The Issue Whether the subject site is within Petitioner's permitting jurisdiction and whether an earthen dam constructed at the subject site required a permit? Whether Respondent should be required to remove the earthen dam and/or be required to pay Petitioner's investigative costs?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida that regulates dredge and fill activities conducted in wetlands within its statutory jurisdiction as set forth in Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes. Respondent owns the subject property, which is located in the 200 block of Jan Drive in Section 18, Township 4 South, Range 13 West, Bay County, Florida. On July 22, 1999, Mr. Keisker met informally with Respondent at Respondent’s request and made a field visit to the subject property. Mr. Keisker told Respondent that he thought the subject property was within Petitioner’s permitting jurisdiction. Although Mr. Keisker took soil samples, surveyed the plant life of the area, and observed the hydrology of the area, his visit was not intended to be an official determination that the subject property was within Petitioner's permitting jurisdiction. There is no dispute that an earthen dam was constructed across the unnamed creek, described in findings of fact paragraph 5, in late 1999 or early January 2000. The central issue in dispute is whether the site of the earthen dam is within Petitioner’s permitting jurisdiction. Respondent asserts that the area at issue is a drainage ditch that did not naturally occur and is not within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that the area is an unnamed creek in a historical, natural wetland that is within its permitting jurisdiction. The greater weight of the credible, competent evidence established that Respondent’s property contains an unnamed creek that is located in an area of historically natural wetlands that was likely excavated in the 1970's by the local Mosquito Control District. This area of natural wetlands drains and connects into Rogers Pond and Calloway Bayou, which are Class III waters of the State of Florida. The site is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. 2/ Respondent did not receive a permit prior to the construction of the earthen dam. Construction of the earthen dam constitutes unpermitted fill activity in a wetland within Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. Shortly after Petitioner received a complaint in January 2000 that it had been constructed, the dam was partially breached as the result of a heavy rain event. To prevent further pollution of the unnamed creek, the remaining portion of the earthen dam should be removed by non- mechanical means. Mr. Keisker testified that he calculated Petitioner’s investigative costs based on the amount of time he expended in investigating this matter multiplied by his hourly rate of pay. In calculating his hourly rate of pay, he took his annual salary and added to that 52 percent of his annual salary for fringe benefits. He then divided that sum by 2000, which represents 50 work weeks of 40 hours per week. He used 50 weeks to calculate the hourly rate to adjust for two weeks of paid vacation. Based on his calculations, Mr. Keisker testified that Petitioner incurred costs and expenses in excess of $750.00 during its investigation of this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the findings and conclusions contained herein and requiring Respondent to remove the remaining portions of the earthen dam by non-mechanical means. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Lake Bentley Shores, Inc. (Respondent), engaged in unlawful housing discrimination in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who, at all times material to the allegations of this case, resided in a first floor condominium, Unit A-3, in Lake Bentley Shores. The legal owner of Unit A-3, Lake Bentley Shores, is Jose Anglada (Mr. Anglada). Mr. Anglada employed CDC Properties of Central Florida, LLC (CDC), to manage his unit. CDC was responsible for the day- to-day management of the unit and collected rent payments due to the unit owner. In contrast, A1A Property Management (A1A) was the on-site property manager for the Lake Bentley Shores condominium community. The Lake Bentley Shores condominium community was governed by Respondent, a condominium association organized under the laws of Florida. In addition to retaining a management firm to address the daily workings of the condominium property, Respondent also retained U. S. Security Associates, Inc. to provide night-time security services for the condominium community. The security company reported to A1A daily regarding security issues. At all times material to the allegations of this case, U. S. Security Associates, Inc. employed Mr. Goodkind and assigned him to the Lake Bentley Shores condominium property. Mr. Goodkind was not Respondent’s employee. Mr. Goodkind was not A1A’s employee. Mr. Goodkind was not CDC’s employee. All leasing arrangements between Petitioner and the Unit A-3 owner were handled by CDC. Any complaints regarding the unit were to be made to CDC. Petitioner never filed a written complaint to Respondent regarding the offensive or inappropriate behavior toward her committed by Mr. Goodkind. On January 10, 2012, Petitioner made a verbal complaint to Steve Allen, A1A’s on-site manager, regarding Mr. Goodkind’s alleged sexual harassment toward Petitioner. Mr. Allen took action to notify U. S. Security Associates, Inc. Mr. Goodkind was immediately removed from the Lake Bentley Shores assignment. Thereafter, Petitioner made no written or verbal complaints regarding sexual harassment to Respondent, A1A, or CDC. Lake Bentley Shores comprises of 160 condominium units. Some of the units, like Unit A-3, share a wall with a utility/storage closet. Such closets house water heaters. Water heaters must be inspected regularly to assure no leakage. Historically, leaking water heaters were a maintenance issue at the condominium property. Although Respondent has rules and regulations regarding resident conduct on the Lake Bentley Shores property, it delegates the routine operation of the condominium property to A1A. At all times material to the allegations of this case, A1A directed U. S. Security Associates, Inc. (through its night-time security employee) to assure noise levels during the night-time hours were appropriate, to regularly “walk” the Lake Bentley Shores property to assure the safety of residents, and to observe and report any suspicious activity. Included in the areas to “walk” were the utility/storage closets previously described. Thus, it was common for Mr. Goodkind to enter the closets, walk around the buildings, observe the parking areas, and to listen for noises to assure the tranquility of the property. Excessive noise from any unit was not acceptable. Prior to the allegations of this case, Mr. Goodkind worked as a security guard at the Lake Bentley Shores property for approximately four years. During that time he established himself as a conscientious enforcer of the noise regulations, he kept a log of vehicles entering and exiting the property, and made efforts to reduce vandalism or theft. Mr. Goodkind did not sexually harass Petitioner. At no time did Mr. Goodkind peer into Petitioner’s windows, peep through any hole, or follow Petitioner except in the manner appropriate for the performance of his routine duties as a security officer. Mr. Goodkind did, however, confront a resident or guest of Unit A-3 to seek reduction in the noise level emanating from the unit. CDC initiated eviction proceedings against Petitioner due to failure to pay rent and damage to Unit A-3. Respondent had no involvement in the eviction. A1A had no involvement with or connection to the eviction other than a report made to CDC that gave notice of a broken window visible from the exterior of the unit. Petitioner eventually moved out of Unit A-3 after reaching an agreement with CDC. