The Issue The issues in this case are as follows: Was Respondent Daniel Oldfather legally responsible for accounting and refund? Were the refund provisions of the receipt form printed in type as required by Rule 21V-10.15, Florida Administrative Code? Was Richard Vanicek due a 75 percent refund? Was Vanicek due a complete refund because of inaccurate information given him? Did Vanicek make written demand for a refund, and was a written demand for the refund necessary?
Findings Of Fact In September of 1979, Sun Rentals and Management, Inc., was a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0208997 and doing business at 2703 East Oakland Park Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. At that time, Victor Stevens was a licensed real estate salesperson employed by Sun Rentals. Stevens, as an employee of Sun Rentals, interviewed Richard D. Vanicek concerning Vanicek's rental needs. Vanicek entered into a contract with Sun Rentals (Petitioner's Exhibit number 1) under which he paid Sun Rentals $45 and Sun Rentals was to provide him with rental information on available rentals. Vanicek received a receipt (Petitioner's Exhibit number 3) which provided in pertinent part as follows: ... Notice, pursuant to Florida Law: If the rental information provided under this contract is not current or accurate in any material aspect, you may demand within 30 days of this contract date a return of your full fee paid. If you do not obtain a rental you are entitled to receive a return of 75 percent of the fee paid, if you make demand within 30 days of this contract date. ... It was agreed that the receipt was printed totally in ten-point type. Vanicek attempted to visit one of the listings provided to him by Sun Rentals. He encountered difficulty in locating the listing; however, his lack of familiarity with Fort Lauderdale may have contributed to his difficulties. Vanicek found a rental through his own efforts and requested a refund of 75 percent of his $45 fee by telephone. He made his request first to Stevens, who referred him to Daniel Oldfather pursuant to office policy. As a result of this referral Vanicek spoke with a man at Sun Rentals, who may have been Oldfather, and restated his request for a refund. His request was denied. Daniel Oldfather was the licensed broker/salesman for Sun Rentals during September, 1979. He was the office manager of Sun Rentals at that time. Martin Katz was broker for Sun Rentals in September of 1979 (Transcript; Page 261, L 21). Oldfather was the next man in authority at the office under Katz (Transcript; Page 235, L 6). Katz delegated to Oldfather the authority to make refunds. The rental forms, including the rental receipt form (Petitioner's Exhibit number 3), were submitted to the Board of Real Estate.
Recommendation Having found that Daniel Oldfather was not guilty of any of the allegations in the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that Counts I, II and III against him be dismissed. Having found that Sun Rentals and Management, Inc., is not guilty of the allegations contained in Count III of the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that Count III against Sun Rentals be dismissed. Having found that Sun Rentals is guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and 475.453(1), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the license of Sun Rentals be suspended for 60 days, during which time the officers and directors of said corporation may not engage in the practice of real estate sales or brokerage under their names or in any other corporate name. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of May, 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 4th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. Jordan, Esquire Post Office Box 14723 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302 James Curran, Esquire 200 SE Sixth Street, Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Shirley Holland was registered with Petitioner as a real estate salesman in January, 1976, associated with Vern Duncklee Real Estate and Insurance, Inc., Naples, Florida. He is presently registered as a real estate broker. (Stipulation) On January 5, 1976, W. H. Ragan gave the Duncklee firm a listing to sell real property consisting of approximately one and one-quarter acres located in Collier County, Florida, for a selling price of $7,500. Respondent was the listing salesman. (Testimony of Respondent, Ragan, Duncklee, Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent also was a builder who operated as Holland Investment Company. It was his practice to purchase various properties, remodel existing structures on the same, and thereafter sell them at a profit. There was a two- room shed located on the Ragan property that had no inside finishing work, electricity, or septic tank. Respondent decided to take an option on the property in order to remodel it by adding a room and to place it in a habitable condition. He broached the subject to Ragan on January 6, 1976, and Ragan told him on January 7, that he was agreeable to such a contract. On January 8, Respondent and Ragan and his wife entered into a Sales Contract and Option to Buy for $7,500. The contract provided that closing would take place within twelve months and that the seller would give possession of the property to the purchaser on January 8, 1976. This was pursuant to an accompanying rental agreement dated January 8, 1976, between the parties for a period of twelve months which provided that Respondent could exercise his option at any time within the stated twelve-month period whereby all rents paid would be applied toward the down payment on the property of $1,900 which was to be made at closing of the sale. The rental agreement further provided that if Respondent did not exercise his option within the required time, any improvements made by him on the property during that period would be considered liquidated damages of the owner. Pursuant to these agreements, Respondent made a payment of $100 at the time they were executed, which represented an initial deposit on the contracts and as rent for first month of the term. The Option Agreement also gave Respondent authority to remodel the building on the property and it further reflected that Respondent was a registered real estate salesman and would be selling the property for profit. (Testimony of Respondent, Duncklee, Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 7) On January 5, 1976, Respondent showed Harold and Ruby Stacy several houses in the area that were for sale. On January 9, Respondent went by the Stacy residence to see if they were interested in any of the houses he had shown them. They were not interested in those houses and Respondent told them of property that he had recently acquired which was the Ragan property. He showed it to Mr. Stacy that night and the next day Mrs. Stacy went with him to look at the premises. During the course of their conversations, Respondent offered to rent the property to them for $100 for the period January 10 to February 1, 1976. It was his intention to rent it to them for $125 per month commencing in February on the condition that they clean and fix up the property. They also discussed the possibility of purchase at a later date. Respondent told them that he would sell to them for $13,000 if Harold Stacy would do the remodeling work on the shed with Respondent supplying the materials. Respondent quoted a possible sales price of $14,500 if he was obliged to provide both labor and materials for renovating the shed and providing for utility services. Respondent and the Stacys entered into a rental agreement on that day for the initial period of some three weeks and Ruby Stacy gave him a check dated January 10 for $100 with a notation thereon that it was a deposit on land. Respondent explained to Mrs. Stacy that he was merely renting the property at that time and added the word "rent" at the bottom of the check. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 2) Thereafter, the Stacys proceeded to clean the premises and commence installing a ceiling in the building located on the property. They also installed a septic tank. At some undisclosed date, Ragan came to the property to obtain some of his belongings and found the Stacys there. He learned that they supposedly had purchased the property from Respondent, Ragan was of the opinion that Respondent had purported to sell the property before he had obtained the option thereon and that he had therefore defrauded the Stacys. Ragan thereupon filed a complaint against Respondent with the local Board of Realtors in latter January, 1976. About the same time, Respondent had been in the process of obtaining local permits to install the septic tank and do the other work. He discovered that the Stacys had installed a septic tank without his authorization and without obtaining a permit. He thereupon, by letter of January 21, 1976, informed the Stacys that they had done work on the property without a building permit or approval of the County Health Department and therefore was refunding the rental payment of $100. He enclosed his check in that amount, dated January 21, 1976. Although Respondent later attempted to exercise his option to purchase the property, Ragan refused to fulfill the agreement and later sold the property to the Stacys himself for $7,500. (Testimony of Respondent, R. Stacy, Ragan, Petitioner's Exhibits 3,4) Mrs. Stacy testified at the hearing that she was under the impression that she and her husband had purchased the property in question on January 10, 1976, and that the $100 payment had been a deposit for such purchase. She was under the further impression that they were to make a $2,500 down payment in February to consummate the deal. She further testified that they made the improvements on the land because of their understanding that they were going to purchase it. Mrs. Stacy had never been involved in a prior purchase of real property and is unfamiliar with contract documents and terminology. It is found that Mrs. Stacy honestly believed that she and her husband had a valid agreement to purchase the property. Her testimony that she and her husband entered into the rental arrangement in January to enable them to work on the property until they could make the down payment in February is deemed credible. (Testimony of R. Stacy) Ragan and Respondent had been involved in a prior real estate transaction and Respondent testified that Ragan had not been satisfied with that transaction, but Ragan testified to the contrary. However, Ragan talked to Respondent's broker in January, 1976, about the Stacy situation, at which time Ragan stated that he had a chance to get even with Respondent for the prior transaction and that he was going to do so. (Testimony of Respondent, Ragan, Duncklee, D. Holland)
Recommendation That the Administrative complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Doherty, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Ed R. Miller, Esquire Suite 212 - 1400 Gulf Shore Boulevard Naples, Florida 33940
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Susan Ellen Walton, was a registered and licensed real estate broker at all times material hereto. The Respondent, Walton Associates, Inc., was a licensed real estate broker at all times material hereto. The Respondents have been issued licenses numbered 0092944 and 0111791, respectively. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure status and practice of real estate brokers, broker salesmen and salesmen in the State of Florida. In October of 1979, Richard E. Turner, Jr. was moving from Gainesville, Florida, to the Daytona Beach, Florida, area. Mr. Turner took two days in October, 1979, and went to Daytona Beach to look for some rentals. He was unable to find any suitable housing through his own efforts so he went to the Respondents' rental agency asking for information regarding residential rental property. Mr. Turner ultimately entered into a written agreement with the Respondents whereby the Respondents would supply him with a list of rental homes that were within his stated financial means. In return for this service, Mr. Turner paid a $40.00 fee to the Respondents. The Respondents supplied Mr. Turner with a list of approximately four homes in the $175.00 to $225.00 per month rental price range. These homes proved to be unsuitable to live in or, on the day in question, were already rented. Mr. Turner therefore returned to the Respondents' office to obtain a second list of homes. He encountered the same problem with the second list of homes supplied him by the Respondents. Mr. Turner then went back to the Respondents' office the third time and was given three or four more houses to survey. On this list, one listing in particular was a house located at 118 Rio Way in Riviera Oaks Subdivision. The rental price stated for that house was approximately $375.00 per month. Mr. Turner made an extensive search to look for 118 Rio Way, but was unable to find the address. He drove all the way around Rio Way and, being unable to locate 118, went to the Riviera Oaks Subdivision sales office on Calle Grande, which was the street on the other side of the Rio Way circle. Riviera Oaks is a Tompkins Development subdivision. Mr. Turner stopped at the Tompkins Development office and talked to a saleswoman, Debbie Snowden, to see if there was a 118 Rio Way address in the subdivision. Ms. Snowden showed him a map of the subdivision in her office which revealed that there was not a 118 Rio Way address listed. Being therefore unable to locate a 118 Rio Way address and rental house, Mr. Turner returned to the Respondents' office. The person who had been helping him in the Respondents' office indicated that the card in their file describing the rental property supposedly at 118 Rio Way showed that a Mr. Frank Kenney was the individual to contact concerning information on that residence. Mr. Turner