needed any money. He replied in the negative. Respondent then went to the motel lobby and signed in for his special detail. He also called in on his police radio that he was going on duty. While in the motel lobby, Respondent, without registering or making any advance payment, obtained a key to one of the rooms in the motel from Charles Maloney, who was working at the front desk. This breach of motel policy occurred without the knowledge of Charles Nickert, the motel manager on duty at the time. Sometime after obtaining the motel room key, Respondent returned to his car. Turner was still seated in the passenger seat where he had left her. Respondent helped Turner get out of the car and walk up the stairs to the motel room to which he had been given the key. Respondent unlocked and then opened the door to the room. Turner then walked into the room. Respondent followed her and closed the door behind him. Once they were in the room, Respondent asked Turner to remove her clothes and lay down on the bed. Turner, who was still suffering from the effects of the alcohol she had consumed earlier that day, complied with his request. After taking off his pants and underwear, Respondent got on top Turner and had sexual intercourse with her on the bed. After a few minutes, Respondent got off of Turner and went into the bathroom to wash up. When he finished in the bathroom, he put his clothes back on and told Turner that he needed to go to the front desk inasmuch as he was working security at the motel. He asked Turner not to use the telephone while he was gone. He then left the room and headed toward the motel lobby. Turner thereupon got up off the bed and went into the bathroom to clean herself off. After drying herself with the same towel Respondent had used and placing the towel in her purse, she went to use the telephone in the room, which was beside the bed, to call her boyfriend Bols in Chicago. Because the room had not been paid for, Turner had to dial the front desk and request that the phone be turned on. She spoke with Gerald Scheller, the night auditor, who had just come on duty at 11:00 p.m. that evening. Scheller turned on the telephone as Turner had requested. Turner then completed her call to Bols. Shortly thereafter, Scheller discovered that the room from which Turner was calling was supposed to be unoccupied. He immediately alerted Nickert, who was just about to end his shift and leave for the day. Nickert looked into the matter and confirmed that the room had not been registered to anyone. He then instructed one of his front desk clerks to page Respondent and tell him to go to the room to investigate the matter. Nickert thereupon left the lobby area to meet Respondent in the room. On his way to the room, Respondent spotted Nickert ahead of him. He called out to Nickert, who stopped and waited for him. Nickert told Respondent, when Respondent caught up with him, that there apparently was a female making a telephone call from an unrented room. Respondent advised Nickert that he was aware a female was in the unrented room in question and that, in fact, it was he who had let her into the room, using a key that Maloney had given him earlier that evening. He further told Nickert that the female was Oliveri's girlfriend and that Oliveri was going to join her later and pay for the room. 4/ Nickert was annoyed that Maloney, in violation of motel policy, had given out a key to the room without obtaining any registration information or payment in advance. After directing Respondent to remove the female from the room, Nickert returned to the motel lobby to confront Maloney about the matter. Maloney admitted to Nickert that he had given Respondent the key to the room pursuant to Respondent's request after Respondent had indicated that he was tired and might need to lay down and rest later in his shift. In relating to Nickert the circumstances surrounding his giving the key to Respondent, Maloney gave no indication that Respondent had mentioned to him that the room was for Oliveri and his girlfriend. Respondent meanwhile had rushed back to the motel room to get Turner. Upon reentering the room, Respondent angrily reprimanded Turner for using the telephone. He then told her that she had to leave and therefore needed to get dressed. After Turner was fully clothed, Respondent escorted her out of the room and down the stairs. Turner was still not completely sober at the time she exited the room with Respondent. When they reached the bottom of the stairs, Respondent told Turner to go to his car and wait for him while he took care of some business in the motel lobby. Instead of going to Respondent's car, Turner went to a public telephone on the motel property and placed another call to her boyfriend Bols. Bols suggested to Turner that she call a taxi cab to pick her up at the motel. Turner followed Bols' suggestion. A taxi cab arrived within 15 to 20 minutes. Turner entered the cab and it drove away. After unsuccessfully attempting to make contact with a friend with whom she had been staying in Fort Lauderdale, Turner checked into a local Days Inn, where she spent the remainder of the evening. Respondent was in the motel lobby when the cab drove away with Turner as a passenger. He had been speaking with Nickert. During his conversation with Nickert, Respondent offered to pay for the motel room he and Turner had used that evening. He also offered to pay for