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that Mr. Goodkind harassed her in any manner. Mr. Goodkind did not interfere with Petitioner’s enjoyment of her residence. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that Respondent harassed her in any manner or suffered any damages as a result of such alleged behavior. Respondent did not interfere with Petitioner’s enjoyment of her residence. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that A1A as Respondent’s agent harassed her in any manner. A1A did not interfere with Petitioner’s enjoyment of her residence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful housing practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing her complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 28th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard L. Bradford, Esquire Bradford and Bradford, P.A. Suite 196 150 East Bloomingdale Avenue Brandon, Florida 33511 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William E. Roberts, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. One Lake Morton Drive Post Office Box 3 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Miller, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. One Lake Morton Drive Post Office Box 3 Lakeland, Florida 33802
The Issue The issue in this appeal is whether the decision of the City Planning and Zoning Board granting Clearwater Parasail, Inc., a conditional use permit to rent four personal water craft at its business at Clearwater Pass is sustained by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Appellant, Aqua Wave Rental, Inc., is a lessee operating a personal water craft rental business on the Holiday Inn Sunspree property in the City of Clearwater, Clearwater Beach, just west of and immediately adjacent to the new Clearwater Pass Bridge. Personal water craft, also known as jet skis and wave runners, are designed for use by a single operator or by an operator and one passenger; they are propelled by water jets. Although small, personal water craft are capable of achieving high speeds. Currently, they can go 50 to 60 miles per hour; new models are coming out that will be able to go 95 miles per hour. Operators of these craft prefer to operate at high speeds, and many operators jump the wakes of other boats or engage in other unsafe maneuvers. Eighty percent of the 156 citations and 74 warnings to operators of water craft in Pinellas County between April 1 and December 31, 1997, were given to operators of personal water craft. Although making up only 9.3% of all water craft registered in the State of Florida in 1997, personal water craft were involved in 36.1% of all reported water craft accidents. Of 754 injuries from water craft accidents reported in 1997, 367 involved personal water craft. The Applicant/Respondent, Clearwater Parasail, Inc., is a leaseholder on the real property located at 619 Gulfview Boulevard in the City of Clearwater, Clearwater Beach. The owner of the property is William M. Shephard, Trustee for Shephard Family Trust. The property is zoned CR28 and is improved with a motel called Shephard's Resort and associated uses. It is approximately 300 yards west of the Appellant's business. Clearwater Pass separates Clearwater Beach from Sand Key and connects the Intracoastal Waterway with the Gulf of Mexico. Besides Shephard's and the Holiday Inn Sunspree, there also is an Econo Lodge and two condominium complexes between Clearwater Parasail and Aqua Wave Rental along the south shore of the Pass. Generally, the area has mixed land use comprised of hotel/motel, recreational uses such as boat rental businesses, bars/nightclubs, and multifamily residential condominiums. On April 14, 1998, Clearwater Parasail filed an application for a conditional use permit to rent four personal water craft and one flats fishing boat at its business at Clearwater Pass. When Robert Pothoff, the owner/operator of Aqua Wave Rental, Inc., became aware of the application, he approached the City's Harbormaster, William Held, because it had been Pothoff's understanding from prior dealings with Held that no additional personal water craft rental operations would be allowed in Clearwater Pass due to boat congestion and safety considerations. On his own volition, the Harbormaster convened a meeting of the City of Clearwater Marine Advisory Board (the MAB) to consider the application. Although the Harbormaster's job description does not include advising planning staff or boards regarding land use issues, Held prepared a memorandum outlining the reasons he, as Harbormaster, was recommending denial. A copy of the minutes of the MAB meeting at which it voted to recommend denial was attached to the Harbormaster's memorandum. The Clearwater Parasail application was placed on the agenda of the Planning and Zoning Board's meeting scheduled for May 19, 1998. When the Harbormaster learned of the hearing date, he requested a continuance because neither he nor any of his staff could be available for the hearing. The Staff Report to the Board recommended a continuance in order that further information could be developed. Before the May 19, 1998, hearing, Pothoff asked the Harbormaster as to the status of the application. The Harbormaster informed Pothoff that he was requesting a continuance. Thinking that there would be a continuance, Pothoff decided not to attend the hearing on May 19, 1998. At the hearing on May 19, 1998, the Applicant opposed the requested continuance, and it was denied by the Board. During the Board hearing, the Applicant's attorney argued that safety considerations were not relevant to the Board's consideration of the application. The Assistant City Attorney advising the Board stated that, while safety was not a specific criterion for approval of a conditional use, it could be a relevant consideration under general criteria concerning the general welfare of the community. One Board member testified at the final hearing and confirmed that he considered boating congestion and safety issues. While the mental thought processes of each Board member cannot be ascertained from the record, the Harbormaster's memorandum, with MAB minutes attached, was in evidence before the Board, and it seems apparent that the Board considered boating congestion and safety issues. By a unanimous vote of 7-0, the Board approved the conditional use application, subject to the following conditions: Hours of jet ski operation are limited to 9:00 a.m. to dusk, seven days per week; the flats boat may be out after dusk and before 9:00 a.m.: Jet skiers will be required to honor the No Wake Zone and will idle through the No Wake Zone to access either the beach or the Gulf of Mexico; There