attempted to reach Frank Kenney but was unable to do so. He returned to Riviera Oaks to see if he could locate Frank Kenney in that subdivision. He went to the sales office and was told by Ms. Snowden that she knew Mr. Kenney, who had formerly worked at her office and, in fact, she now held his former job. With Ms. Snowden's help, Mr. Turner attempted to locate Mr. Kenney once again and was unable to do so. On this occasion, Ms. Snowden attempted to sell Mr. Turner a house and he told her that he would consider it. That same evening, Mr. Turner continued his attempt to find Frank Kenney and was unable to do so. Turner was becoming irritated regarding finding any available rental property. He accordingly returned to see Ms. Snowden at the Riviera Oaks Subdivision and had her show him and his wife a house for possible purchase. They ultimately signed a Contract of Sale for a residence located at 108 Rio Way in the Riviera Oaks Subdivision. That contract was dated October 4, 1979. The Turners gave the Tompkins Development Company a $100.00 deposit on the purchase of this house. After signing the Contract for Sale, the Turners contacted the Respondents about receiving a refund on the rental fee arrangement. Mr. Turner filled out the necessary form in order to obtain the refund of his $40.00. This form was sent to the Respondents and the Respondents were otherwise informed by Mr. Turner that he wished his $40.00 refunded within 30 days from the date Mr. Turner first contacted the Respondents regarding obtaining information about rental property. Mr. Turner subsequently received a speed message bearing the date November 30, 1979, from the Respondents stating that his request for refund had been refused. The speed message was signed by S. Walton of Walton Associates, Inc. (see Petitioner's Exhibit 10). Before denying a refund to the Turners, the Respondent, Walton, contacted Debbie Snowden at Riviera Oaks Subdivision office and asked her if the Turners were indeed renting a house from her, and she responded that they were not renting a house, but were temporarily leasing a house at 108 Rio Way until they could effect the closing of a loan so they could consummate the purchase of that same house. Prior to the execution of the contract, Mr. Turner had told Ms. Snowden that they needed a place to live until the closing of the conveyance of the house and it was agreed by all parties that they could move into the house while awaiting approval on their loan and the subsequent closing, provided the Turners signed a Lease and Occupancy Agreement. The Lease and Occupancy Agreement was required because on past occasions people had put up a deposit of $100.00 on a house and stayed in that house for several months and then left without paying any further for the use of the house. The Lease Occupancy Agreement from Tompkins Development is not a normal procedure, but the general manager for Tompkins Development, Pat Gallo, occasionally lets people move into homes under a Lease and Occupancy Agreement pending closing on that same home for which they have already contracted to purchase. Under the Lease and Occupancy Agreement in question, the Turners were required to pay the costs of the construction loan, which was $10.48 per day. Further, Tompkins Development was shown to be a sales company, dealing only in sales or residential real estate and not engaging in rental of rental property management at all. The only way Tompkins Development would have leased a house such as this one to someone is if the parties seeking to lease the house were under a contract to purchase that house. Tompkins Development simply did not make a practice of advertising homes for rental and did not seek to service individual families coming to them looking for rental housing. After signing the Contract of Sale for the house on October 24, 1979, the Turners moved into the house at 108 Rio Way. One day after they moved into that house, a rain storm flooded the street and so they approached Ms. Snowden regarding that problem and advised her that they did not then wish to buy the house if it was going to be subject to periodic flooding after each heavy rain. After some negotiation, they then signed the contract for 1018 Calle Grande, but this contract was apparently not accepted by the home office of Tompkins Development. The Turners ultimately entered into a contract on March 29, 1980, for a home located at 112 Camino Circle. This contract was subsequently renegotiated and re-executed on May 12, 1980, due to a change in the type of FHA mortgage loan the Turners were obtaining. On July 31, 1980, the Turners closed and completed the conveyance on the house located at 112 Camino Circle. At no time during this series of events did the Turners nor Ms. Snowden nor Tompkins Development mutually agree or understand that the contractural arrangement they had undertaken was for a rental of the house at 108 Rio Way, rather it was, as described above, merely a convenient method whereby the Turners could pay the cost of the construction loan pending the closing of the permanent financing on the dwelling in return for living in it as a convenience to them until time for closing. It was established that prior to October, 1979, neither Debbie Snowden, the saleswoman who negotiated the sale of the residence at 108 Rio Way with the Turners, nor the previous salesman, Frank Kenney, had ever heard of the Respondents, nor did Tompkins Development have a non-exclusive rental agreement (or any other kind) with any rental agency in the Daytona Beach area, including Respondents. The Respondents' real estate brokers licenses have previously been suspended on one occasion in December of 1981 by the Board of Real Estate, now the Florida Real Estate Commission. Their licenses were suspended for a period of 120 days, with 30 days of that penalty period being suspended upon the Respondent, Susan Ellen Walton, making full restitution of a $40.00 rental fee to one Narenda H. Patel. That suspension stemmed from the Respondents' failure to make a refund of a $40.00 rental fee upon demand by Narenda H. Patel within 30 days of the rental fee agreement after Patel was unable to secure a rental using the Respondents' rental fee service.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondents, Susan Ellen Walton and Walton Associates, Inc., have their licensure status suspended for a period of ninety (90) days, with thirty (30) days of that period suspended provided that the Respondent, Susan Ellen Walton, makes full restitution of the $40.00 due and owing to Richard Turner within ten (10) days of the entry of the Final Order herein. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: John G. DeLancett, Esquire and James R. Mitchell, Esquire 801 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 402 Post Office Box 6171-C Orlando, Florida 32853 Edward L. Cook, Esquire 1885 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observations of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its one-count Administrative Complaint filed herein on April 3, 1980, the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, alleged that the Respondent, William O'Brien, violated Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), due to his failure to deliver a security deposit to a property owner and that Respondent thereafter tendered a protion of the deposit in the form of a check which, when presented for payment, was not honored due to insufficient funds. During times material, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner and is the holder of Florida Real Estate License No. 168869. Gary ;Heide is the owner of the duplex apartment situated at 2407 Northeast 33rd avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The pertinent facts surrounding the allegations herein are, for the most part, simple and undisputed. The subject premises had been leased by owner Heide to Maurice L. LaReau. LaReau had leased the premises for approximately eleven (11) months when he found a residence that he intended to purchase and was therefore desirous of subletting the subject property with the owner's permission in an acceptable manner such that he would not incur any losses due to his vacating the premises prior to the expiration of the lease term. He, therefore, approached owner Heide and advised him of his intentions. According to LaReau, Heide gave him "carte blanche" authority to find a tenant to sublease the apartment but that he would appreciate it if he would "screen" the sub-lessee. Heide suggested that LaReau place an ad in the newspaper to secure a tenant and he also made known to LaReau his overall objective of not sustaining any loss of rents due to a vacancy in the apartment. During that conversation Heide also advised LaReau that he would be leaving for a vacation in Germany shortly. When LaReau leased the subject premises from Heide he entered a twelve (12) month lease and paid a $900.00 fee which included the first and last month's rent plus a security deposit. During times material, Respondent was the registered corporate broker for Exclusively Rentals and Management Company (Exclusively). Through the efforts of Respondent and Exclusively, Gregory A. Costa, III, was secured as a tenant to sublet the subject property from Maurice LaReau on or about October 8, 1977. Respondent had been approached by owner Heide to manage the subject property while Respondent was visiting an apartment complex adjacent to the Heide property on which Exclusively had the managing contract. According to the agreed terms for the subletting of the Heide property from LaReau to Costa, Costa agreed upon an occupancy date of October 15, 1977, for a total rental of $150.00 plus payment for the twelfth month rent for a fee of $300.00; a security deposit of $300.00 and a $150.00 commission to Exclusively for a total of $900.00. This amount was paid to tenant Maurice LaRaeau. Exclusively retained the agreed upon commission which represented on- half the monthly rental, or a fee of $150.00 See Respondent's Exhibit 1. Additionally, Messer. LaReau signed an agreement representing that the subletting was done with owner Heide's knowledge and was in accordance with his instructions. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Upon returning from Germany, owner Heide became upset that LaReau had sublet the premises to Costa and contended that the subletting was only to have been done through the aid and assistance of another rental management firm know as Home Finders Real Estate Brokers. Heide contended that Audrey Lester was the only agent connected with that firm who had the authority to accept tenants or sub-lessees in his absence. Heide, therefore, contended that he was entitled to recoup from Respondent, through its corporate entity, Exclusively Rentals and Management Company, the entire $900.00 in addition to a continued retention of the $900.00 deposit which had been paid by the tenant, LaReau. Although Heide contended that he never used Exclusively to rent or otherwise secure tenants for any of his apartments, he acknowledged that he signed a new lease and accepted Costa as a tenant for the subject property. Heide's other complaint with Respondent is that a check dated November 10, 1977, in the amount of $150.00 and signed by Michael J. Cochran was not honored when presented for payment due to insufficient funds. An examination of that check does not reveal that it was returned by the bank upon which it was drawn or that it was even presented for payment as testified to by Messer. Heide (see Petitioner's Exhibit D). Respondent was approached by owner Heide to act as an agent to secure tenants for his property as vacancies occurred while Respondent was visiting an adjoining rental property through which Respondent's agency represented, the Ocean Gardens Apartment building. Heide also visited Respondent's office building prior to the subject incident (TR. 37 of the June 3, 1981, hearing). Respondent did not sustain any loss of rents due to the subletting of the subject property from LaReau to Costa through the efforts of Respondent and/or Exclusively Rentals and Management. Respondent credibly testified that there were ample monies in the account of Exclusively to pay the $150.00 check drawn by that firm to owner Heide in November of 1977, had it, in fact, been presented for payment. Respondent severed his relations with Exclusively and advised all of the associates of that severance during December of 1977. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of July, 1981. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1981.