Turner's use of the telephone in that room. Nickert declined Respondent's offer to pay for the room, but accepted payment from Respondent for Turner's use of the telephone. Respondent and Nickert agreed that it would be best if Respondent did not work any additional special details at the motel that month. The following morning, sometime after 10:00 a.m., Nickert inspected the motel room Respondent and Turner had occupied the evening before. Nickert observed that the bedspread had been removed from the head of the bed and there was a pillow up against the headboard in a vertical position. It appeared to him that a previous occupant of the room had been sitting on the bed with his or her back leaning against the pillow. Nickert further noticed that there was a woman's sweat sock on the floor of the motel room. During his inspection of the room, Nickert did not see any dirty or soiled towels, nor was it apparent to him that any towels were missing. Later that same day, July 12, 1987, Respondent had a discussion with D'Agostino about the photographs Oliveri had taken of Turner the day before. D'Agostino was the one who brought up the subject. At first Respondent acted as if had no knowledge of the incident. He subsequently acknowledged, however, that he was aware of what had happened. In addition, he told D'Agostino that he had taken Turner to the Pompano Beach Holiday Inn and "fucked her brains out." Respondent later called D'Agostino and told him to keep his "mouth shut" about Oliveri's and Respondent's activities with Turner on July 11, 1987. Turner herself did not immediately report these activities to law enforcement authorities because she did not believe that it would serve any purpose to do so. Pompano Beach Police Department officials ultimately learned of these activities. Both Oliveri and Respondent were terminated by the department for having engaged these activities. In addition, Oliveri voluntarily relinquished his law enforcement certification. Sometime in or around 1989 Turner filed a civil action for damages against the City of Pompano Beach and the Pompano Beach Holiday Inn. The matter was settled prior to the City of Pompano Beach Employee Board of Appeals hearing on Respondent's appeal of his termination, at which Turner testified against Respondent. 5/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes, by virtue of his having had sexual intercourse with Turner at the Pompano Beach Holiday Inn on the evening of July 11, 1987, when he was on duty and supposed to be providing security services at the motel; and (2) suspending his certification for a period of six months, based upon such a finding. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 3rd day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Born September 3, 1956, Stephen Darryl Hand holds police certificate No. 02-18775. Respondent Hand was employed as a police officer by the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department from July 3, 1977, to December 21, 1979. On December 22, 1979, he began working for the Melbourne Police Department, which he left in February of 1980, at the Police Chief's behest. In the fall of 1978, respondent was entrusted with the keys to the evidence locker at the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department. After Officer Martin came into possession of $14,990 in cash, it was stored in the evidence locker. Although seized in suspicious circumstances, the money was labeled as abandoned property, and not as evidence. Two weeks or so before he left Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, respondent stole fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) from the cash in the evidence locker. This was the first time that he had been custodian of a large amount of cash. During respondent's final week with the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department, he and his replacement were directed to count the money again. Respondent then reported a shortage of $1,500 to Lt. Ferguson, without revealing that he had taken the money himself. He had used it for various personal purposes, including $250 he paid for the benefit of his sister. Lt. Ferguson reported the missing money to Chief Fernez who encouraged all personnel to take polygraph tests. Many resented this suggestion and morale problems arose. The theft made the local papers. When respondent, who was by that time employed by the Melbourne Police Deportment, was originally scheduled for a polygraph examination, he feigned illness and declined to take it. After Chief Fernez contacted Chief Miller of the Melbourne Police Department, however, he submitted to a polygraph examination, during which he denied knowing what had happened to the $1,500 he had recently spent. Some time later, respondent told Sergeant Keller of the Indian Harbour Beach Police Department that he had found the missing money among some papers at home. Respondent made full restitution before criminal charges were filed. On March 6, 1980, he pleaded guilty to grand theft, second degree and, on May 20, 1980, was placed on two years' probation, adjudication of guilt being withheld. Sixteen law enforcement officers testified on behalf of respondent to the effect that respondent was a good police officer who should be given a second chance even though he was guilty of an offense none of them could condone. Similarly, petitioner's witnesses commended respondent's conduct as a police officer, apart from the theft of a large sum of cash from the evidence locker, and the lying afterwards. To the extent that proposed findings of fact in petitioner's proposed recommended order have not been adopted in substance, they have been rejected as not established by the preponderance of the evidence or deemed irrelevant, after careful consideration.