Findings Of Fact Sea Isles Condominium Association (Petitioner) is the riparian owner of lands at 25714 Hickory Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923. The Petitioner's lands lie along the Broadway Channel connecting the Gulf of Mexico to Estero Bay. There are 84 upland units in the condominium. Some condominium residents without docking slips have requested that the Petitioner apply for expansion of the existing facility. The waters adjacent to Petitioner's upland property are located within the Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve (pursuant to Section 258.39(28), Florida Statutes) and are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). At some point in approximately 1982, the condominium developer sought approval for the construction of docking facilities. By letter of January 25, 1982, Richard P. Ludington, then Director of the Division of State Lands of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), indicated that there was no objection to the proposed dock project. The parties to this case have jointly stipulated that the Ludington opinion was based on the fact that the proposed project was a private non-income producing facility (a lease therefore not being required) and was not in conflict with any existing rules. The DER issued permit number 36-42521-5E, dated February 9, 1982, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued general permit number SAJ-33, both approving and authorizing the construction of the docking facility. Although the water body had been designated as an aquatic preserve, there were no adopted administrative rules regulating such projects at the time of the initial dock construction. The approved sixteen slip docking facility was constructed along the margin of the shoreline in 1983 by the developer of the condominium. Due to extremely shallow water depths, only two of the slips were accessible. At some point thereafter, the Petitioner began efforts to remedy the unusable slip situation. Initially, the Petitioner desired to dredge the area, but was unable to secure approval to dredge from regulatory agencies. The Petitioner then began to consider additional solutions. The solution upon which the Petitioner decided was removal of the existing slips and construction of an extended boardwalk and dock located in navigable water. On March 28, 1985, the DNR notified the Petitioner that the project would require approval in the form of a submerged land lease from the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board"). On August 20, 1985, the DER issued permit number 361011295, authorizing the removal of the existing structure and the construction of a 22 slip docking facility as proposed by the Petitioner. On behalf of the Board, the DNR reviews applications for leases of sovereignty submerged lands. In reviewing such requests, the DNR calculates the maximum amount of sovereignty submerged lands which may be preempted by a proposed facility. According to administrative rule, the area of sovereignty submerged land preempted by a private residential multi-slip docking facility may not exceed the total square footage equal to ten times the riparian waterfront footage of the affected waterbody. DNR's calculation of the affected shoreline indicated that the Petitioner's riparian waterfront measured 433 feet. Application of the 10:1 ratio would indicate that the area of sovereignty submerged land preempted by the proposed multi-slip docking facility could not exceed 4330 square feet. As early as 1986, a surveyor employed by the Petitioner believed the DNR shoreline calculation to be erroneous and determined the Petitioner's riparian shoreline to be 601 feet. After discussing the discrepancy between measurements, the DNR representative informed a representative of the Petitioner that Sea Isles could obtain a mean high waterline survey to determine the actual shoreline footage if it disagreed with the DNR calculation. Although there is testimony that a survey provided to the DNR established the mean high waterline, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the survey was not identified as a mean high waterline survey, but as a safe upland line survey. No credible mean high waterline survey was provided to the DNR by the Petitioner at that time. Abutting the Petitioner's property to the south is a man-made channel which results in an unnatural extension of the shoreline. Such extensions are not included in computing the allowable square footage of sovereign submerged lands because the man-made shoreline does not abut sovereign submerged lands. It is unclear whether the calculations of shoreline were affected by this consideration. Despite the discrepancy, the Petitioner reduced the size of the requested docking facility to include a boardwalk and dock of ten slips totalling approximately 4300 square feet and extending 208 feet into the waterbody (approximately 35 percent of the waterbody's width). The length of the extension violates administrative rule provisions governing extension into a waterbody which are addressed elsewhere herein. On July 23, 1986, Lee County passed a resolution of approval for the proposed docking facility land lease and granted a variance to Lee County Ordinance 85-25. The resolution of approval contained additional requirements, included a provision restricting the approval to not more than ten slips. The Petitioner asserts that the determination of shoreline was incorrect and was the result of "mutual