will be one boat or one jet ski available to act as a chase boat, respond to emergencies, or offer assistance to troubled jet skiers; With regard to experience requirements, the business operator will comply with all current state laws that regulate this industry; Buoys shall be placed to identify the jet ski starting area and designate the route jet skis may travel between open water and the beach; and The operation is limited to four (4) jet skis and one (1) flats boat. The appeal from the Board's decision does not contest the approval of the flats fishing boat, but only appeals the approval as relates to the four personal water craft. Aside from the issue of boating congestion and safety in Clearwater Pass, the evidence clearly sustains the Board's decision that personal water craft rental is a compatible use in the surrounding area and that the proposed conditional use will not impose an excessive burden or have a substantial negative impact on surrounding or adjacent uses or on community facilities or services. A marked channel traverses Clearwater Pass, which has a strong current when the tide is flowing. Several years ago, the channel was moved towards the middle of the Pass, away from the south shore of the Pass, to relieve congestion along the south shore. There also is a "no-wake zone" in the channel. At Clearwater Parasail’s request, the Harbormaster expanded the "no wake zone" 350 yards to the west so that the "no-wake zone" now extends past Clearwater Parasail’s business. Boating congestion and safety concerns in the Pass are greatest on weekends in the area of Shephard's Resort. The complex includes Shephard's Backyard Tiki Bar and Nightclub, which extends up to the shore. Many Shephard's patrons and other boaters anchor in the Pass off the shore in front of Shephard's and wade in. The consumption of alcoholic beverages figures prominently in the activities that take place in and around Shephard's. Meanwhile, residents and patrons of other establishments along the Pass in the vicinity also use the Pass for boating, wading and swimming. The Applicant's business location is to the west of Shephard's Backyard Tiki Bar and Nightclub on the other side of a rock jetty. Under its plan of operation, the Applicant will use a chase boat to guide its renters into the Clearwater Pass through water marked with buoys for that purpose; once in the Pass, renters will be guided to the west into the Gulf. The chase boat will remain in the water to offer assistance and guidance as necessary. As planned, the Applicant's operation will not add significantly to the congestion directly in front of Shephard's. The City's Harbormaster believes that personal water craft are dangerous by nature and that Clearwater Pass is too congested with water crafts of all types on weekends (especially in front of Shephard's). As a result, from a boating safety standpoint, he would prefer no personal water craft rental businesses in or near Clearwater Pass at all, regardless of safety precautions, and he recommended denial of any conditional use permit for additional personal water craft rental businesses in the Pass. The Harbormaster did not direct his comments specifically to the Clearwater Parasail proposal. He did, however, state that Clearwater Parasail has not been a safety problem, and he had no reason to believe that the Applicant would not operate his personal water craft business in the same safe manner that he operates his parasail business. Pinellas County Deputy Sheriff David Littlejohn, who patrols the Clearwater Pass area for the County, testified to the nature of boating activity on Clearwater Pass and about the congestion of water craft in front of Shephard's on weekends. However, Deputy Littlejohn stated that he could not say whether the Applicant's four personal water craft would have an adverse impact on Clearwater Pass during the weekend. He conceded that most of the congestion was directly in front of Shephard's, not to the west on the other side of the rock jetty, where the Applicant will operate its personal water craft rental business. Florida Marine Patrol Officer Terry L. Noll had not been in Clearwater Pass for approximately the past three years. He also believes that personal water craft are dangerous. However, his primary concern is that the operators of personal water craft, whether owners or renters, are safe and well- trained. Robert Pothoff's testimony confirmed that Clearwater Parasail will operate its personal water craft rental business similar to the manner in which he operates Aqua Wave Rental. Like Clearwater Parasail, Aqua Wave Rental operates from a bar/hotel area (although it is not as busy as Shephard's.) For the safety of his renters and other boaters using the Pass, Pothoff prohibits his renters from operating in front of Shephard's. Since Aqua Wave Rental is located to the east of Shephard's, Pothoff tries to direct his renters to the east under the Clearwater Pass Bridge into the Intracoastal Waterway. Apparently not fully cognizant of the Applicant's plan of operation, it was Pothoff's incorrect assumption that the Applicant's renters would not be able to similarly avoid operating in front of Shephard's. The Applicant will have to comply with all state and local laws and regulations governing the rental and operation of personal water craft in Clearwater Pass. These now include prohibitions against wake jumping and operation by persons under the age of 14. While not currently the law, it is anticipated that renters of personal water craft soon will have to be trained in the safe operation of these craft and certified as competent before renting. Regardless of the state of the law, the Applicant plans to offer a boating safety course to its renters. The owner/operator of Clearwater Parasail, Cliff Conaster, is the holder of a 100-ton captain's license and is qualified to offer this instruction. It is found that the evidence before the Board and presented at final hearing sustains the Board's decision that personal water craft rental as proposed at this location is a compatible use in the area surrounding the proposed location and will not impose an excessive burden or have a substantial negative impact on surrounding or adjacent uses or on community facilities or services. It also is found that the evidence before the Board and presented at final hearing sustains the Board's decision that personal water craft rental as proposed at this location is consistent with the community welfare and will not detract from the public’s convenience at this location. In 1990, the Planning and Zoning Board denied a previous application for conditional use approval for a personal water craft rental business at the same location. The applicant in that case appealed, and the Final Order in Shepard et al. v. City of Clearwater, DOAH Case No. 90-2152, sustained the decision of the Board. There, however, the applicant had no experience in running a marine rental business. In addition, the applicant wanted to rent up to ten personal water craft, plus a catamaran sailboat. Also, the applicant failed to establish that safe ingress and egress would be accomplished or that the operation would be sufficiently staffed to ensure safe operations. Those factors sharply contrast with the facts of this case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a