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke the certificate it issued to respondent, No. 02- 18775. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Corrigan, Esquire The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen Darryl Hand 105 Elm Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent Howard B. Berman has been a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0178090. At all times material hereto Respondent Michael J. Weil has been a licensed real estate broker having been issued license number 0179132. At all times material hereto Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc., has been a corporation licensed as a broker having been issued license number 0196048. Although Respondent Berman was a director of Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc. since at least March 7, 1979, he did not become an officer or stockholder in that corporate broker until December of 1982 or January of 1983. Although Respondent Weil was a director of Respondent Paramount Realty, Inc. since at least March 7, 1979, he did not become an officer or stockholder in that corporate broker until January of 1984. Prior to the time that Respondent Berman and Respondent Weil became officers and stockholders of Paramount Realty, Inc., they were not employed by Paramount but rather had an independent contractor relationship with that corporate broker. On or about June 13, 1979, Respondent Weil, acting as trustee for himself and for Respondent Berman, entered into a contract to purchase a certain parcel of land located in Broward County, Florida, with the intent of developing that land by building a condominium thereon. On or about October 18, 1979, Respondent Weil as trustee sold the above-referenced parcel of land to an investors group known as North Beach Development Group, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, which the Respondents organized. The general partner in that limited partnership was North Beach Development Company, a Florida corporation, in which none of the Respondents had an interest. On or about October 18, 1979, Respondents Berman and Weil, as employees of North Beach, Inc., a Florida corporation, negotiated and obtained a consultation agreement between North Beach Development Group, Ltd. and North Beach, Inc. under which Respondents Berman and Weil would provide consultation services in connection with the development of a 34 unit condominium complex on the above-referenced parcel of land. On or about October 19, 1979, the general partner North Beach Development Company, and each of its stockholders, and each of the limited partners of North Beach Development Group Ltd. executed an Approval, Consent and Ratification agreement approving the above mentioned consultation agreement, establishing Respondent Paramount as the exclusive real estate agent for the condominium units, and approving the purchase by Respondents Berman and Weil of condominium units Nos. 604 and 607 for a combined total purchase price of $185,000. Prior to the creation of North Beach Development Group, Ltd., Respondents Berman and Weil placed $25,000 of their moneys on deposit under the contract to purchase the above-referenced land. During the existence of the limited partnership Respondents Berman and Weil loaned approximately $40,000 to the partnership. Respondents Berman and Weil also personally guaranteed the three million dollar construction loan involved in the project. Accordingly, both Respondents Berman and Weil had their personal funds at risk in the development of the condominium project. At no time did either Respondent Berman or Respondent Weil represent to Pat Dalton or any other investor or potential investor that either or both of them had invested or would invest any of their personal moneys in either the general partner North Beach Development Company or the partnership North Beach Development Group, Ltd. Five changes were made to Respondent Berman's unit 604, the total cost of all five changes being approximately $2,300. On May 19 and May 20, 1981, two checks were written off the account of North Beach Development Group, Ltd. to pay for the five changes to unit 604. On May 26, 1981, Respondent Berman (and his wife) closed on their purchase of unit 604. At the closing, Respondent Berman totally reimbursed North Beach Development Group, Ltd. the moneys it spent six days earlier for the five changes to unit 604.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered finding Respondents Howard B. Berman, Michael J. Well and Paramount Realty, Inc., not guilty of the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against them and dismissing that Amended Administrative Complaint with prejudice. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Langford, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard S. Rachlin, Esquire 1810 New World Tower 100 N. Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33132