mistake". The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner's acceptance of the DNR's shoreline determination was based upon "mutual mistake." The evidence establishes that the Petitioner's representatives were aware of the discrepancy. The fact that the Petitioner agreed to deed a 575 foot conservation easement to the Board (to offset the potential adverse impact on manatee habitat as discussed elsewhere herein) would suggest that the parties were aware that the 433 foot measurement was inaccurate. For whatever reason, the Petitioner agreed to the DNR shoreline and dock calculation which formed the basis for the lease approved by the Board. Prior to approval of the lease, the Board reviewed a written "public interest" assessment which indicates that the length of the boardwalk to the proposed docking facility exceeded standards set by administrative rules. Pursuant to rule, exceptions to length restrictions may be made only where the applicant demonstrates that such exception is necessary to insure reasonable riparian ingress and egress. The Petitioner apparently demonstrated that, given the location of the existing sand flat, such exception was necessary to provide ingress and egress. According to the written analysis, the proposed project adversely impacted the manatee habitat located in the aquatic preserve. The analysis states that 575 foot conservation easement to the Board would offset the potential adverse impact on manatee habitat. The Petitioner committed to the conservation easement in order to meet the public interest test required of all docking facilities within an aquatic preserve. Special lease condition paragraph 5 requires the Petitioner to record a conservation easement for approximately 575 linear feet of shoreline in perpetuity to run with the land. The provision requires that documentation of the recording of the easement be provided to the Board within thirty days of the Board action and prior to execution of the lease. The lease conditions clearly indicate that the Petitioner will not seek authority to expand the docking facility. Special lease condition paragraph 5 prohibits any additional docking facilities or any other such development along the lessee's shoreline. Review of proposed special lease condition paragraph 6 (as compared to the staff recommendation and a subsequent affidavit executed by the Petitioner's representative on June 6, 1987) indicates that the paragraph appears to contain a typographical error in deleting the word "not" from the condition. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner agreed not to request authorization to dredge the docking area or channel or to request additional expansion of the facility. On April 21, 1987, the Board, apparently acting against the staff recommendation, voted to grant to the Petitioner a submerged land lease for the construction of a ten slip facility. Representatives of the Petitioner appeared before the Board during consideration and approval of the lease. On June 6, 1987, a representative of the Petitioner executed an affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner which sets forth the language of special condition paragraph six as originally proposed. In the affidavit, the Petitioner's representative agrees not to apply for authorization to dredge the dock or access channel, or to request expansion of the facility. A deed of conservation easement dated October 21, 1985, and signed by a representative of the Petitioner, was attached to the materials submitted to the Board for the April 21, 1987 meeting. Contrary to the lease requirement, the attached deed of conservation easement was never recorded. In 1986 or 1987, a conservation easement was recorded by the Petitioner in favor of the Board, but the easement contained no legal description of the subject property. However, the recorded easement does prohibit additional docking facilities and waives the Petitioner's rights of ingress or egress related to any such additional facilities. In early 1991, the Petitioner requested approval to expand the existing dock from 10 to 14 slip. The expanded structure would preempt 5620 square feet of sovereign submerged land. On May 15, 1991, the DER granted approval of the four slip expansion. On November 27, 1991, the DNR, by letter signed by Michael E. Ashley, Chief of the Bureau of Submerged Lands and Preserves, denied the requested four slip expansion. The letter was prepared at the direction and with the approval of the Director of the Division of State Lands. Mr. Ashley cites two reasons for the denial. First, the request violated the terms of the existing lease which provides that there will be no expansion requested. Second, the Petitioner had failed to record the 575 foot conservation easement which was required by the terms of the original lease. The request for extension was not presented to the Governor and Cabinet for consideration, but was reviewed by the "agenda review committee" of the DNR. The committee includes the Deputy Director, two Deputy Assistant Executive Directors, the General Counsel, and the Cabinet Coordinator for the DNR. The committee reviews matters which are identified as potentially requiring Board action to resolve. Where issues exist related to existing sovereignty submerged land leases, the DNR attempts to resolve the matter without referral to the Board. The authority to conduct business in this manner has not been reduced to writing, but is based on verbal direction from the Board and from Cabinet assistants. Subsequent to