food and beverage concession on the beach at North Shore Open Space Park in Miami Beach, Florida. Pursuant to a Management Agreement between the City of Miami Beach and the State of Florida, the City pays to the Florida Department of Natural Resources 25 percent of all monies the City collects from private concessionaires operating on that beach. The City has issued a permit to Petitioner for the sale of beer and wine (in addition to food and other beverages) at this location contingent upon licensing by the State of Florida. Petitioner's concession is operated from trailers loaned to it by the Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Miami. Each trailer is approximately 14 feet by 6 feet in size and is mounted on four rubber tires. Each trailer is hauled to its location each morning by a 4 x 4 International truck and is disconnected from the truck at the location of a 4" x 4" post embedded in concrete in the sand. The post contains a socket which provides telephone service for the trailer upon insertion of a plug. The posts were installed for the sole purpose of allowing Petitioner's employees at the trailers to call Petitioner's commissary for additional supplies to be delivered. The City of Miami Beach requires each trailer to be located within 15 feet of its post when operating and further defines its hours of operation. The service area granted to Petitioner under its concession agreement with the City covers 888,300 square feet of beach. At the end of each day, the trailers are picked up by the tow vehicle and are hauled to Mr. Coney Island restaurant, approximately 1.5 miles from the beach site, where they are stored overnight and restocked each morning. On June 2, 1983, Beverage Officer Francisco R. Oliva inspected the proposed business premises. At the address shown on Petitioner's application, 7929 Atlantic Way, Officer Oliva found only beach-front property with no address numbers. He located two trailers bearing Pepsi-Cola Company markings between the 80th and 81st blocks of Atlantic Way. The poles from which the trailers obtain telephone service were not present on that date. The business address Petitioner provided on its application for licensure, 7929 Atlantic Way, Miami Beach, is the address the City uses for the building which houses the Beach Patrol and the Dade County sanitation equipment for sanitation of the beach.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a Series 2-COP beverage license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Wasserman, Esquire 420 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire. Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Hronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, IMT-LB Central Florida Portfolio, LLC (Respondent), committed a discriminatory practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2009).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and/or operates a residential rental property located at 4400 Martin’s Way, Orlando, Florida. The property, identified in this record as Village Park Apartments (Village Park), consisted of a two-story, multi-building, multi- apartment complex. Sometime in late October 2009, Petitioner leased an apartment at Village Park. Petitioner’s apartment was on the second floor and no other apartments were above his. Petitioner’s lease agreement required that Petitioner obtain and provide public utilities for his apartment. Although Petitioner claims he did not timely receive a copy of his lease in order to be on notice of this provision, the record is clear that after Petitioner became aware of the provision, he did not obtain public utilities for the apartment. Shortly after Petitioner received a bill for utility service for his apartment from Respondent in December 2009, Petitioner complained to governmental authorities about conditions at the apartment complex. With regard to the conditions of his living unit, Petitioner maintained there was a roof leak, a vanity pipe leak, and a non-working toilet. Ms. Johnson, an inspector for the City, came out to Village Park and inspected the unit. She found that the toilet and vanity required repair. She further determined that Respondent would need to get a certified roofing person to verify the condition of the roof, and to certify to the City that the roof was water tight. It was Ms. Johnson’s position that water damage was evident on the ceiling in Petitioner’s unit, and that Respondent would need to get a certified roofing person to verify the condition of the roof, as well as someone to restore the interior of Petitioner’s unit by repairing and/or painting the ceiling. An inspector from the Orange County Health Department also visited Village Park concerning a complaint about rats at the dumpster. Respondent timely addressed the rodent issue and the property is under contract with an extermination company that provides appropriate rodent deterrence. Respondent timely repaired the vanity leak and the toilet issue in Petitioner’s apartment. The roof issue, however, was not quickly resolved. Initially, Petitioner refused to allow Respondent into the unit to repair the ceiling. Ms. Johnson advised Petitioner that he would have to allow Respondent entry in order for them to be able to fix the ceiling and restore it to an appropriate condition. According to Ms. Johnson, the ceiling in Petitioner’s unit did not collapse as alleged by Petitioner. Ms. Johnson also noted that there was debris around the dumpster at Village Park. She was favorably impressed with the speed with which the maintenance crew cleaned up the mess at the dumpster site. Despite some delays in getting the roof inspection completed to Ms. Johnson’s satisfaction, all issues with Petitioner’s unit were resolved to the City’s satisfaction. Concurrent with the repair timeline to Petitioner’s unit, Respondent filed an eviction proceeding against Petitioner. That action progressed through the court, through mediation, and resulted in a stipulated settlement agreement. The Landlord/Tenant Stipulation was executed on January 27, 2010, and provided, in pertinent part: Defendant [Petitioner] agrees to place utilities in his own name at OUC no later than Feb. 3, 2010. * * * Defendant agrees to allow Plaintiff [Respondent] to enter his apartment for repairs on Feb. 1, 2010 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Petitioner failed to abide by the terms of the stipulation. Ultimately the court issued a Final Judgment for Possession and Writ of Possession for Petitioner’s unit. Petitioner's claim that the eviction process was retaliation for the complaints made to the county and city authorities, belies the fact that Petitioner failed to honor the terms of the lease, and the stipulation reached in the eviction proceeding. Petitioner’s race was not directly or indirectly involved in any manner. Nor was Petitioner treated less favorably than a similarly situated party not of Petitioner’s race.