The Issue Whether Glenda Parris (Respondent), while employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes,1/ by using her position to rent property and/or gain preferential treatment at a court proceeding and, if so, the appropriate penalty. Whether Respondent, while employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer, violated section 112.313(7), by having a contractual relationship that conflicted with her official responsibilities and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer. Respondent is subject to the requirements of part III, chapter 112, which consists of sections 112.311 - 112.326, and is known as the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Respondent's assigned duties included inspecting, observing, reporting, and enforcing the City of West Palm Beach's code regulating zoning, housing, and the environment Respondent's was assigned a work zone in West Palm Beach that included 231 Lytton Court (the subject property). At the times relevant to this proceeding, Dr. Rhonda Nasser was the owner and/or principal of El Nasco II, a limited liability company. El Nasco II owned the house at 231 Lytton Court. In the summer of 2010, Respondent issued multiple notices of violation to Dr. Nasser relating to the subject property. In July 2010, Respondent and Dr. Nasser met at the subject property to discuss the notices of violation. At that meeting, Respondent asked Dr. Nasser if she could rent the subject property. Respondent was on duty and in her uniform when she negotiated the lease of the subject property. Dr. Nasser entered into an agreement with Respondent for Respondent to rent the subject property for $1,200.00 per month beginning in August 2010. As soon as she moved in to the subject property, Respondent began to complain to Dr. Nasser as to items that needed to be repaired or replaced. Respondent wrote a demand letter on August 31, 2010, that referenced code requirements. On November 3, 2010, wrote a second demand letter that also referenced code requirements. Dr. Nasser testified, credibly, that she believed that Respondent was threatening to use code violations to support her demand as to items that needed to be impaired or replaced. Dr. Nasser's belief was reasonable. Respondent began to withhold rent because Dr. Nasser would not make the improvements Respondent had demanded. At the end of January or the beginning of February 2011, Dr. Nasser initiated eviction proceedings against Respondent due to Respondent's failure to pay rent. John Frasca has been employed as a West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Officer for more than 11 years. Respondent asked Mr. Frasca on two separate occasions prior to May 26, 2011, to inspect the subject property. At the first inspection, Respondent deliberately withheld the fact that she lived at the subject property. At the time of the second inspection, Respondent pressured Mr. Frasca to complete the inspection and informed him that she needed the inspection report for her attorney. A rental license for a residence is the official authorization from the City of West Palm Beach that an owner may rent its residence and that the residence will be inspected. A rental license guarantees to a renter that the residence has been inspected and maintained, and is meeting all current codes. A rental license is required by the city code. Mr. Frasca discovered that the owner of the subject property had no rental license. Respondent should have known that the owner did not have a rental license, and she should have refused to rent the property until the owner obtained a rental license. The eviction proceedings initiated by Dr. Nasser progressed to a court hearing before a judge. At the eviction hearing, Respondent wore her work uniform, which consisted of dark colored pants, a code enforcement badge on her belt, and a shirt with "City of West Palm Beach, Code Enforcement" written on it. Dr. Nasser believed that Respondent wore the uniform in court to give the appearance that Respondent was an expert in code enforcement. Alleged code violations came up as an issue during the eviction hearing. Respondent argued that she withheld the payment of rent because Dr. Nasser would not correct perceived code violations. Following the eviction hearing, Dr. Nasser contacted John Alford, who was, at that time, the Director of Public Works for West Palm Beach. Mr. Alford supervised the West Palm Beach Code Enforcement Department, including the code enforcement officers. There existed an unwritten policy that code enforcement officers were not to wear their uniforms on unofficial business. Mr. Alford had admonished the code enforcement officers, including Respondent, to "take care while wearing the badge." The City of West Palm Beach investigated Respondent's actions and prepared a document titled "Timeline - 231 Lytton Ct., WPB." That document, which is in evidence as Exhibit 9, reflects Respondent's actions regarding the subject property. West Palm Beach uses a computer tracking system called Community Plus System that tracks all activities relating to a building code complaint and/or violation. A code officer puts in all information related to an inspection plus action taken for the property by its owner or a magistrate. The public can go to a website to view the status of a property in the City. The City prepared a report based on the Community Plus System for the subject property. Mr. Alford determined that Respondent had manipulated entries for the subject property in