the letter of denial issued by Mr. Ashley, the Petitioner on or about December 30, 1991, filed a conservation easement granting to the Board, a perpetual interest in a parcel of land lying ten feet landward of the Safe Upland Line as described in the deed recorded in the records of Lee County, Florida, (OR 2268, Page 0401) with the Clerk of Court for Lee County. The parcel of land identified in the deed runs along the shoreline for a distance of 601 feet. The easement provides for modification by the signed agreement of the parties. Because the Petitioner seeks to expand an existing lease, it is required to demonstrate an additional public benefit would result from approval of the request. The Petitioner has proposed to plant an area of mangroves in the shallow "sand bar" area located behind the existing slips. There is no additional public benefit related to the request. The evidence fails to establish that granting the request to expand the docking facility is in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a Final Order denying the request of Sea Isles Condominium Association to modify the existing sovereignty submerged land lease to provide for four additional boat slips to their existing ten slip docking facility. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1077 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 17. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. 19. Rejected as to comments by Miller, irrelevant. 20-21. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected as to 6,010 square feet of permissible preemption. Based upon shoreline calculation which is not supported by the greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Rejected, irrelevant. The manatee information was required under the conditions of the existing lease, and do not constitute a benefit to be considered in addressing the request to modify the lease. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 16. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund c/o Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Robert Routa, Esquire Post Office Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 L. Kathryn Funchess, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in a discriminatory housing practice, within the meaning of and in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2005), by requiring Petitioners to submit a second application for the approval of a condominium purchase.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner, Allan Kangas, has no handicap and is not a disabled person. At the conclusion of Petitioners' case-in-chief, Mr. Kangas testified that he has no handicap. The undersigned, sua sponte, entered an ore tenus order on the record dismissing the case brought by Mr. Kangas. Petitioner, Anna Kangas, is an elderly female and the mother of Mr. Allan Kangas and Mr. Sheldon Kangas, the latter being the representative in this proceeding for the named Petitioners. It is undisputed that Mr. Sheldon Kangas is not handicapped, but that Mrs. Kangas is handicapped, within the meaning of Section 760.22(7), Florida Statutes (2005), because of Alzheimer's disease. Respondent is a condominium association lawfully incorporated as a Florida corporation (Association). Respondent must operate in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, and Declaration of Condominium (condominium documents). The condominium documents require the Association to approve each purchase of a condominium. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Sheldon Kangas and Mrs. Anna Kangas contracted with Ms. Mary Cox to purchase condominium unit 15, located at 23 Hatchett Creek Road. Ms. Cox is a real estate agent and a co-owner of unit 15. Ms. Cox notified Ms. Pat Williamson, Association Secretary, of the prospective purchase. For the reasons stated herein, Respondent did not discriminate against the prospective purchasers, but approved the purchase of condominium unit 18 in a timely manner after the purchasers changed their purchase contract from unit 15 to unit 18. The prospective purchasers completed an application for approval of the purchase of unit 15 sometime between December 8 and 10, 2005. The Association conducted a meeting to approve the proposed purchase on December 10, 2005. During the meeting on December 10, 2005, the purchasers informed the Association that they wished to purchase unit 18, located at 29 Hatchett Creek Road, rather than unit 15. Unit 18 was owned by Mr. Brian Isaac. Ms. Cox did not object to releasing the purchasers from the contract for the purchase of unit 15. The Association informed the purchasers that a new application for unit 18 would be required. The purchasers completed a new application under protest. At a meeting conducted on January 3, 2006, the Association approved the application for the purchase of unit 18. The purchase of unit 18 closed on January 25, 2006. The purchasers seek reimbursement of living expenses incurred for hotel rooms and meals during the delay caused by the requirement for a second application. The purchasers are not entitled to reimbursement. The purchase of unit 18 was the first time the Association had required a second application. However, it was also the first time a purchaser had changed his or her choice of units after submitting an application. The Association did not discriminate against Mrs. Kangas because of her handicap. The record evidence contains no justifiable issue of law or fact to support the alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of January 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of January 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David G. Muller, Esquire Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. 630 South Orange Avenue, Third Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 Shelden Kangas Allan Kangas 4578 Manor Drive Sarasota, Florida 34233