The Issue Whether the Appellant, Devoe L. Moore, has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that development rights in certain real property he owns have vested against the provisions of the Tallahassee-Leon County 2010 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property at Issue. On September 18, 1987, Devoe Moore acquired a tract of approximately 28 acres of real estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), located on Lake Bradford Road just south of Gaines Street, in the City of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. The Property was the former location of the Elberta Crate and Box Company. The Property was at the time of purchase, and still is, zoned M-2, Industrial. Development of the Property. Mr. Moore intended to develop the Property consistent with the Property's M-2, Industrial zoning. Mr. Moore intended to build a service/commercial/mini-storage development similar to another such development of Mr. Moore in the City. In December, 1987, Mr. Moore had his engineer prepare grading and drainage plans for the Property. On January 29, 1988, Mr. Moore had an application for an amendment to a stormwater permit, Environmental Management Permit 87-1087, filed with the Leon County Department of Public Works. At that time, Leon County issued such permits for property in unincorporated areas and inside the City's limits. The grading and drainage plans for the Property were filed with the application. Leon County had not been delegated any responsibility or authority to make land-use decisions for the City. The requested amendment to Permit 87-1087 was based on an assumption of Mr. Moore that the Property would consist of 80% coverage with impervious surface. Therefore, the City was aware or should have been aware that Mr. Moore intended to construct a major development on the Property. Such a development was consistent with the zoning on the Property at the time. Neither Leon County nor the City, however, approved or in anyway addressed the issue of whether 80% coverage of the Property with impervious surface was acceptable. Nor did the City or Leon County make any representation to Mr. Moore different from that made by the City's zoning of the Property. Mr. Moore filed a site plan showing a development of 80% coverage with the application for amendment to Permit 87-1087. These plans showed a development consisting of thirteen rectangular buildings, driveways and parking area. The indicated development, however, was not reviewed or in anyway approved by Leon County or the City. On May 6, 1988, a Stormwater Permit, amending Permit 87-1087, was issued to Mr. Moore. This permit only approved the construction of a holding pond and filling on the Property. The issuance of the permit did not constitute approval of any proposed development of the Property. In 1988, Mr. Moore began clearing the Property of buildings on the Property which the City had condemned. Mr. Moore also began filling and grading the Property in 1988, and has continued to do so to varying degrees through July 16, 1991. From January 1989, through August, 1990, SANDCO placed 1,174 loads of fill on the Property. Jimmy Crowder Construction Company has also performed filling and grading work on the Property since 1988. As of the date the City's vesting ordnance was adopted and as of the date of the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings Mr. Moore has not completed filling on the Property. Mr. Moore also has not completed filtration improvements to the storm water hold pond to be constructed on the Property. Additional water treatment facilities on the Property must be constructed to handle runoff from the Property. No roadways, water services, sewer services or electric services have been constructed on the Property. Site preparation on the Property has not been completed so that construction of vertical improvements can begin. At the time that Mr. Moore acquired the Property, only building permits were required for the development of the Property. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Moore obtained the required building permits. The law was changed, however, to require approval of a site plan. Mr. Moore decided not to submit a site plan at least in part because of the City's work on the sewer main. The weight of the evidence, however, failed to prove that Mr. Moore was prohibited by the City from obtaining site plan approval. The City has not approved or reviewed a site plan for the Property. At the time Mr. Moore purchased the Property, and continuing to the present, a City sewer main which runs along the southern border of the Property has been a problem. The sewer main is a health hazard because it is located in proximity to the surface of the ground and it has numerous leaks. The City indicated that it intended to build a new sewer main across the Property and Mr. Moore agreed to give the City an easement for the sewer main. After Mr. Moore purchased the Property and before February, 1989, Mr. Moore made a number of requests to the City that the City identify the easement it desired and prepare the easement grant so that the City could construct the new sewer main and Mr. Moore could proceed with his development. Requests were also made by some City employees of the City Attorney that the easement be prepared and executed because of the problem with the existing sewer main. In April, 1989, the easement grant was prepared and executed. On August 3, 1990, James S. Caldwell, Assistant Director of the City Water and Sewer Department, wrote the following letter to Mr. Moore: It has been brought to my attention that your are proceeding with construction of a stormwater holding pond on the referenced site [the Elberta Crate Site]. As discussed with you this date and as you are aware, the City has a sewer line on this property. The sewer line would be damaged by your construction activity. The City has designed a relocation and upgrade of the sewer line to be constructed on an easement previously acquired from you. Our schedule for the sewer line construction is completion by January 1, 1991. A review of your stormwater holding pond drawings and the proposed sewer line reveals a potential conflict between the proposed line and the holding pond. We shall have City staff stake out and flag the existing sewer line and the proposed sewer line. We are requesting that your construction activity stay away from the existing sewer line. After stakeout of the proposed sewer line, you may check your stormwater pond plans to assure that there is no conflict. [Emphasis added]. Mr. Moore was also told on other occasions to avoid interfering with the existing sewer line and the construction of the new sewer line. Construction of the new sewer main on the Property was not commenced until January, 1991. The construction had not been completed as of March, 1991. Part of the delay in completing the sewer main was caused by contemplated changes in the location of the sewer main and the possible need for a different easement. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Moore was told to cease all activity on the Property. Costs Incurred by Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore paid approximately $1,000,000.00 for the Property. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this cost was incurred in reliance upon any representation from the City as to the use the Property could be put other than the existing zoning of the Property. Mr. Moore spent approximately $247,541.22, for demolition of existing buildings, site clearing and grading, engineering costs, fill, permitting fees and partial construction of the stormwater management system for the Property. Mr. Moore also donated an easement to the City with a value of approximately $26,000.00. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that these expenditures were made in reliance upon any representation by the City as to the use to which the Property could be put other than the existing zoning of the Property and the stormwater management permit. Mr. Moore also incurred approximately $100,000.00 in expenditures similar to those addressed in the previous finding of fact for which Mr. Moore was unable to find documentation. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that these expenditures were made in reliance upon any representation by the City as to the use to which the Property could be put other than the zoning of the Property and the stormwater management permit. Development of the Property Under the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moore's proposed development of the Property appears to meet the concurrency requirements of the Tallahassee-Leon County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moore's proposed development of the Property, however, appears to be inconsistent with the 2010 Plan because the Future Land Use Element district in which the Property is located does not permit industrial uses and the intended industrial use of the Property is incompatible with some of the uses to which adjacent property has been put. Procedure. Mr. Moore filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination prior to the filing of the application at issue in this proceeding. That application was denied by the City on October 16, 1991. In the first application Mr. Moore indicated that the Property was to be used for student housing. On or about November 13, 1991, Mr. Moore filed an Application for Vested Rights Determination (hereinafter referred to as the "Application") (Application VR0295T), with the City. "Devoe L. Moore" was listed as the owner/agent of the Property in the Application. It is indicated that the project at issue in the Application is "[i]ndustrial development of former Elberta Crate and Box Company site by Devoe L. Moore." "Progress . . . Toward Completion" is described as (1) Owner/contractor estimate; (2) Environmental Management Permit; (3) Site preparation from December, 1987, to the date the Application was filed; and (4) Construction of the stormwater system in 1990. In a letter dated February 6, 1991, Mr. Moore was informed that his Application was being denied. By letter dated February 18, 1991, Mr. Moore requested a hearing before a Staff Committee for review of the denial of his Application. On March 11, 1991, a hearing was held to consider the Application before the Staff Committee. The Staff Committee was comprised of Jim English, City Attorney, Mark Gumula, Director of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department and Buddy Holshouser, Director for the City's Growth Management Department. At the conclusion of this hearing the Staff Committee voted 2 to 1 to deny the Application. By letter dated March 19, 1991, Mark Gumula, Director of Planning of the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, informed Mr. Moore that the Application had been denied. By letter dated April 4, 1991, to Mr. Gumula, Mr. Moore appealed the decision to deny the Application. By letter dated July 3, 1991, the Division of Administrative Hearings was requested to provide a Hearing Officer to review this matter. By agreement of the parties, the undersigned allowed the parties to supplement the record in this matter on August 27, 1991. F. Other Projects Approved by the City. Mr. Moore submitted, without objection from the City, other vesting rights applications and final orders concerning such applications which were ultimately approved by the City. All of those cases are distinguishable from this matter. See the City's proposed finding of fact 30.
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987 an application for conditional use approval to allow on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages (4COP) was filed on behalf of Joseph W. McGoldrick for property located at 2848 Gulf to Bay Boulevard in Clearwater, Florida. The property is zoned general commercial (CG) and multiple family residential (RM-12). A public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board was held on September 1, 1987. The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to grant conditional use approval for this application. A timely appeal was taken by Petitioners on September 15, 1987. Petitioners are surrounding property owners whose property is located within five hundred feet of the subject property. With this application, McGoldrick seeks approval for on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages since he intends to convert the use of the property to a nightclub. The parties stipulated that the property in question is within five hundred feet of several residences, including Petitioners'.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's revocation of Respondent's modified permit, authorizing a cross- fence on Petitioner's fee owned right-of-way, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation in the State of Florida, existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multi-purpose water management district. The District's principal office is West Palm Beach, Florida. In executing its multi-purpose, the District, as local sponsor for the US Army Corps of Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, acquired canal rights-of-way. The District's rights-of-way were acquired to enable the Corps of Engineers to construct the flood control project and to maintain the system after its construction. The District operates a proprietary-based right-of-way program to manage the various property interests of the canal rights-of-way. The purpose of the District's right-of-way program is, to the extent possible, to allow uses of the rights- of-way that do not conflict with the flood control project. The rights-of way are used by both public and private concerns, including adjacent property owners, governmental entities, and utility companies. Jesus G. Quevedo is a private individual. His address is 2615 North Federal Highway, Lake Worth, Florida. The property at this address was vacant when Mr. Quevedo purchased it, and he has owned the property for approximately ten (10) years. The District has fee simple title to a strip of land on the south side of the District's C-51 Canal, immediately west of the Federal Highway/Olive Avenue bridge (C-51 Right-of-Way). Mr. Quevedo's property is located at the side of and adjacent to the C-51 Right-of-Way. The C-51 Right-of-Way is also located within the boundaries of Spillway Park as established in the agreement between the District and the City of Lake Worth. Generally described, Spillway Park includes the District's fee simple owned right-of-way on the south side of the District's C-51 Canal, beginning at the west side of the Federal Highway/Olive Avenue bridge and continuing to the east side of the Dixie Highway bridge. Mr. Quevedo has no real property interest in the C-51 Right-of-Way. Prior to purchasing his property, Mr. Quevedo was aware that the District owned the C-51 Right-of-Way. Historically, portions of Spillway Park and the C-51 Right-of-Way, in particular, have been a unique and popular location