the Community Plus System by changing information relating to inspections. On June 7, 2011, Mr. Alford notified Respondent in writing that he was going to terminate her employment. On July 6, 2011, Respondents' employment was terminated for violations of the City's Employee Handbook and Code of Ethics. Mr. Alford determined that Respondent's actions of proposing and negotiating a lease agreement while on duty and in uniform violated subparagraph 6 of the City's Ethics Policy 4.4, which is as follows: "City representatives shall not engage in financial transactions using non-public information or allow the improper use of such information to further any private interest or gain." Mr. Alford also determined that Respondent violated the City's Code of Ethics provision 4.4 by wearing her City-issued uniform and badge to court for a personal matter giving the appearance that she was acting on behalf of the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report that finds that Respondent, Glenda Parris, violated section 112.313(6) and imposes against her a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report that finds that Respondent, Glenda Parris, violated section 112.313(7) and imposes against her a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00, for a total civil penalty of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the Applicant, Florida-Georgia Venture Group, is entitled to development orders for its proposed development of regional impact, Hunter's Ridge, in Flagler County and the City of Ormond Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Florida-Georgia Venture Group, 402 Clifton Avenue, Holly Hill, Florida 32117, and its authorized agent is Thomas L. Durrance, Managing Partner. The Hunter's Ridge project lies within the jurisdiction of both the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (NEFRPC) and the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) and underwent concurrent review. The Hunter's Ridge project as proposed in this proceeding is a proposed planned unit development located in the unincorporated area of Flagler County and in the City of Ormond Beach on approximately 5,037 acres. The portion of the Hunter's Ridge project located in the unincorporated area of Flagler County consists of approximately 3,800 acres, of which 1,940 acres will be preserved as conservation area. The portion to be developed in the unincorporated area of Flagler County is approximately 1,860 acres, consisting of 1,702 residential units, plus commercial, recreational, and other uses. The portion of the Hunter's Ridge project located in the City of Ormond Beach consists of approximately 1,237 acres, of which 327 acres will be preserved as conservation area. The portion of the property in Ormond Beach to be developed is approximately 910 acres, consisting of 982 residential units, plus commercial, recreational, and other uses. Of the residential units to be developed in the City of Ormond Beach, 109 residential units were approved by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) under a preliminary development agreement. The Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County held a public hearing on the DRI/ADA on July 13, 1989, which was continued to October 12, 1989, to November 2, 1989, to January 11, 1990, and to January 25, 1990. On January 25, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County passed and adopted a Development Order for the Hunter's Ridge DRI, which Development Order was recorded in Official Records Book 0423, Page 0669 through 0728, Public Records of Flagler County, Florida. The City Commission of the City of Ormond Beach held a public hearing on the DRI/ADA on August 15, 1989, which was continued to September 5, 1989, to September 19, 1989, to October 3, 1989, to October 17, 1989 and to January 30, 1990. At the public hearing on January 30, 1990, the City of Ormond Beach adopted Resolution 90-20 denying the DRI/ADA for the portion of the Hunter's Ridge DRI located in the City of Ormond Beach. The DCA, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rules 42- 2.002 through 42-2.011, Florida Administrative Code, timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC), whereby DCA appealed the Development Order adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Flagler County. The Applicant, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, and Rules 42-2.002 through 42-2.011, Florida Administrative Code, timely filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Administrative Hearing with FLWAC, whereby the Applicant appealed the denial of approval by Ormond Beach. This cause came before FLWAC on May 22, 1990, for consideration of the Appeals and the Petitions for Administrative Hearing; FLWAC ordered that this matter be forwarded to Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for assignment of a hearing officer and further proceedings. At the Administrative Hearing conducted by DOAH, on December 5-7, 1990, the Applicant amended its DRI/ADA to reduce the size of the project and to reallocate land uses, densities, and other components of the project. The current scope of the project is reflected in Florida-Georgia Exhibits 1-5, 9, and 14. As amended by the Applicant, the proposed project now consists of the following uses in Flagler County: 11.61 acres of Village Retail Office; 5.71 acres of Village Office; 16.68 acres of Light Industrial; 