The Issue The issues in dispute in this matter are as follow: Was the Respondent, Wit Zajack, responsible for the acts of the Respondent, Home Hunters II, Inc., and its employees prior to July 7, 1981, when Zajack's registration as the corporate broker's active firm member became effective? Was Zajack relieved of responsibility for the acts of the corporate broker by appointing a manager and delegating duties to the manager? Did the Respondents use an advance fee rental contract containing information as required by Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code? Was the language used in said contract by the Respondents contrary to the intent of Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code, and in violation of Section 475.453, Florida Statutes? Did the Respondents fail to refund advance fees upon demand in violation of Sections 475.25(1)(e) and 475.453(1), Florida Statutes? The proposed findings as submitted in this matter by the parties have been considered by the Hearing Officer. To the extent they have not been included in the factual findings in this order, they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant, not being based upon the most credible evidence, or not being a finding of fact.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Wit Zajack, is a licensed real estate broker holding License #0219881. The Respondent, Home Hunters II, Inc., was a corporate real estate broker holding License #0218141. At the time of the accounts described in the Administrative Complaint, Home Hunters was operating as a corporate real estate broker. Home Hunters was engaged in a rental service business and advertised rental property information or lists, collecting an advance fee from prospective lessees. Zajack was aware that Home Hunters was engaged in the advance fee rental business from the beginning of his association with the firm. Zajack applied for registration as the active firm member for Home Hunters on March 5, 1981. His application contained various discrepancies and was returned for correction on May 8, 1981. The application was corrected and returned after 20 days 1/ to the Board of Real Estate, whereupon Zajack was registered as the active firm member effective July 6, 1981. On or before May 6, 1981, Zajack was held out to the public as being affiliated with Home Hunters by a sign at Home Hunters' offices on Colonial Drive in Orlando, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Zajack was an officer of Home Hunters. Home Hunters used the contract form exemplified in Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 11 from the start of its business activities until March of 1982. This form does not contain the language required by Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code. At least as early as October of 1981, Zajack was aware of the fact that Home Hunters' contract did not meet the requirements of Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code. He directed Tom O'Toole, the manager of Home Hunters, to correct the forms around the first part of 1982, but the forms were not corrected. Zajack referred all calls and letters of complaint which he received regarding the failure of Home Hunters to make refunds to O'Toole. O'Toole was given the responsibility to deal with all disputes for Zajack. Zajack did not follow up on the complaints. During this time, Zajack resided in Fort Myers, Florida. O'Toole and Zajack's business partner, Ralph Snyder, Jr., organized and ran Home Hunters. Melissa Diehl entered into an advance fee rental contract with Home Hunters on July 1, 1981, paying Home Hunters $50 for this service Diehl did not receive information on apartments which was consistent with the specifications she had given Home Hunters, or which were available for rental. She called Home Hunters about apartments she saw listed in its advertisements in the newspaper and was advised they had been rented. Diehl located a rental on her own and requested a refund from Home Hunters. She made several demands for a refund but never received a refund. She specifically asked to speak with Zajack but was told he was not available. On June 16, 1981, Brenda Mosely entered into an advance fee rental contract with Home Hunters, paying Home Hunters $50 for its services. Mosely called Home Hunters as required by the contract but did not receive listing information which was consistent with the specifications she had stated in her contract. Mosely orally requested a refund of her money after the 21-day period. She was advised to put her request in writing, which she did. She was denied a refund by Home Hunters on the basis that she had not called for 21 days, because she had not called on weekends when Home Hunters was closed. Ralph Tropf contracted with Home Hunters on March 26, 1981, for rental information, paying a $50 fee to Home Hunters in advance for its services. None of the information he received was consistent with the specifications he had given to Home Hunters. Tropf called for the 21-day period required in the contract and found a rental on his own. On April 16, 1981, Tropf made a written request for a refund. He never received a reply from Home Hunters. Tropf reported the matter to the Better Business Bureau, which forwarded to him the reply of O'Toole which stated Tropf had not complied with the terms of the contract to call for 21 days. On April 27, 1981, O'Toole advised Tropf that Zajack was the person to whom Tropf should detail his complaints. In March of 1981, Mrs. Gwenda Eva Roe had a similar experience to those described above in attempting to obtain a refund of money paid by her minor daughter to Home Hunters for rental information services.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondents, Wit Zajack and Home Hunters II, Inc., are in violation of Rule 21V-10.30, Florida Administrative Code, and Sections 475.453 and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the license of Wit Zajack be suspended for one year. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 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 22nd day of July, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Monroe County Ordinance 004-1997, approved by a Final Order of the Department of Community Affairs, DCA Docket No. DCA97-280-FOI-GM, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development set forth in Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes (1997)?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioners are all involved in the rental of real property in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. Petitioner John H. Rathkamp is a resident of the State of Georgia. (Admitted fact). Mr. Rathkamp is the owner of real property located in unincorporated Monroe County described as Lost 6, Block 9, Redfish Lane, Cudjoe Ocean Shores Subdivision, Cudjoe Key (RE #188684000800). At the time of purchase, the property was improved. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rathkamp's property was located in an Improved Subdivision land use district. (Admitted facts). Petitioner Monroe County Vacation Rental Managers, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation doing business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is located at 701 Caroline Street, Key West, Florida. (Admitted facts). Petitioner Lower Keys Chamber of Commerce is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which conducts business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is Post Office Box 4330511, Mile Maker 31, Big Pine Key, Florida. (Admitted facts). Petitioner Marathon Chamber of Commerce is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which conducts business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is 12222 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. (Admitted facts). Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the approval or rejection of comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes (1997). Intervenor, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is the governing body of Monroe County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Among other things, the County is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and land development regulations for unincorporated Monroe County. Unincorporated Monroe County has been designated as the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (hereinafter referred to as the "Florida Keys ACSC"), pursuant to Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, since 1979. As an area of critical state concern, all comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the County must be reviewed by the Department for consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles"), set out in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Standing. The parties stipulated that Petitioners are all substantially affected persons as those terms are used in Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (1997). The evidence in this case proved that Petitioners' substantial interests have been determined by the Department's Final Order approving the land development regulation at issue in this case. Petitioners have standing to initiate, and participate in, this proceeding. The evidence also proved that the County's substantial interests were determined by the Department's Final Order. The County has standing to participate in this proceeding. The County's Adoption of Ordinance No. 004-1997. During 1995 the County directed that public hearings be held on the issue of the rental of real estate for short periods of time for vacation purposes in Monroe County. Public hearings were held before the County's Development Review Committee in Marathon, Monroe County, Florida, on July 25, 1995, and December 2, 1995. Public hearings were also held before the County's Planning Commission on the following dates and at the following locations in Monroe County: Date Location March 7, 1996 Marathon March 21, 1996 Key West April 3, 1996 Key Largo April 18, 1996 Marathon April 22, 1996 Duck Key July 15, 1996 Duck Key September 5, 1996 Marathon On November 5, 1996, a referendum was placed on the ballot in Monroe County. The referendum asked the following question: "Should transient rentals of less than 28 days be allowed in (IS) Improved Subdivisions?" This question was answered "yes" by 51% of the citizens who voted on the referendum. Public hearings to consider an ordinance prohibiting certain vacation rentals were held before the County on December 18, 1996 in Marathon and on February 8, 1997, in Key West. On February 3, 1997, the County passed and adopted Ordinance No. 004-1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance applies to lands located in unincorporated Monroe County. (Admitted facts). The Department's Review of the Ordinance. On February 25, 1997, the County transmitted a copy of the Ordinance to the Department for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.05, Florida Statutes. (Admitted fact). On April 25, 1997, the Department caused notice of Proposed Rule 9J-14.006(11), approving the Ordinance, to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. (Admitted fact). A challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, to the proposed rule was filed by Petitioners on May 16, 1997. The Department held public hearings in Monroe County on the proposed rule on May 21 and 22, 1997, and June 26, 1997. On May 31, 1997, an amendment to Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes, became effective. The amendment changed the procedure for approving or rejecting comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations in areas of critical state concern. Pursuant to the new procedure the Department was required to approve or reject comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations in areas of critical state concern by final order instead of by rule. (Admitted facts). Petitioners in the rule challenge proceeding stipulated that they would not object, procedurally, if the Department elected to withdraw the proposed rule and issue a final order approving or rejecting the Ordinance. (Admitted fact). On November 26, 1997, the Department caused a Final Order entered November 5, 1997, to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 48. The Final Order was accepted into evidence as Joint Exhibit 5. The Final Order contains Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are hereby incorporated by reference into this Recommended Order. A copy of the Final Order is attached to this Recommended Order. Pursuant to the Department's Final Order, the Department approved the Ordinance as being consistent with the Principles. (Admitted facts). Studies and Reports. One thing that was made abundantly clear during the formal hearing was that no formal studies were conducted by the County during its consideration and adoption of the Ordinance. Instead, the County relied upon information provided to it during the hearings conducted prior to, and during, the adoption of the Ordinance and the County's knowledge about Monroe County. Another fact made abundantly clear was that the Department also did not undertake any formal studies during its review of the Ordinance. The Department relied upon the its knowledge of Monroe County and information that had been provided to the County, summarized in memorandums. The Principles. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, creates the Principles: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or man-made disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. In determining whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, the Principles must be considered as a whole and no specific provision is to be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. The Principles must also be construed and applied with due consideration to the legislative intent. The legislative intent in promulgating Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, is set out in Section 380.0552(2), Florida Statutes: LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—It is hereby declared that the intent of the Legislature is: To establish a land use management system that protects the natural environment of the Florida Keys. To establish a land use management system that conserves and promotes the community character of the Florida Keys. To establish a land use management system that promotes orderly and balanced growth in accordance with the capacity of available and planned public facilities and services. To provide for affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys. To establish a land use management system that promotes and supports a diverse and sound economic base. To protect the constitutional rights of property owners to own, use, and dispose of their real property. To promote coordination and efficiency among governmental agencies with permitting jurisdiction over land use activities in the Florida Keys. In order for the Ordinance to be consistent with the legislative intent of Section 380.0552(2), Florida Statutes, it must be consistent with the Principles. The Ordinance. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), establishes the land uses which are allowed and prohibited in Monroe County. The Ordinance provides the following "Purpose": The purpose of this ordinance is to further and expressly clarify the existing prohibition on short-term transient rental of dwelling units for less than twenty-eight (28) days in duration in Improved Subdivisions, mobile home districts (which provide affordable housing) and native areas, and to allow tourist housing uses in all other districts and in improved subdivision districts with a newly-created tourist housing subindicator. The Ordinance defines the terms "vacation rentals" as the rental for tenancies of a dwelling unit for less than twenty- eight days. Hotels, motels, and recreational vehicle spaces are specifically excluded from the definition of "vacation rentals." The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and prohibits vacation rentals within those district: Sparsely Settled Residential District; Native Area District; Mainland Native Area District; and Commercial Fishing Residential District. The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and provides that vacation rentals are allowable "if a special vacation rental permit is obtained under the regulations established in Code s9.5-534": Urban Commercial District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use; Urban Residential District; Sub Urban Commercial District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use; Sub Urban Residential District; Sub Urban Residential District (Limited); Destination Resort District; Maritime Industries District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units; and Mixed Use Districts. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use. The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and provides that vacation rentals are prohibited except "in gated communities which have (a) controlled access and (b) a homeowner's or property owners' association that expressly regulates or manages vacation rental uses": Urban Residential-Mobile Home District; URM-L District; and Improved Subdivision Districts. Improved Subdivision Districts (hereinafter referred to as "IS Districts"), are the primary, residential districts in Monroe County. 40 The Ordinance establishes a new district, the Improved Subdivision-Tourist Housing District (hereinafter referred to as the "IS-T District"). Vacation rentals are allowed in IS-T Districts under certain conditions: A map amendment designating a contiguous parcel as IS-T may be approved, provided that the map amendment application (and subsequent building permit applications and special vacation rental permit applications) meet the following standards, criteria and conditions: The IS-T designation is consistent with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and there is no legitimate public purpose for maintaining the existing designation. The IS-T designation allowing vacation rental use does not create additional trips or other adverse traffic impacts within the remainder of the subdivision or within any adjacent IS district: The parcel to be designated IS-T must contain sufficient area to prevent spot zoning of individual parcels (i.e., rezonings should not result in spot-zoned IS-T districts or result in spot-zoned IS districts that are surrounded by IS-T districts). Unless the parcel to be rezoned contains the entire subdivision, there will be a rebuttable presumption that spot-zoning exists, but the Board of County Commissioners may rebut this presumption by making specific findings supported by competent, substantial evidence that: the designation preserves, promotes and maintains the integrity of surrounding residential districts and overall zoning scheme or comprehensive plan for the future use of surrounding lands; does not result in a small area of IS-T within a district that prohibits vacation rentals; the lots or parcels to be designated IS-T are all physically contiguous and adjacent to one another and do not result in a narrow strip or isolate pockets or spots of land that are not designated IS-T, or which prohibit vacation rentals; and the IS-T designation is not placed in a vacuum or a spot on a lot-by-lot basis without regard to neighboring properties, but is a part of an overall area that allows vacation rentals or similar compatible uses. In addition to the requirements contained in Code s.9.5-377 (District Boundaries), an IS-T district shall be separated from any established residential district that does not allow tourist housing or vacation rental uses by no less than a class C bufferyard: Vacation rental use is compatible with established land uses in the immediate vicinity of the parcel to be designated IS- T: and Unless a map amendment is staff-generated (i.e., initiated by Monroe County), an application for a map amendment to IS-T shall be authorized by the property owner(s) of all lots (or parcels) included within the area of the proposed map amendment. The Ordinance provides that vacation rentals are prohibited in Offshore Island Districts unless they "were established (and held valid state public lodging establishment licenses) prior to January 1, 1969." Finally, the Ordinance provides, in part, that the following uses are permitted in Recreational Vehicle Districts: Recreational vehicle spaces. RV spaces are intended for use by traveling recreational vehicles. RV spaces may be leased, rented or occupied by a specific, individual recreational vehicle, for a term of less than twenty-eight days, but placement of a specific, individual Recreational Vehicle (regardless of vehicle type or size) within a particular RV park for occupancies or tenancies of 6 months or more is prohibited. Recreational Vehicles may be stored, but not occupied, for periods of 6 months or greater only in an approved RV storage area (Designated on a site plan approved by the Director of Planning) or in another appropriate district that allows storage of recreational vehicles. . . . Code s9-534 of the Ordinance requires a permit for vacation rentals, except for vacation rentals located within a controlled access, gated-community or within a multifamily building which has 24-hour on-site management or 24-hour on-site supervision. This Code section also provides certain conditions which must be met by vacation rentals, requires that a copy of any permit be provided to surrounding property owners, provides for the circumstances under which a permit may be revoked, provides for certain penalties, and deals with other miscellaneous matters. Code s9-534 is hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order. The Ordinance is a "land development regulation" as defined in Section 380.031(8), Florida Statutes. (Admitted fact). Petitioners' Challenge to the Ordinance. On December 16, 1997, Petitioners timely filed a challenge pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to the Department's Final Order approving the Ordinance. (Admitted facts). In addition to alleging that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles, Petitioners also challenged some of the specific findings of fact contained in the Final Order entered by the Department. While the Department has agreed that it has the burden of proving the "validity of the final order," for purposes of Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, the only "final order" which the Department entered in this matter is the final line of the order: "WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Monroe County Ordinance No. 004-1997 is consistent with Section 380.0552(7), F.S., and is hereby approved." Because this is a de novo proceeding, the "facts" and "conclusions of law" the Department reached in taking the "proposed agency action" at issue in this case, are not controlling. Petitioners also alleged that the Ordinance is not "consistent with the legislative intent for designation of unincorporated Monroe County as the Florida Keys ACSC expressed in Section 380.0552(2), F.S." Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, does not specifically require the Department to independently determine whether a land development regulation is consistent with the legislative intent. The Department is only required to determine consistency with the Principles. If a land development regulation is consistent with the Principles, it will also be consistent with the legislative intent. Finally, Petitioners alleged in their Petition that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Plan. This allegation was not included in the Prehearing Stipulation. This issue was, therefore, waived by Petitioners. Even if not considered waived, the issue of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Plan is not an issue which has been properly brought before this forum. The challenge in this case was instituted pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Nowhere in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is the Department required or authorized to review a land development regulation for consistency with a growth management plan. The Department's authority to review a land development regulation for consistency with a growth management plan comes from Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Challenges to Department's decisions under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, must be instituted pursuant to Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes. No such proceeding has been instituted by Petitioners. Petitioners, although not specifically alleged in their petition or the Prehearing Stipulation, presented evidence at hearing and argument in their proposed order concerning what the County and Department knew or did not know, and what they did or did not do, at the time of their respective actions. Because this is a de novo proceeding, such knowledge or actions, do not support a finding that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles unless, in the case of required information, the information is not provided at hearing and, in the case of an action that was not taken, the action was required by rule or statute. The evidence presented at hearing in this case was sufficient to determine consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles. The evidence also failed to prove that the County or the Department failed to take any action required by rule or statute with regard to their respective roles in this matter. Sound Economic Development of Monroe County. Section 380.0552(7)(d), Florida Statutes, includes the following principle: "To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development." This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(e), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes and supports a diverse and sound economic base. Undoubtedly, the evidence in this case proved that the Ordinance will cause a negative impact to the economy of Monroe County. No economic impact study was necessary to prove this fact. Although neither the County nor the Department conducted an economic impact study prior to the County's adoption and the Department's review of the Ordinance, the County and the Department were aware of the fact that there would be a negative economic impact as a result of the Ordinance and took that fact into consideration in carrying out their respective roles. More importantly, there is no requirement in Chapters 120 or 380, Florida Statutes, that an economic impact study be performed prior to adoption of a land development regulation or during the Department's review. Nor is the Department authorized as part of its review pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to require such a study be conducted by the County. This is a de novo proceeding. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Department in order to meet its burden of proof to present sufficient competent substantial evidence concerning the economic impact of the Ordinance during the formal hearing. Much of the proof was presented by Petitioners. The combined proof of the parties in this case concerning the economic impact of the Ordinance is sufficient to make a determination as to whether the Ordinance is consistent with Principle "d." The economy of Monroe County is primarily dependent upon the tourist industry. The tourist industry in turn is largely dependent on the natural resources of Monroe County. As a consequence, the majority of the Principles provide for a consideration of impacts on the environment of Monroe County. Ultimately, the economic viability of Monroe County depends on its environmental resources. Tourists who vacation in Monroe County generally require lodging while on vacation. Lodging in Monroe County is diverse and includes hotels, motels, camp grounds, RV parks, and rentals of dwellings, including rentals for periods of less than 28 days (rentals of dwellings of less than 28 days are hereinafter referred to as a "Short-Term Rental Property"). There are some tourists who prefer to stay in Short- Term Rental Property over other types of accommodations available in Monroe County. There are even some tourists who may go elsewhere if they are unable to find Short-Term Rental Property in Monroe County. A reduction in available Short-Term Rental Property may also cause some tourists to come to Monroe County during periods during the year when tourism is lower. The evidence, however, failed to prove the extent of the loss of tourists or the extent to which tourists may come to Monroe County during the off-season if there is a reduction in the available number of Short-Term Rentals Property as a result of the Ordinance. Short-Term Rental Property makes up a significant portion of tourist lodging available throughout Monroe County. Short-Term Rental Property has been a part of the tourist economy of Monroe County for the past twenty to thirty years. Short-Term Rental Property, however, has increased significantly recently as the number of dwellings in Monroe County has increased. The use of properties as Short-Term Rental Property adds to the economy of Monroe County by providing work for a number