Findings Of Fact Sunset Company of Wilton, Incorporated, is the record title owner of a parcel of real property in Government Lot 1, Section 5, Township 66 South, Range 33 East, on Crawl Key No. 3 also known as Fat Deer Key, Monroe County, Florida. A portion of that parcel has been conveyed by Sunset Company to Whaler's Plaza, Incorporated, although that deed may not have been recorded. Petitioner Fred Roth owns and controls both corporations and exerts ownership and control over the entire parcel. The submerged lands in Tarpon Creek which are waterward of the line of mean high water contiguous to the parcel are sovereignty submerged lands. Roth received "major development" approval from Monroe County to develop the parcel by constructing a commercial/retail development known as "Whaler's Plaza.' The major development plan submitted to and approved by Monroe County includes a docking facility. In 1979 Roth filed an application with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for a private dock facility at Whaler's Plaza. The Department of Environmental Regulation approved that application and issued to Roth Permit/Certification No. 44-18542-5E. Roth never constructed that docking facility, and the permit expired on August 1, 1980. One of the agencies involved in reviewing that permit application was the Respondent. On June 26, 1979, Respondent notified Roth that upon review of the application in DER File No. 44-18542-5E, it had determined that the submerged lands were state-owned but that no lease agreement with Respondent would be required. After Permit No. 44-18542-5E expired on August 1, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation directed a letter to Petitioner advising him that the permit had expired and further advising him that if he wished to pursue the project he would have to obtain a new permit. in October 1983 Roth sought new authorization from the Department of Environmental Regulation and Respondent to construct a docking facility at Whaler's Plaza. His application was assigned DER File No. 440774875. On December 29, 1983, Respondent notified Roth that a lease would be required for the use of state-owned lands contiguous to Whaler's Plaza, relative to DER File No. 440774875. Respondent's rules changed in 1982 so that Roth's docking facility would be required to meet new criteria. The docking facility proposed by Roth in 1983 was similar to the docking facility proposed in 1979. The 1983 proposed modified docking facility was still represented to the Department of Environmental Regulation to be a private boat dock. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued an intent to deny the 1983 application under its then-existing rules, and Roth requested a formal hearing on that preliminary denial. Before a final hearing could be conducted, Roth again modified the proposed docking facility so that he qualified for a dredge and fill permit exemption from DER, so that no DER permit was needed for his project. A final order was entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation on August 27, 1985. While Roth's 1983 application was pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation, Roth was processing his application with Respondent for a submerged land lease for the docking facility. The documents he filed with Respondent, however, indicated that the docking facility was not intended to be a private dock but rather was a dock related to the commercial development at Whaler's Plaza. Roth represented to Respondent that the proposed docking facility would be for the convenience of patrons of the stores and restaurant at Whaler's Plaza and for his own personal use. Specifically, on June 3, 1985, Roth directed a letter to Respondent pursuant to Respondent's request for additional information. He described the Whaler's Plaza docking facility as follows: The wood dock will be used for arriving and departing customers of the restaurant and stores and my own personal use. The upland land use and activities of the property--will be developed into a shopping center. At the present time, the first phase is completed which is a one-story building containing four units, housing six retail stores, plus offices. The next phase will consist of three more buildings having five units each, 1,0000 [sic] sq. ft. each unit which will be for retail stores and offices, and the final phase will be a 200 seat restaurant, a miniature [sic] petting zoo and possibly a miniature golf course. ... 