197.18 acres of Village Services/Recreational; 90.89 acres of Parks and Schools; 64.52 acres of Multi-Family Residential (with Upland Buffer); 259.34 acres of Wetlands; 146.93 acres of Roads, Drainage, and Retention; 52.90 acres of Lakes; 130.00 acres of Golf Course; 57.25 acres of Utility Easement; and 130.00 acres of Single Family Residential. The total number of dwelling units permitted in the County is 220 townhouses and villas and 145 apartments and condominiums. As amended by the Applicant, the proposed project now consists of the following uses in the City: 192.00 acres of Village Services/Recreational; 30.61 acres of Parks and Schools; 14.51 acres of Multi-Family Residential (with Upland Buffer); 174.54 acres of Wetlands; 110.95 acres of Roads, Drainage, and Retention; 28.65 acres of Lakes; 17.32 acres of Utility Easement; and 341.42 acres of Single Family Residential (with Upland Buffer). The total number of dwelling units permitted in the City are 932 single family units and 50 townhouses and villas. Generally speaking, the portions of the development within the County which are to be developed are in Township 41 South, Range 31 East, Section 22 and the east half of Section 21; Section 15 and the east half of Section 16, with the exception of a golf course in Section 15, constitute an area that, if it is to be developed in the future, will require a substantial deviation approval from all concerned agencies. Pursuant to stipulation of the Applicant and Flagler County, an area approximating Section 15 and the east half of Section 16 will be redesignated under the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan as Agricultural, with a permitted residential density of not more than one unit per five acres. Pursuant to stipulation, Sections 17 and 20 and the west halves of Sections 16 and 21, along with most of the portions of Sections 29 and 30 north of State Road 40, will be deeded to a public or public interest agency, with the Applicant retaining the right to conduct silviculture with best management practices except in those wetland areas of the property designated for conservation. The parties, with the exception of Citizens, have stipulated that Florida-Georgia Exhibit 5 constitutes the necessary affordable housing conditions for the project. The affordable housing provisions of the proposed project are consistent of the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and the State Comprehensive Plan. The affordable housing conditions adequately address affordable housing needs of the project consistent with all local government, state, and regional requirements and regulations. The Applicant, the Florida Audubon Society, Flagler County and the City of Ormond Beach, have stipulated that the conditions contained in their Joint Stipulation, filed as Florida-Georgia Exhibit 9 satisfactorily resolve all issues concerning wetlands, wildlife habitat, and endangered species. The soils on the project will support the proposed development. During review of the DRI/ADA by the RPCs, Volusia County submitted comments and recommendations to ECFRPC. The comments and recommendations of Volusia County were considered by ECFRPC when it adopted its recommended conditions of approval. The conservation area proposed by the Applicant represents a significant contribution to conservation and wildlife. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval adequately address the regional impacts of the project on the environment and natural resources. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval include measures intended to address impacts upon, and to protect, the Little Tomoka River. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide for preservation and conservation of wetlands. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide flexibility for protection of environmentally sensitive areas. The proposed plan of development reflects a development that provides adequate environmental protection. The proposed project will have no adverse environmental impacts in the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval provide protection for the Little Tomoka River, preventive measures regarding stormwater discharge and stormwater treatment, and mitigative, water quality treatment methods in the surface drainage system, if any degradation is found at a later date. The proposed Conditions of Approval require that all construction within the project be protected against flooding. The project has sufficient safeguards to prevent construction within flood prone areas. Minimum floor elevations for flood plain purposes will be controlled by FEMA flood plain designations and by local rules and regulations, and will be established on a case by case basis for the Hunter's Ridge project. The proposed Conditions of Approval addressing transportation impacts and facilities are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, with the provisions of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and with the State Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Conditions of Approval ensure that the Hunter's Ridge project will not have an adverse impact on regionally significant roadways, including State Road 40. The proposed Conditions of Approval will ensure that the regional highway network will function at the desired level of service during the project buildout. The proposed Conditions of Approval are consistent