of businesses in Monroe County. Those businesses include real estate brokers, pool maintenance, lawn maintenance, home repairs, maid/cleaning services, and many of the businesses associated with the tourist industry. Occupancy rates for Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County have been averaging approximately 30% annually. Occupancy occurs primarily during the peak tourist season from December or January through April. To a lesser extent, occupancy is higher in August also. Occupancy rates in Monroe County hotels and motels during the peak season have been approximately 80% to 100%. There is currently a moratorium in the Florida Keys on the construction of hotels and motels. The moratorium is only effective through 2006. The construction of new transient rentals and the conversion of single-family residences to transient rentals are prohibited by the Plan. These measures represent an effort of the County to regulate the influx of tourists into Monroe County and very likely result in an increase of properties used for Short-Term Rental Property to meet the demand for tourist lodging. As a result of the Ordinance's restriction on where Short-Term Rental Property will be allowable in Monroe County, there will be some reduction in the number of Short-Term Rental Properties available to tourist in Monroe County. Petitioners have estimated that there will be a reduction of in excess of 3,000 Short-Term Rental Properties as a result of the Ordinance. This number is based upon the assumption that there are 4,100 Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County, that 76% of those rentals are located in IS districts, and that all 76% of the rentals in IS districts will be lost. The evidence failed to support a finding that such a reduction will occur. First, the Ordinance does not prohibit all Short-Term Rental Property in Monroe County. The use of properties for Short-Term Rental Property is not prohibited in several land use districts listed, supra. Short-Term Rental Property located in the cities of Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Village of Islamorada are also not subject to the Ordinance. There are approximately 12,000 seasonal rental units in incorporated and unincorporated Monroe County. To the extent that the demand for Short-Term Rental Property is not met by properties which are no longer available for use as a Short-Term Rental Property under the Ordinance, some part of that demand will be met by seasonal units not impacted by the Ordinance: those units located in land use districts in which Short-Term Rental Properties are not prohibited and in incorporated areas. The market will react to the market conditions as they change under the Ordinance. Petitioners' expert witness, Charles Ilvento, provided estimates of the losses in revenue and sales tax collections in Monroe County (at a rate of 11.55 per cent) as a result of the Ordinance. Those estimates were that Monroe County would experience $400,235,747.00 to $500,294,683.00 per year in economic losses and $6,262,444.00 per year in sales tax losses. The Department's and County's expert, Dr. Nicholas, estimated that the economic loss from the Ordinance to Monroe County would only be approximately 20 per cent of the loss projected by Mr. Ilvento and would last only two years. Mr. Ilvento also suggested that the losses would be continuing losses. The weight of the evidence failed to support the extent of losses suggested by Mr. Ilvento. First, in making his estimates, Mr. Ilvento relied upon the number of Short-Term Rental Properties Petitioners had estimated would be lost as a result of the Ordinance. Those estimates are too high. See Findings of Fact 68 and 69. Secondly, Mr. Ilvento did not take into account the economic benefit of keeping residential uses of property and the more commercial activities of Short-Term Rental Properties separate as required by the Ordinance. Because of the value of Short-Term Rental Properties, finding property for permanent residents is more difficult. In some areas, the use of residential property for Short-Term Rental Properties can dominate the residential nature of an area to a great enough extent that the residential sector will decline and withdraw. Thirdly, Mr. Ilvento did not take into account the increase in income that would be likely to occur from the sales of properties formerly used as Short-Term Rental Property which Petitioners assert will have to be sold. Fourthly, Petitioners' estimate of the number of properties that will be sold (50%), which Mr. Ilvento relied upon in reaching his estimates, is not reasonable. Petitioners' estimate of the number of Short-Term Rental Properties that will be sold assumes that the owners of those properties will no longer be able to afford them without the rental income they had previously enjoyed from the properties. This assumption is not realistic. It is not realistic to assume that half the owners of Short-Term Rental Properties acquired their property without taking into account the possibility that they would not be able to rent the property. Additionally, it is not reasonable to assume that an owner who is faced with the inability to carry the debt on a property will necessarily elect to sell it rather than rent it on a long-term basis. The evidence also proved that the economy of Monroe County will be benefited to the extent that the Ordinance enhances the availability of affordable housing and reduces adverse impacts to the environment of Monroe County, as discussed, infra. The benefits to the economy as a result of the increase in affordable housing and the reduction of adverse impacts to the environment will not be substantial, however. The weight of the evidence in this case proved that there will be an overall economic loss in Monroe County as a result of the Ordinance. That loss should last approximately two to three years. The amount of the loss projected by Dr. Nicholas is a more reasonable estimate of the loss which will occur. That loss, however, will be substantial. Protection of the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. Section 380.0552(7)(l), Florida Statues, includes the following principle: "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." The County, in adopting the Ordinance, was primarily exercising its police power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Monroe County. The County decided to exercise its power by limiting the types of activities allowable in areas designated for residential use. The County's decision was based upon extensive testimony on the negative impacts of Short-Term Rental Property in neighborhoods given at the public hearings conducted by the County. Additionally, the County was aware of the results of the November 5, 1996, referendum vote in which residents of the County voted in favor of prohibiting Short-Term Rental Property in IS districts. Although the testimony concerning the negative impacts of Short-Term Rental Property and the results of the referendum vote relied upon by the County constitutes hearsay, it does corroborate and explain the testimony of Denise Werling, a permanent resident of Monroe County. It is difficult to characterize the rental of Short- Term Rental Property as purely commercial or residential. While Short-Term Rental Property is being used by the people who rent the property as housing, which is in the nature of a residential use, the services they are provided in conjunction with the rental is more in the nature of a commercial enterprise. Therefore, Short-Term Rental Property use is more like the rental of a hotel or motel rental, rather than the a long-term lease of property. Additionally, although there are always exceptions, occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties use the properties for reasons that are different from the uses that occupants of long- term rentals or permanent residents put their properties. As a result of the differences between the uses to which occupants of Short-Term Rental Property and permanent residents put their property, conflicts arise where the two land uses exist side by side. Although Short-Term Rental Properties have been a part of Monroe County for many years, there has been an increase in the number of properties available for use as Short-Term Rental Property in areas which have also increasingly been used as neighborhoods for permanent residents during the past ten years. As a result, the conflicts between occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties and permanent residents have increased. Denise Werling testified as to the types of conflicts she has experienced with a Short-Term Rental Property located next door to her home. Ms. Werling's testimony was illustrative of the types of conflicts which can exist if Short-Term Rental Properties are allowed to exist in areas designated for purely residential uses. The following are the types of problems which are not uncommonly associated with the use of properties as Short-Term Rental Property in residential areas: Short-Term Rental Property may be occupied with excessive numbers of tenants. Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property usually do not have to work because they are on vacation. As a consequence, they usually want to maximize the time they spend enjoying their vacation. As a result, they may stay up later at night and/or get up earlier in the morning than permanent residents. Late- night parties are not limited to weekends. Occupants often have excessive numbers of vehicles, boats, jet skies, RV's, and boat trailers, which they park on residential streets or all over the Short-Term Rental Property. RV's are parked in the driveway, yard, or the street in front of the rental property. When occupied, these RV's can be noisy if they are powered by self-contained generators. Multiple boats may be docked along seawalls behind Short-Term Rental Properties. Ms. Werling has seen as many as six boats parked at one time against the seawall of the Short- Term Rental Property located next to her residence. Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property are unfamiliar with garbage and recycling schedules. As a result, full trash containers and recycle containers, if they are used, are left outside when the occupants leave, even though it may be several days before pickup is scheduled. Pets that are unfamiliar to the neighborhood are left to roam free. Ms. Werling has had dogs from the property next to hers on her property. Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property are strangers to the neighborhood. As a result, they can create a sense on uneasiness to permanent residents. This sense of uneasiness is not only a result of concern for the safety of the permanent residents and their families, but is also caused by the fact that occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties are less likely to adhere to accepted neighborhood practices. They may leave outdoor security lights on all the time. They are less concerned about trespassing onto seawalls and yards of the permanent residents. They are only in the area for a relatively short period of time and, consequently, they are likely to be less considerate of the neighboring permanent residents. Short-Term Rental Property occupants are often less familiar with the waters that surround their Short-Term Rental Property. As a result, they tend to run aground, causing damage to seagrass beds. While they could cause such damage elsewhere if they were staying at a hotel or motel, they at least have hotel and motel personnel that are familiar with the surrounding waters that they can consult before venturing out. Such information is not as readily available at Short-Term Rental Properties. 86 Most of the difficulties associated with Short-Term Rental Properties are not limited to occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties. Many are also caused by some permanent residents. Just as there are some Short-Term Rental Property occupants that are inconsiderate to permanent residents, there are permanent residents that are inconsiderate to their neighbors. The degree to which the problems are caused is much higher, however, for occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties than it is for permanent residents. Additionally, it is more likely that permanent residents that cause problems can be effectively dealt with through the enforcement of regulations than occupants of Short- Term Rental Property. Finally, some of the problems are only associated with occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties. Efforts to enforce regulations intended to deal with the problems associated with inconsiderate neighbors, such as anti-noise ordinances, have not been successful in eliminating the problems associated with Short-Term Rental Property. Short- Term Rental Property occupants have less reason to be concerned about regulations because they know they will be leaving the community in a short time. Whether they get along with their "neighbors" is not something they are concerned with. Ms. Werling has reported the problems she has experienced with the Short-Term Rental Property located next door to her. The problems, however, persist. Efforts of managers of Short-Term Rental Properties have not eliminated the difficulties associated with Short-Term Rental Property for the same reason that regulations are not effective and because not all owners of Short-Term Rental Property use local managers. Some absentee owners rent the properties themselves and they are not available to handle complaints as they arise. The County, in adopting the Ordinance, was exercising its police power to eliminate the incompatible use of Short-Term Rental Properties in districts intended for use as residential communities. In exercising its police power, the County prohibited Short-Term Rental Property in the most sensitive residential areas and placed restrictions intended to reduce the impacts of Short-Term Rental Properties in areas where Short-Term Rental Properties are allowed under the Ordinance. The County also restricted Short-Term Rental Properties in districts intended to protect the sensitive natural resources of the Florida Keys ACSC. Petitioners' have suggested that, while additional regulation of Short-Term Rental Property may be appropriate and beneficial, to prohibit Short-Term Rental Property in IS districts, given the negative economic impact of such a prohibition, would be detrimental to the overall welfare of Monroe County. Therefore, Petitioners have argued that the Ordinance is not consistent with Principle "l." Petitioners' suggestion does not support a finding that the Ordinance is not consistent with Principle (l), however. Petitioners' suggestion relates to the issue of the balancing of all the Principles, discussed infra. The County's Ability to Manage Land Use and Development. Section 380.0552(7)(a), Florida Statutes, includes the following principle: "To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation." Short-Term Rental Properties have existed throughout the Florida Keys for many years. Many owners of Short-Term Rental Property have obtained an occupational license for their rental business. Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, the County Attorney and the Monroe County Code Enforcement Board, began to question whether the use of property as Short-Term Rental Property was an allowable land use in certain land districts in Monroe County under existing laws. The fact that some owners of Short-Term Rental Properties obtained occupational licenses from the Monroe County Tax Collector and licenses pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation does not, as Petitioners have argued, support a finding that the use of Short-Term Rental Properties have been an allowable use. An occupational license is, in essence, a method of collecting a tax pursuant to Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, for the operation of a business in a local jurisdiction. The issuance of such a license is not in the nature of a land use decision. Although there was a requirement in the County prior to the adoption of the Ordinance that occupational licenses issued by the Tax Collector be reviewed by the County for consistency with land use requirements, the evidence failed to support a finding that licenses were actually reviewed. Even if they had been, the evidence in this case only proved that the County simply did not give any consideration to whether existing comprehensive plans and land development regulations allow or prohibit the use of property as Short-Term Rental Property in all land use districts of Monroe County. Licenses from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation also do not constitute land use decisions. By taking the actions necessary to consider the problem of Short-Term Rental Properties and in adopting the Ordinance, the County has evidenced the willingness to take responsibility for the issue of whether the use of property for Short-Term Rental Property is allowable, and, if so, in which districts. By adopting the Ordinance, the County has resolved any ambiguity concerning the legality of Short-Term Rental Property. Even if it were clear that the use of Short-Term Rental Property has been allowable throughout Monroe County, the County has still taken steps to strengthen its capability for managing land use and development. The County took on a highly controversial issue, with vocal proponents and opponents, and made a decision as to the future direction of neighborhoods in Monroe County. In so doing, the County also took the actions necessary to actually "manage" Short-Term Rental Properties. The Environmental Issues. 100. Sections 380.0552(7)(b), (c), (e), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes, are Principles which require a consideration of the impacts on the environment of the Florida Keys: Principle "b": "To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat." Principle "c": "To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat." Principle "e": "To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys." Principle "f": "To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys." Principle "i": "To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys." (This Principle could also be grouped with Section 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes). These Principles are consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that protects the natural environment of the Florida Keys. Part I of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is titled "The Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972." Section 380.012, Florida Statutes. The legislative purpose for establishing Part I and designating areas of critical state concern was primarily to provide State protection from adverse development impacts on environmentally sensitive areas of the State: Big Cypress Swamp, Green Swamp, Apalachicola Bay, and Monroe County's Florida Keys. All of these areas include environmentally sensitive lands and water bodies. The Ordinance does not specifically deal with environmental issues. The Ordinance involves primarily a balancing of a local government's police power with the economic impact of the exercise of that power. The Ordinance does, however, have some small positive impacts on the environment of Monroe County. Most importantly, the Ordinance does nothing contrary to the legislative intent to protect the Florida Keys ACSC. Monroe County's economic viability depends on the preservation and protection of its natural resources, including the quality of its surrounding waters. Tourism, which is the largest industry in Monroe County, is dependent on Monroe County's natural resources. The tourists who come to Monroe County are, in large part, attracted to Monroe County by its environmental qualities. Unfortunately, tourists are generally the worst abusers of the natural environment of Monroe County. This is true whether a tourist is staying in a motel or a Short-Term Rental Property. Tourists have more free time and, as a consequence, tend to participate in the recreational activities available in Monroe County more frequently and intensely than permanent residents. They simply use the resources more than a permanent resident. For example, in addition to spending more time on the water during good weather, tourists tend to engage in water activities even during inclement weather. Unlike a permanent resident who can wait until the next clear weekend, a vacationer will not necessarily be in Monroe County when the weather clears and therefore, is likely to be on the water at every opportunity. Tourists use the resources of the Florida Keys ACSC throughout their vacation. Unlike permanent residents, who are limited primarily to enjoying the natural environment of the Florida Keys ACSC on weekends and holidays, tourists are free to enjoy the environment everyday they are in Monroe County. In addition to the more frequent and intense use of the resources of Monroe County, tourists also cause harm to the environment because of their lack of knowledge about the Florida Keys ACSC or because they simply don't care. Monroe County's nearshore waters consist of numerous unmarked channels that leave many areas of Monroe County, including many canals of IS Districts. The unmarked channels can be difficult to navigate because of shallow waters typical of the Florida Keys. Navigation through these channels is learned largely from experience. The shallow nearshore waters contain beds of seagrasses that provide an important part of the ecosystem of the Florida Keys. They support juvenile fish and shellfish, which in turn provide feeding stock for birds and larger fish species. Grounding on these seagrass beds causes propeller scaring damage to the seagrasses. Tourists are also not familiar or do not care about limits on the numbers of fish and other marine life that can be caught, the sensitively of coral reefs and other natural resources of the Florida Keys ACSC, or the need to minimize human contact with the Key Deer. As a result, tourist tend to create more harm to most of the environmental features of the Florida Keys ACSC. Tourists that stay in Short-Term Rental Properties located in IS Districts and other land use districts are not significantly different from tourists that stay in other transient rentals available in Monroe County such as hotels or motels in terms of their impacts on the environment. The adverse impacts on the environment from tourists described, supra, are caused by tourists regardless of where they may be staying. Tourists that stay in Short-Term Rental Properties, however, do cause slightly more harm to the environment than other tourists for several reasons. First, a large number of tourists bring their own boats and ski jets with them to Monroe County. Those who stay in Short-Term Rental Properties generally do not operate or store their boats out of commercial marinas or use public boat ramps. As a consequence, it is more difficult to educate them about the adverse impacts they may cause on the environment. Marinas and other commercial locations where boats may be docked provide greater information about the waters of the Florida Keys and are more likely to have adequately marked access channels than Short- Term Rental Properties. Marinas, hotels, and motels also have knowledgeable individuals available to answer questions concerning the surrounding waters, a service not available to Short-Term Rental Property occupants. Prohibiting Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts will reduce the number of inexperienced boaters using the numerous canals of IS Districts to access the waters of Monroe County. Secondly, tourists that occupy Short-Term Rental Properties are more likely to cause harm to the Key Deer and other sensitive natural resources due to the proximity of their Short-Term Rental Property to the Key Deer and other resources. Key Deer inhabit the Florida Keys primarily on Big Pine Key. The Key Deer is an endangered species. Properties located on Big Pine Key and in other areas where Key Deer are found are used for Short-Term Vacation Rental Properties. Adverse impacts on the Key Deer result from their interaction with humans, through feeding, automobile deaths, and dogs that chase the Key Deer. While all tourists have impacts on the Key Deer due to their interaction with the them, the location of Short-Term Rental Property within the Key Deer habitat, especially areas located away from the main highway corridor of the Florida Keys, U.S. Highway 1, increases the amount of interaction between those tourists who occupy those Short-Term Rental Properties and the Key Deer. Tourists staying in IS Districts on Big Pine Key, especially those in Port Pine Heights at the north end of the Key, feed the Deer more because they are there more often, and cause more traffic problems because of the drive required to get to their rental property. Principle "e" requires that land development regulations limit the adverse impacts of development on water quality. There are public health concerns associated with untreated or improperly treated sewage, including viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Throughout most of the Florida Keys ACSC, septic tanks are used to dispose of sewage. Many of the septic tanks were installed years ago and do not meet today's standards for septic tanks. The size of a septic tank that must be installed depends on what the property will be used for. For single family residences, it is assumed that 100 gallons per day of sewage will be disposed of. Hotels are also assumed to create the same amount per room, while resorts, camps, and cottages are assumed to produce 200 gallons per day. Establishments with self-service laundries are assumed to produce 750 gallons per day. The use of Short-Term Rental Properties is somewhere between the use of single-family residence, hotels, resorts, and establishments with self-service laundries because of the similarity in how tourists in Short-Term Rental Properties and occupants of other transient locations live. Additionally, Short-Term Rental Properties are often occupied with more persons than would normally be found in a single-family residence. Although some septic tanks are designed with even more capacity than may be required by rules, not all septic tanks are designed to handle the increased use that occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties can cause. As a consequence, there is at least the potential for adverse consequences to the water of the Florida Keys ACSC to the extent that Short-Term Rental Properties are not better regulated by the County. Through the Ordinance, the County is attempting to ensure that the potential harm from the over use of septic tanks in Monroe County is regulated. The Ordinance limits the number of occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties. The Ordinance also requires that applicants for vacation rental permits submit a report from the Department of Health verifying compliance with existing septic tank or on-site sewage disposal system regulations. The Ordinance has no direct impact on Principle (i) and some parts of the other environmental Principles. The Ordinance is not, however, inconsistent with any of the Principles which deal with the environment. Community Character and Historical Heritage of the Florida Keys. Section 380.0552(7)(f), Florida Statutes, provides for a consideration of the "community character" of the Florida Keys, in addition to environmental considerations. This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(b), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes the community character of the Florida Keys. Section 380.0552(7)(g), Florida Statutes, includes the following Principle: "To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys." Although the evidence proved that the vacation rental of single-family residences has been a part of the character and historical heritage of the Florida Keys for many years, the problem being dealt with by the County through the Ordinance has not. The Ordinance does nothing to harm the community character or historical heritage of Monroe County. Public Investments. Section 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that "the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments be protected, including the following investments: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(c), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes orderly and balanced growth in accordance with the capacity of available and planned public facilities and services. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the Ordinance has any impact, positive or negative, on "existing and proposed major public investments " Affordable Housing. Section 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes, provides the following Principle: "To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." This Principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(d), Florida Statutes, that a local government provide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys. There is a significant problem finding housing in Monroe County. It is especially difficult finding housing affordable to lower income residents. The shortage of housing has been caused by the lack of available developable land and restrictions on development, including those imposed by the Rate of Growth Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as "ROGO"). ROGO limits the number of new permanent residential units which may be constructed in the Florida Keys to 255 per year. Because of the restrictions on available new housing in Monroe County, prices for residential property have increased over the years. Currently, most 2 to 3 bedroom properties used as Short-Term Rental Properties are selling for $200,000.00 to $300,000.00. These properties do not come under the definition of "affordable housing" for lower income residents. "Affordable housing" is defined in terms of housing which can be afforded by very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income persons. Homes that costs over $200,000.00 do not constitute "affordable housing" as defined in the County's Land Development Regulations. The market for homes selling for over $200,000.00 in Monroe County is not high. Therefore, to the extent that properties located in IS Districts that are currently used as Short-Term Rental Properties are placed on the market, there will not be a direct increase in housing for very-low income, low- income, or moderate-income persons. Many of the Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County are second homes that are used only part of the year by the owners and are used as Short-Term Rental Properties the rest of the year. Some Short-Term Rental Properties are properties that have been purchased for investment purposes and/or with the intent of using the properties as the owners' permanent residence upon retirement. As a result, these properties are not available for use by permanent residents. Regardless of their costs, with a limited number of new residential properties allowed under ROGO, the use of new properties as Short-Term Rental Properties necessarily reduces the overall availability of housing in Monroe County. The restriction caused in the overall housing market in Monroe County can reasonably be expected to also negatively impact the availability of affordable housing. Potential revenues to property owners from Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts are higher then the potential revenues from long-term rentals to permanent residents. Consequently, as more property owners in IS Districts are attracted to using their properties as Short-Term Rental Properties, there is a reduction in the amount of housing available for long-term rentals. Therefore, the use of properties in IS Districts as Short-Term Rental Properties decreases the supply of long-term rentals available for residents of Monroe County. By prohibiting the use of properties in IS Districts as Short-Term Rental Properties, the total properties in Monroe County available for housing, including for long-term rentals, for permanent residents, will increase. As supply increases demand for all housing, including an affordable housing to some small extent, will be better met. There is a demand for long-term rentals in Monroe County. Two to three bedroom homes located in IS Districts can easily be rented for $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 per month. Some segment of the permanent population of Monroe County could afford such rentals if they were available, freeing up less expensive housing. Additionally, some absentee owners are able to purchase more expensive property because of their ability to rent the property as Short-Term Rental Property and apply the rental income to meet a higher mortgage payment. As a result, the real estate market in Monroe County builds more expensive homes to meet the demand. To the extent that this market for higher priced homes is reduced by the Ordinance, the allocation of ROGO residential units may be used for less expensive housing. The overall impact on the increase in available housing for permanent residents of Monroe County as a result of prohibiting Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts will generally "trickle" down throughout the entire housing market and benefit the availability of affordable housing. Natural or Manmade Disaster and Post-Disaster Relief. Section 380.0552(7)(k), Florida Statutes, provides the following Principle: "To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan." Hurricane evacuation in Monroe County is a difficult problem because of the low elevations in the Florida Keys and the lack of evacuation routes. Through most of the Florida Keys, there is only one evacuation road: U.S. Highway 1. The County has adopted, and put in place, hurricane evacuation plans for Monroe County. Estimated hurricane evacuation times for Monroe County determine the extent to which growth can be allowed in the future. The estimated hurricane evacuation time for Monroe County is determined by a ROGO hurricane evacuation model. The model takes into account seasonal residents, hotel/motel residents, transient rental occupants, and permanent residents. Petitioners presented evidence in an effort to show that the reduction in Short-Term Rental Properties will cause the calculation under the ROGO hurricane evacuation model to be inaccurate. The evidence failed to support such a finding. The evidence failed to prove how occupants of Short- Term Rental Properties are treated for purposes of the hurricane evacuation model. Testimony that they are included as seasonal occupants was not credible. Even if occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties are considered seasonal occupants for hurricane evacuation purposes, it does not necessarily mean that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Principle "k." It would only mean that the results of the hurricane evacuation model need to be revised. Rather than hampering hurricane evacuation efforts in Monroe County, the Ordinance should have a beneficial impact by giving the County more accurate information about the actual number of Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County. Consideration of the Principles as a Whole. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statues, specifically provides that the Principles are to be "construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions." The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the Ordinance has no or little impact on most of the Principles, except Principles "d" and "l." To the extent that there is any impact on the other Principles, the evidence proved that the Ordinance is consistent. This finding, however, is not dispositive of this case. Ultimately, the question of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles is dependent upon an evaluation of the consistency of the Ordinance with Principles "d" and "l." Clearly, the Ordinance will have a short-term negative impact on the economy of Monroe County. Just as clearly, the Ordinance will enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of Monroe County. When the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is taken into account, it is clear that this is not the type of land use decision the State is most concerned with. Because the Ordinance does essentially no harm to the natural environment and waters of the Florida Keys ACSC, the State's interest in the Florida Keys ACSC is protected. The issue is essentially a local one. Consequently, some deference should be afforded the County to make this difficult choice. Given the purpose of the Department's involvement in this matter, the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the County's effort in considering the issues, and the evidence presented in this proceeding, it is concluded that the County's effort to protect the public safety, health, and welfare is sufficient to overcome any harm to the economy. Therefore, the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, considered as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order approving Monroe County Ordinance 004-1997 as consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development of Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Plante, Esquire Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire Gray, Harris and Robinson, P.A. 225 South Adams, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey Bell, Esquire Herzfeld & Rubin 5310 North West 33rd Avenue, Suite 102 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Kathleen R. Fowler, Assistant General Counsel Sherry Spiers, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Hugh J. Morgan, Esquire Karen K. Cabanas, Esquire Morgan & Brookes 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 James T. Hendrick Monroe County Attorney 310 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 325-A 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue Whether Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 457, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings before the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) and is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within FREC’s jurisdiction. At all times material, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate broker, license number 684990, under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker at Florida’s Best Buy Realty & Mortgage Lender, LLC, Post Office Box 551, Winter Park, Florida 32793. On or about February 15, 2007, Respondent entered into a contract to manage the single-family dwelling owned by Jacqueline Danzer. The property is located at 2979 Krista Key Circle, Orlando, Florida 32817 (Subject Property). The agreement was for the period February 15, 2007, until February 15, 2008. Respondent was authorized, under the management agreement, to seek a tenant for the property. Said management agreement authorized Respondent to be compensated at the rate of 10 percent of the rent due during each rental period. On or about March 27, 2007, Respondent negotiated a lease agreement with Veronica Valcarcel to rent the Subject Propery. The tenant applied through the federal Section 8 program, administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Division (Agency), for rental assistance in order to rent the Subject Property. Section 8 assists low-income families with their rent. A tenant who qualifies for Section 8 assistance is prohibited from paying more than 40 percent of his or her income for rent and utilities. On April 26, 2007, Respondent, acting on behalf of the landlord for the Subject Property, entered into and signed a “Housing Assistance Payment Contract” or “HAP” contract with the Agency as part of the Section 8 program. The HAP contract provided that for the initial lease term for the Subject Property (for the period April 1, 2007, until March 31, 2008), the initial monthly rent was $1,150 per month. This was determined to be the maximum payment the tenant could pay without exceeding 40 percent of her income. The HAP contract explicitly provides in its terms that “[d]uring the initial lease term, the owner may not raise the rent to tenant.” Respondent knew that he was prohibited from charging more than the monthly rent stated in the HAP contract. Respondent has had experience in the past with other tenants who participated in the Section 8 program. Respondent has previously signed other HAP contracts which contained the same restrictive language. Under the lease contract that the tenant Veronica Valcarcel signed with the property owner Jacqueline Danzer, the monthly rent would be $1,150 per month. The signature page in the lease contract is not the same page on which the monthly rental amount is written. The property owner Jacqueline Danzer asserts that the initials in the lease contract reflecting a monthly rental of $1,150 were not all her initials. Under the terms of the Exclusive Property Management Agreement, Respondent was being compensated at the rate of 10 percent per month after the first month. A monthly rental amount of $1,500 indicates that the property owner would receive a net of $1,350 per month. The property management agreement provided that Respondent would make payments to the property owner by direct deposit. The property management agreement lists a 12-digit bank account number, with the last four digits of “6034,” into which Respondent was to make direct deposits. At the hearing, property owner Jacqueline Danzer testified that she had received payments from Respondent for the Subject Property to her Bank of America savings account, with the account number ending in “6034.” The last four digits of the account number on the Bank of America Statement match the last four digits on the account number found on the Property Management Agreement. According to the Bank of America records, Respondent made the following payments to the property owner: a) $1,550 on May 9, 2007 b) $1,000 on May 9, 2007 c) $850 on June 12, 2007 d) $1,350 on July 11, 2007 e) $1,350 on September 10, 2007 On September 12, 2007, property owner, Jacqueline Danzer went to see Lois Henry, the manager of the Section 8 department for the Agency. During the course of that meeting, Dnazer advised that Respondent was collecting $1,500 a month rent from the tenant instead of $1,150 a month. On September 12, 2007, during the course of a telephone conference with Jacqueline Danzer and Lois Henry, Respondent admitted that he had been collecting $1,500 monthly rent for the Subject Property, retaining a commission of $150 and depositing the balance in Danzer’s account. Respondent denied making an admission during the telephone conference on September 12, 2007. He also denied that he was collecting $1,500 from the tenant, and further denied that he was violating Section 8 regulations. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. The witness Danzer’s testimony is credible. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Housing Assistance Payments Contract. The total amount of investigative costs for the Petitioner for this case, not including attorney’s time, were $874.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; Revoking Respondent’s license, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00; and Requiring Respondent pay fees and costs related to the investigation in the amount of $874.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 26th day of August, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in prohibited discriminatory conduct against Petitioners, Irene Cassermere (Ms. Cassermere) and Milagross Diaz (Ms. Diaz), within the terms and conditions, privileges, or provisions of services or facilities in the sale or rental of real property in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Ms. Diaz is a female of Hispanic ethnicity with a physical disability that limits one or more of her major life activities. At all times material, she lived in the State of New York. Ms. Diaz was in Florida during the month of February 2002. On February 20, 2002, she completed an application for lot rental in the Sherwood Forrest Mobile Home Park (Sherwood Forest) with the intent to purchase a mobile home located on a rental lot at 216 London Drive, Kissimmee, Florida, owned by Beth Koze (Ms. Koze), who did not testify. Respondent informed Ms. Diaz that her credit check would be completed within a couple of days to ascertain her income and credit history. It was her understanding that Respondent had no interest in the potential purchase transaction between her and Ms. Koze. However, Respondent explained to Ms. Diaz, that ownership of a mobile home at the time of application was not required in order to be approved. According to Ms. Diaz, Respondent eventually informed her that due to insufficient income shown on her application she had been disapproved for lot rental. Ms. Diaz testified that Respondent informed her that she needed approximately twice the amount of her reported monthly income to qualify for lot rental approval. Thereafter, Ms. Diaz submitted a second lot rental application to Respondent. On the second application, Ms. Diaz included a co-applicant, Ms. Cassermere, who intended to relocate to Florida with her when the mobile home purchase and the lot rental application were completed. No monthly income for Ms. Cassermere was included on the lot rental application. On the second lot rental application, Ms. Diaz testified that she listed her "Occupation of Applicant" as "disabled." In the column regarding "income," she included her income and listed a Mr. LaRosa as a source of monthly income of $400.00, the amount she claimed Respondent previously informed her she needed to qualify for lot rental. According to Ms. Diaz, Respondent received her second lot rental application and called her to discuss the matter. During the conversation Respondent asked "[W]hat she was doing for Mr. LaRosa that he would put out $400.00 on her behalf." Ms. Diaz testified that she was offended by the tone of Respondent's voice and the implications that she believed prompted the question. She believed the question to have been irrelevant and did not answer. Ms. Diaz testified that in the "Assets and Income" column of her second lot rental application, she listed the amount of $10,000. When asked by Respondent the source of the $10,000, which apparently was not initially included on her first lot rental application, she explained to Respondent she intended to make a cash purchase of the mobile home from Ms. Koze for $10,000. When asked by Respondent the source of such a large sum, when her monthly income was insufficient to qualify for lot rental, she explained that she was to receive a lump sum, five years' retroactive social security benefit payment. Ms. Diaz testified that approximately one month after submitting her second rental lot application to Respondent and having received no response, she called Ms. Koze to ascertain the status of the mobile home sale. Ms. Diaz also testified that Ms. Koze advised her to call Respondent to find out what was holding up her second lot rental application. Believing the lot rental approval was a condition precedent to the mobile home sale, Ms. Diaz testified that at no time during her conversation with Ms. Koze did Ms. Koze advise her that she intended to take the mobile home off the market. Ms. Diaz then called Respondent and spoke with Andy Windfelder (Mr. Windfelder) about the rental lot application status. Mr. Windfelder told her to call Ms. Koze. Ms. Diaz's recollection of the telephone conversation between her and Ms. Koze follows: [A]t this point it's just too much trouble, that at this point she was going to keep the house. . . for a family member--So I told her at this point, she's been patient and she's been holding up with me for that whole time that we were waiting on this credit report, which is four weeks, that I'm not going to put her on the spot of going against them and tell me what transpired in that conversation for them to convince her not to sell to me. I told her that at that point I have no alternative but to tell her that I was going to go file a housing complaint, and I'm sorry that I would have to involve her, but that we had a contract and I gave her a deposit. So at that point she took my name and address and she mailed me my deposit back on a check, and at that point, I didn't contact Sherwood--I contacted Sherwood Forest only to tell them right after that that I filed this housing complaint, that I was going to file this housing complaint . . . As stated, Ms. Diaz filed her discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and no longer communicated directly with Respondent regarding the matter. The core of Ms. Diaz's complaint is Respondent's failure, or refusal, to contact her by mail or by telephone about the result of her second lot rental application. Further, Ms. Diaz opined that Respondent pressured Ms. Koze not to sell her mobile home to her, which caused Ms. Koze to return Ms. Diaz's purchase contract deposit money. Ms. Diaz argued that Respondent's conduct, unreasonable delay in acting upon her lot rental application and pressure on Ms. Koze not to sell, had two direct effects: (1) she lost the opportunity to purchase the mobile home located on the rental lot at 216 London Drive, Kissimmee, Florida, and (2) she was denied the right to reside in Respondent's facility because she was a dark, disabled, Hispanic female. At all times material, Jeff Leeds (Mr. Leeds) was general manager of Sherwood Forest in Kissimmee, Florida. In that position, Mr. Leeds supervised a staff of 28 persons, of whom many were Hispanic. The park consisted of approximately 1,600 rental sites. According to Mr. Leeds, approximately 30 percent of Sherwood Forest residents were Hispanic, and he had never met Ms. Diaz. According to Mr. Leeds, Ms. Diaz's background check reflected insufficient income that raised an alert. Her second application, based upon his conversation with Ms. Diaz, would include her sister, Ms. Cassermere, as co-applicant. Ms. Diaz was unaware that in October 2003, Ms. Koze placed her mobile home back on the market and was willing to sell to her. This information was made available to Ms. Diaz by and through Respondent through the report provided to Respondent by the Commission's investigator. Based on the evidence of record, Ms. Diaz failed to present any credible evidence to substantiate her claim of discrimination. Ultimate Factual Determinations Respondent rejected Ms. Diaz's initial lot rental application, not because of her handicap or her Hispanic ethnicity, but because through a reasonable process of credit check references, it was discovered that Ms. Diaz's disability income was insufficient to meet Respondent's requirements for lot rental. The additional income of $400.00, an apparent loan from her friend, entered on her second rental lot application raised reasonable concerns; and, when inquiry was made, she refused to respond. There is no credible, competent evidence that Respondent attempted to influence and/or pressure the mobile home owner, Ms. Koze, to take her mobile home off the market and/or cancel her contract for sale with Ms. Diaz. Ms. Koze voluntarily returned Ms. Diaz's deposit money. There is no credible, competent evidence that Respondent intentionally delayed processing Ms. Diaz's second lot rental application with the intent or for the purpose of denying her approval because of her disability, gender, or her Hispanic ethnicity. In short, Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Ms. Diaz; rather, the delay caused by her second lot rental application to Respondent was for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and was not proven to be the reason Ms. Koze took her mobile home off the market.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioners', Irene Cassermere and Milagross Diaz, Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 1st day of July, 2004.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), by operating as a real estate broker without a license and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of real estate. Respondent is the president of Lenox Investments & Development, Inc. ("Lenox"). Lenox shares office space with Lenox Realty Corporation ("Lenox Realty"). Mr. Richard Fess is the qualifying and managing broker for Lenox Realty. Mr. Carlos Hofle is Respondent's brother, a licensed real estate agent, and an employee of Lenox Realty. Respondent is not licensed to practice real estate and is not an employee of Lenox Realty. In 1993, Respondent practiced real estate without a license by renting and negotiating the sale of a home owned by Herman and Mae Agnes Scott (the "Scotts"). Mr. Scott built the home himself approximately 20 years ago. In November, 1993, Mr. Scott became fatally ill. The Scotts were unable to make the mortgage payments on their home. They were six months in arrears in their mortgage payments. Crown Bank, the mortgagee, began foreclosure proceedings. The Scotts approached Respondent to assist them in avoiding foreclosure through a mortgage assistance program promoted by Lenox. Respondent represented verbally, in the functions he performed, and in the capacity for which he signed relevant documents, that he was a licensed real estate agent. He and the Scotts met and discussed the pending foreclosure proceeding. Respondent advised the Scotts that they should sell their house. Respondent represented that he would obtain a tenant who would purchase the house. The Scotts were in a desperate financial situation and needed cash. Respondent loaned the Scotts $2,000. The loan included a personal loan of $1,250 to the Scotts and a $750 mortgage assistance fee for Respondent. On November 10, 1993, the Scotts executed a management agreement with Lenox. Respondent negotiated and signed the management agreement. The management agreement required Respondent to advertise and show the rental property, pre-qualify the tenant, negotiate the lease, and perform repairs and maintenance. The Scotts were to pay Respondent 12 percent of the gross rent, plus one month's rent, and $750 for a mortgage assistance program to avoid foreclosure. All of the rent earned on the property went to Respondent until the $1,250 loan and $750 mortgage assistance fee were paid. On November 10, 1993, Respondent solicited and obtained an Exclusive Right of Sale Listing Contract from the Scotts on behalf of Lenox Realty. Respondent obtained a tenant who Respondent represented would purchase the Scotts' house. Respondent collected $1,400 from the tenant. None of the rent was paid to avoid or work out the foreclosure. The mortgagee foreclosed on the Scotts' house. They lost their home, their equity, and their credit. Respondent never worked for Lenox Realty. Lenox Realty never authorized Respondent to obtain listing agreements or management agreements on behalf of Lenox Realty. Neither Lenox Realty nor Mr. Fess agreed to list the Scotts' home for sale. Neither authorized Respondent to do so. Mr. Fess never signed the listing agreement with the Scotts. The Scotts dealt only with Respondent. They did not know that Respondent was not licensed. The Scotts never dealt with anyone who was a licensed real estate agent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 475.42(1)(a) and imposing an administrative penalty of $5,000. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Edward A. Kerben, Esquire 725 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803