for excellent snook fishing by the public. These areas continue to be considered as such. On February 11, 1993, Mr. Quevedo was issued SFWMD Permit No. 9801 (Permit), a right-of-way occupancy permit, by the District’s Governing Board. The Permit authorized him to make use of the District’s lands and works as follows: 20’ X 50’ BOAT DOCK WITH WALKWAY, BURIED WATER AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE, POP-UP SPRINKLERS, AND SODDING WITHIN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-51 LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE OLIVE AVENUE/FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE. During the permit application process, but prior to the issuance of the Permit, Mr. Quevedo had discussed with the District's staff the erection of a cross-fence based on allegations of improper or criminal activities by members of the public. Subsequently, in November 1995, Mr. Quevedo again discussed with the District's staff erection of a cross-fence based on the same allegations but he also included a new allegation of public safety as to the C-51 seawall. Based on the concern for public safety, the District's staff recommended that Mr. Quevedo be granted a modification to the Permit for a cross-fence. On November 14, 1996, the District's Governing Board approved, as part of its consent agenda, and issued SFWMD Permit MOD No. 9801 (MOD Permit)3 authorizing the following: CHAIN LINK CROSS FENCE WITH 16’ VEHICULAR GATE ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-51 LOCATED AT 2615 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY. The MOD Permit, as did the Permit, provides in pertinent part on its face the following: The permittee, by acceptance of this permit, hereby agrees that he shall promptly comply with all orders of the District and shall alter, repair or remove his use solely at his expense in a timely fashion. . . . This permit is issued by the District as a license to use or occupy District works or lands. . . By acceptance of this permit, the permittee expressly acknowledges that the permittee bears all risk of loss as a result of revocation of this permit. The MOD Permit, as did the Permit, contained standard limiting conditions, as provided in Rule 40E-6.381, Florida Administrative Code, and special conditions. The limiting conditions provide in pertinent part as follows: Permittee agrees to abide by all of the terms and conditions of this permit, including any representations made on the permit application and related documents. . . . This permit does not create any vested rights, and except for governmental entities and public or private utilities, is revocable at will upon reasonable prior written notice. Permittee bears all risk of loss as to monies expended in furtherance of the permitted use. Upon revocation, the permittee shall promptly modify, relocate or remove the permitted use. In the event of failure to so comply within the specified time, the District may remove the permitted use and permittee shall be responsible for all removal costs. This permit does not convey any property rights nor any rights or privileges other than those specified herein. . . . Having been granted the MOD Permit, Mr. Quevedo erected the cross-fence within and onto the C-51 Right-of-Way. The C-51 Right-of-Way is located adjacent to Mr. Quevedo’s property, as indicated earlier, and continues westerly to the permitted cross-fence. The C-51 Right-of-Way is enclosed by the cross-fence, preventing access by the public, and is located easterly of the cross-fence. As the C-51 Right-of-Way is located within the boundaries of the Spillway Park, the cross- fence is also located within the boundaries of the Spillway Park. During the time that Mr. Quevedo has owned his home, including prior to and after erection of the cross-fence, he, his family members and/or guests have frequently fished from the C-51 seawall and used the C-51 Right-of-Way enclosed by the cross- fence. Prior to and after the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo and his family members have selectively controlled access by the public to the C-51 Right-of-Way at the C-51 seawall. Prior to the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo chased members of the public off the C-51 Right-of-Way. Mr. Quevedo and members of his family also called law enforcement officers to remove members of the public who were located on the C-51 Right-of-Way, even if the members of the public were fishing from the C-51 seawall. After the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo and his family members continued to engage in this conduct of selective access. Subsequent to the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo had a member of the public arrested for trespassing. The person allegedly jumped over or went around the cross-fence to fish from the C-51 seawall in the C-51 Right-of-Way. With the existence of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo has prevented the general public from using the C-51 Right-of-Way, including the C-51 seawall. As a result, he has acquired the exclusive, private use of the C-51 Right-of-Way at the C-51 seawall, which is publicly owned land, and has, almost doubled the size of his adjacent property without the obligations and expense of acquisition, assuming he could acquire the property through acquisition. The District's policy is that public land should be open to the public. Contrary to this policy, Mr. Quevedo's cross-fence precludes access to the District's right-of-way (C-51 Right-of-Way), including the seawall, for passive recreational use. Similar cross-fencing, although not within the boundaries of Spillway Park, have been erected behind residences on the northeast, northwest, and southeast sides of Federal Highway, along the District’s C-51 Canal bank. The cross-fencing prevents public use of the District’s C-51 Canal bank at these locations. The City of Lake Worth made improvements within the boundaries of Spillway Park; however, it made no improvements, and does not intend to make any improvements in the future, at the C-51 Right-of-Way where Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence is located or at the other private lots west of Mr. Quevedo's property. All of the improvements made at Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence at the C-51 Right-of-Way have been made by him even though the C-51 Right-of- Way is located within Spillway Park. The original public safety rationale for authorizing Mr. Quevedo to erect the cross-fence blocking public access was revisited by the District. Additional investigation by safety experts (Risk Management staff) revealed that no unreasonable danger existed by allowing public access to the C-51 seawall at the C-51 Right-of-Way. In the absence of the public safety basis for closure of the C-51 Right-of-Way, such closure was contrary to District policy. As a consequence, the District’s staff recommended to the District’s Governing Board that the MOD Permit, authorizing Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence, be revoked. After conducting two public meetings and receiving comments from Mr. Quevedo, members of the public, and the District’s staff as to the policy issue of pubic access to the C- 51 Right-of-Way, the District’s Governing Board determined that the C-51 Right-of-Way should be open to the public. Consequently, the Governing Board decided to revoke Mr. Quevedo's MOD Permit. Allegations of criminal activity within the general boundaries of Spillway Park and, specifically, in the C-51 Right- of-Way at the cross-fence area, were made by Mr. Quevedo as a basis to not revoke the MOD Permit and allow the cross-fence to remain. Such allegations have no bearing on the revocation of the MOD Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order revoking SFWMD Permit No. MOD 981 issued to Jesus G. Quevedo. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1999.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a consent to use sovereign submerged lands.