70 percent of the slips will be open to the general public for their convenience In patronizing the restaurant and stores; the remaining 30 percent of the slips will be for my own personal use. Roth never completed the lease application he filed with Respondent, and he failed to obtain approval for the use of the sovereignty submerged lands preempted by the docking facility proposed in DER File No. 440774875. Eventually, his pending application with Respondent was deactivated, and the file was closed. In late 1986, Roth initiated construction of his docking facility on sovereignty submerged lands, and he caused 30 pilings with cross-bracing to be placed into the submerged lands. On September 1, 1986, Grant Gelhardt, one of Respondent's enforcement officers, discovered the dock being constructed and verbally instructed Roth, through Mrs. Roth, to immediately cease construction activity. No further construction has taken place. Despite the verbal notification, a subsequent warning notice sent by certified mail, and Respondent's Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action, Roth has failed to remove the pilings and/or to take corrective measures regarding the partially completed docking facility. Roth has allowed vessels to be moored at the partially completed docking facility, has moored his own vessels at the partially completed docking facility, and has failed to prevent other persons from mooring at the partially completed docking facility. Roth's actions have resulted in damage to a benthic seagrass community on the adjacent sovereignty submerged lands over which Roth's partially completed docking facility is located, and over which vessels using the facility have been and would be moored. Those submerged lands constitute a benthic community of seagrass which supports various fauna and which would be adversely affected by completion and operation of the docking facility. The water depths in the area are shallow, with areas of less than -4 feet mean low water. The width of Tarpon Creek in the project area is approximately 100 feet. The length of the partially completed docking facility is approximately 150 feet. Although the dock extends parallel to the shore, the distance the dock extends into Tarpon Creek, as measured from the shoreline, is approximately 35 feet. Roth knowingly trespassed on sovereignty submerged lands by initiating construction of the docking facility, and he has willfully damaged those lands by drilling holes and placing pilings, and by allowing moored vessels to shade the seagrass. Although Roth ceased construction of the docking facility when told to stop, he has failed to attempt to resolve the violation, to remove the pilings, to seek an after-the-fact approval, or to cease all mooring of vessels on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the uplands, even subsequent to receiving the Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action. Respondent's June 26, 1979 letter to Roth authorized the activities described in DER Permit No. 44-18542-5E, for the period authorized by that permit. Roth knew that the DEP permit, and therefore Respondent's approval to engage in the activity authorized by that permit, had expired. Roth further knew that his new application filed in 1983, DER File No. 440774875, which was approved by DER after Roth further modified it in order to qualify for an exemption, did not exempt him from obtaining authorization from Respondent to use sovereignty submerged lands for the project and further knew that when he commenced construction of the docking facility in 1986 that he had not obtained approval from Respondent to use state-owned submerged lands. Roth offered no evidence to demonstrate any detrimental reliance upon the June 26, 1979, DNR letter, and the letter did not create a vested right for Roth to construct a different docking facility at a later time without authorization from Respondent. The uplands at the Whaler's Plaza commercial/retail development are owned by for-profit corporations which Roth controls and which derive income from the business and commercial activities at Whaler's Plaza. The docking facility intended primarily for the use of customers of Whaler's Plaza would therefore constitute a revenue generating/income related activity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring petitioner to: Remove the unauthorized structure within 20 days from the date on which the Final Order is entered and in accordance with Respondent's supervision of that removal; Immediately cease all mooring of vessels on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to the uplands of the parcel known as Whaler's Plaza until authorized to use state-owned lands; and Pay a fine of $2500 within 15 days of receipt of a certified letter from the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources demanding payment to the internal improvement Trust Fund. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Manz, Esquire Post Office Box 177 Marathon Florida 33050 Ross S. Burnaman, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit No. 50-0147856-003-EI and State-owned Submerged Lands Lease No. 500022746 for a commercial addition to the multi-family residential dock, known as the Buccaneer Condominium Marina, should be issued as proposed in the December 27, 2017, proposed agency action issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) in its own capacity and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”). Unless individually identified, the DEP and the BTIITF will be collectively referred to as “the DEP.”