with the provisions of Section 380.06(12), Florida Statutes, relating to transportation impacts. The proposed Conditions of Approval adequately address the transportation concerns of Flagler County. The proposed Conditions of Approval adequately address the transportation impacts on the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Conditions of Approval dealing with public facilities are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, consistent with the provisions of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. If the conditions for providing public facilities are not met by the Applicant, development must cease. The proposed Conditions of Approval dealing with public facilities are consistent with the concurrency requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The proposed Development Orders and Conditions of Approval adequately address the regional impacts of the project on public services and facilities. The proposed plan for development of the Flagler County portion of the project provides for all required public facilities and services. The Applicant will have to subsidize any deficits in providing public services. The Applicant has agreed to make contributions intended to assist Flagler County in providing public services to residents of areas outside of the Hunter's Ridge project. Solid waste is not an issue in Flagler County. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project provide three options for wastewater treatment. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project require that the project must stand on its own and must provide water supply and wastewater treatment without cost to the rest of the residents of Flagler County. The Flagler County portion of the project requires 1,200 to 1,500 dwelling units to provide a self-contained, self-supporting, self-sufficient development which will not require subsidy by other Flagler County taxpayers. The good mix of land uses contained in the proposed plan for development will help the tax base of Flagler County and avoid a deficit during the buildout of the project prior to construction of 1,200 to 1,500 dwelling units. The tax base, the values, and the assessments for the proposed project will provide sufficient funds to support the development. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the Flagler County portion of the project provide for voluntary contributions by the Applicant in excess of what is required by local ordinance. The dedication and donation of the golf course and conservation areas to Flagler County are voluntary contributions by the Applicant. The Ormond Beach portion of Hunter's Ridge project will not require a separate police patrol zone. The Ormond Beach Police Department can provide acceptable response times for the portions of the project within the City. The public safety site to be dedicated by the Applicant will benefit the City and the Police Department and will be helpful in rendering public safety services to the citizens of Ormond Beach. The Ormond Beach portion of Hunter's Ridge project will provide needed revenue to provide needed Police Department services. The Ormond Beach Police Department can adequately provide public safety services for the Hunter's Ridge area and respond to public safety needs within a reasonable amount of time. The City of Ormond Beach is capable of providing potable water service to the project. Impact fees generated by the project will be sufficient to fund water supply and wastewater capital facilities needed to serve the project. The City has adopted the West Ormond Plan to provide utilities to the Hunter's Ridge project. The Applicant has dedicated to the City a westerly wellfield site which will be needed for the entire city in the future, even if the Hunter's Ridge project is not developed. The City of Ormond Beach does not lose money on water and sewer fees. If the homes built in the Ormond Beach portion of the Hunter's Ridge project approximate the assessed values of existing homes within the city, there will be no revenue strain on the operating budget of the City of Ormond Beach. The average sale price for homes in the Hunter's Ridge project will be higher than the current average sale price within the City of Ormond Beach. The Hunter's Ridge project will not place an economic strain on the City of Ormond Beach. Future growth in the City of Ormond Beach will pay for itself in terms of capital needs. The fiscal problems of the City of Ormond Beach are not unique, but are similar to those occurring throughout the state. Increased property values from the Hunter's Ridge project will help the city's fiscal problems in the long run. The City of Ormond Beach has a great deal of ad valorem capacity to meet service needs and operating budgets. The Hunter's Ridge DRI will make significantly more contributions to public services and facilities than traditional subdivisions. The reduced project as proposed for approval in this proceeding contributes a greater amount of money toward public facilities. The public safety site to be dedicated in the Ormond Beach portion of the project is adequate to serve the fire fighting needs of the project and the surrounding areas. The public safety site to be dedicated in the Ormond Beach portion of the project gives the city flexibility in providing fire fighting services if the road network connecting the project with Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails is in place and will enable the city to better serve Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails. The roadway network for the Hunter's Ridge project will provide interconnections with Shadow Crossings and Breakaway Trails for the provision of police, fire, and emergency services. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no impact on solid waste in the City of Ormond Beach. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no impact on the vehicular needs of the City of Ormond Beach Department of Public Works. The Hunter's Ridge project will have no adverse impact on road maintenance in the City of Ormond Beach. The proposed Hunter's Ridge DRI is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the requirements of Rule 9J-2, Florida Administrative Code, and the requirements of the State Comprehensive Plan. The Hunter's Ridge DRI meets all regional requirements. The Hunter's Ridge DRI does not represent "leap frog development," nor does it constitute "urban sprawl." The density of 982 dwelling units for the Ormond Beach portion of the Hunter's Ridge project is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Reducing the density proposed for the Ormond Beach portion of the project from 982 residential units to 882 residential dwelling units would not necessarily be considered an improvement to furthering the plan concept. The Hunter's Ridge DRI is consistent with the plans and policies of the Regional Planning Councils. As to the portions within Flagler County, the Hunter's Ridge DRI: Is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes; Is beneficial to Flagler County; Is consistent with the Flagler County Comprehensive Plan; Is consistent with the NEFRPC report and recommendations; Is superior to existing zoning; Provides better development and more planning opportunities than non- DRI approaches to development; and, Provides adequate controls for the development of Hunter's Ridge. The Ormond Beach portion of the project: Is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes; Is consistent with the Ormond Beach Comprehensive Plan and all City ordinances and regulations; Adequately mitigates against adverse impacts through the Conditions of the proposed Development Order. To the extent that the opinions of some witnesses, primarily Mr. Grace and Mr. Shearer, have not been adopted in these Findings of Fact, they are deemed to be unreliable or lacking in substantial weight or persuasive value.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a Final Order and therein: Adopt the development order with conditions as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and the City of Ormond Beach. Adopt the development order with conditions as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Florida-Georgia Venture Group and Flagler County. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Florida-Georgia Venture Group Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-5(1-5); 12-14(6-8); 16- 19(9-12); 20(18); 22-25(19-22); 27-38(23-34); 40-89(35-83); 91(84); 92(85); 94(86); 97(87(; and 98(88). Proposed findings of fact 26, 39, 90, 93, 95, and 96 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 6-11 and 21 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 15 is irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Department of Community Affairs Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 8-12(13-17). Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, and 13-17 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 3-7 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the City of Ormond Beach 1. Proposed findings of fact 1, 8, 10-17, 21, 33-36, 38-40, 43, 46, and 49 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2-7, 19, 20, 22, 23, 37, 47, 48, and 50 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 9, 18, 24-32, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, and 52 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Citizens for Ormond Beach 1. Proposed findings of fact 7, 9-11, 13-19, 21-25, 35, 47, and 49-52 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 8, 12, 20, 26-32, 34, 42, and 57 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 33, 36-39, 43-46, 48, and 53-56 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 1-6, 40, and 41 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Doyle Tumbleson, Attorney at Law Kinsey Vincent Pyle Professional Association 150 South Palmetto Avenue, Box A Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Fred S. Disselkoen, Jr. Attorney at Law City of Ormond Beach Post Office Box 277 Ormond Beach, FL 32175-0277 Gerald S. Livingston Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, FL 32802 Timothy Keyser, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, FL 32148 Jonathan Hewett Attorney at Law Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. 216 South Sixth Street Palatka, FL 32177 David Russ, Senior Attorney Julia Johnson, Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, FL 32751 Linda Loomis Shelley Attorney at Law Dixon, Blanton & Shelley 902 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Noah McKinnon Attorney at Law 595 West Granada Avenue Ormond Beach, FL 32075 Douglas M. Cook, Director Planning and Budgeting Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol, PL-05 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001