Findings Of Fact MBRRC filed an application for an environmental resource permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands located in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (BBAP). This application sought approval to construct two finger piers and to install twelve mooring pilings for the benefit of a private yacht club. The application was filed with the Department for review on October 20, 1995. The Petitioner’s property is located on Hibiscus Island, a man-made island within the BBAP, and is accessed by boat. The island is primarily used for residential purposes. Petitioner’s facility is the only commercial docking facility on the island. Petitioner owns approximately 140 feet along the waterfront with its property line extending 20 feet seaward of the upland property. It has an existing dock which is approximately 10 feet wide that runs the length of, and parallel to, the seawall along its waterfront. The proposed finger piers would extend waterward and perpendicular to the existing dock from its ends. This extension proposes to use approximately 16 feet into the sovereign submerged land at the ends and would also allow the installation of 12 mooring pilings between the piers. The ultimate purpose of the installation is to allow perpendicular docking. At all times material to this case the Department has considered the proposed construction to be a new facility subject to the requirements of Section 258.397(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 18-18.006(3), Florida Administrative Code. No existing structures at the site would qualify the applicant for the type of lease proposed. The Petitioner annually hosts numerous fishing and social events at its club facility. Participants typically “raft” vessels together in order to gain access to the shore. Historically this process has moored vessels parallel to the existing dock/seawall. This “rafting” would not necessarily be eliminated by the addition of the proposed finger piers. Petitioner seeks to expand the docking facility as requested in order to provide better ingress and egress to its property. It contends that fishing and boating in the BBAP will be enhanced by such improvements. Petitioner maintains its property is being treated differently than others; however, policies used by the Department in this instance are applicable to all areas of the BBAP. By letter dated February 6, 1996, the Department advised the Petitioner that staff would recommend denial of the application. That letter advised Petitioner of the “extreme hardship” test found in Rule 18-18.006(3), Florida Administrative Code as well as Section 258.397(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The letter noted that this standard was “at best very difficult to demonstrate” and advised Petitioner of the “public interest” requirement also set forth by rule and statute. “Self-imposed circumstances” as used in the applicable rule has been construed to include circumstances where the applicant seeks to improve existing boat access, to increase the number of docking slips, and to enhance the upland property. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) has determined that the construction of single-family docks meets the “extreme hardship” test because single-family docks are considered to be the lowest impact use available on sovereign submerged land. It is deemed appropriate to allow a qualified right of ingress and egress to the upland owner. The Petitioner’s proposal is not a public project or a public necessity. Petitioner currently has ingress and egress to its upland property. The Petitioner’s property is a nonconforming use in a residential area. The term “property owners in the area” has been construed to mean the BBAP. The proposed project is not unique to the applicant, and the burden to the applicant is shared by other property owners in the BBAP. The proposed project would provide additional access to an upland property owner who already has boat access to the waterway. Neither the project site nor the island on which it is located are unique as other properties of a similar nature are within the BBAP. In order to establish that a proposed project is “in the public interest,” applicants are required to demonstrate that the activity would improve either public recreation, water quality, fish hatcheries, or other matters of public interest. In this instance, Petitioner did not submit a written proposal to support the public interest requirement during the application process. Consequently, DEP has not assessed such proposal for its quantity or quality. Petitioner relies on its improved boating access to support a claim of enhancement to public recreation. As to water quality, fish hatcheries, or other matters of public interest, the proposed project would adversely affect seagrasses and other environmental resources by shading. Although the installation of mooring pilings would provide some environmental benefit, those benefits would not be quantifiable and would be offset by increased shading from the project. Other proposals submitted by Petitioner incidental to its Dade County permit application are insufficient in detail and scope to show the public interest requirement would be met. The proposed project is located in an area that is intermediate between the most sensitive and least sensitive sites, for the purpose of manatee protection. The proposed project would have an adverse environmental impact on manatee protection since it creates additional docking slips and additional boat traffic. The proposed project would result in environmental costs through the loss of resources and increased turbidity. The proposed project would provide no quantifiable economic benefit to the public, but would provide some economic cost in the loss of habitat and food source for fisheries. The proposed project would provide no social benefits different from those presently provided by the existing facility. The benefit of the proposed project is merely enhancement of the Petitioner’s current use at a cost of lost fisheries, increased danger to manatees, and increased turbidity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for authorization to lease sovereign submerged land. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of March 1997. J. D. PARRISH 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 31st day of March 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen E. Tunstall, Esquire Stephen E. Tunstall, P.A. 2701 Southwest LeJeune Road Suite 410 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection, Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