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Great American is a foreign for-profit corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Great American owns the 144 Property. The 144 Property is located immediately north of, and adjacent to, the Buccaneer Condominium, and shares a riparian line (the “riparian line”) extending waterward from the line separating the upland properties. The location of the riparian line between the Buccaneer Condominium and the 144 Property is as depicted on the proposed ERP and SSL Authorization, and is not in dispute. The 144 Property has 92 feet of shoreline on Lake Worth, and includes the small residential 144 Dock. The 144 Property is used annually by the family of Great American’s principal shareholders. When not being utilized by family members, Great American leases the 144 Property to various individuals. As a rule, all persons using the 144 Property moor vessels at the 144 Dock, which are generally in the 50- to 60-foot range, but which can be up to 80 feet in length. The Buccaneer Condominium is a Florida condominium association established pursuant to and governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and subject to the Declaration of Condominium recorded within the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Declaration”). The Buccaneer Condominium is a mixed-use condominium facility located at 142 Lake Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida, and is a waterfront riparian owner. The Buccaneer Condominium offers, as an amenity of its 18 condominium units, the 18-slip Buccaneer Condominium Dock that is a common element of the Buccaneer Condominium. The Buccaneer Condominium unit owners each own an undivided interest in the common elements of the condominium, and, therefore, an undivided interest in the Buccaneer Dock. The Buccaneer Condominium designates and licenses a dock space to each condominium owner, and each owner has the irrevocable and exclusive right to use of a dock space. Section 718.111(3) establishes that the Buccaneer Condominium has the non-exclusive right to file suit on behalf of the members of the Association relative to claims which involve common elements, while reserving the statutory and common law right for unit owners to bring any action without participation by the Buccaneer Condominium. Mr. Sharfi is the President of the Buccaneer Condominium and is authorized to act on its behalf pursuant to the Declaration and associated corporate bylaws. Mr. Sharfi is a member of the Buccaneer Condominium by virtue of his ownership of multiple condominium units, along with the irrevocable and exclusive right to use Buccaneer Dock spaces associated with his units. Mr. Sharfi owns Commercial Unit A, which was purchased from Great American in January 2017. The rights granted to Commercial Unit A to use Buccaneer Condominium property and common elements are established in section 5.2.3 of the Declaration. Pursuant to Article VIII, section 8.3 of the Declaration: To the extent permitted by law, any and all riparian rights to add additional dock spaces is hereby reserved, granted and assigned to Unit A and the Owner thereof . . . . Without limiting the foregoing, the Owner of commercial Unit A shall have the right, power, and authority, to the extent permitted by law, to construct any additional dock spaces in the waterway contiguous to the Condominium property . . . provided, however, the use thereof shall be deemed to be and have been designated and assigned perpetually and exclusively to and as an appurtenance to Commercial Unit A. The Buccaneer Condominium and Commercial Unit A are joint applicants for the Permit at issue, with the Buccaneer Condominium being included as an applicant due to its status as an upland riparian owner and current SSLL lessee. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes. The DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the proposed Permit. The BTIITF is a collegial body established pursuant to Article IV, section 4(f) of the Florida Constitution, whose existence is reaffirmed by section 253.001, Florida Statutes. The BTIITF holds title to the sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public pursuant to Article X, section 11 of the Florida Constitution. The DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The DEP has been delegated the authority to take final agency action, without any action by the BTIITF, on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands for any activity for which the DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(2). The Buccaneer Condominium Dock The Buccaneer Condominium Dock was constructed in 1958, prior to regulatory rules being in place, and is, therefore, a grandfathered structure. From a regulatory perspective, it is a “private residential multi-family dock or pier” as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(47), exclusively serving the 18-unit Buccaneer Condominium. Petitioner has not challenged the legality of the existing lease or prior leases for the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock consists of 18 dock spaces, nine of which face north in the direction of the 144 Dock, and nine of which face south. There is no use of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock by the public. The Buccaneer Dock extends 162 feet from the seawall. The Buccaneer Dock includes a fueling facility at its seaward end. The Proposed Commercial Unit A Dock The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock would be constructed from the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. It is proposed to consist of 12 slips in a double-loaded fashion, with six slips facing north (in the direction of the 144 Dock) and six slips facing south, and two short-term or transient T-head mooring positions for fueling for a total of 14 commercial slips over 2,370 square feet. The T-head will accommodate a fueling station, replacing the current fueling platform at the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be approximately 140 feet in length, resulting in a combined structure of 302 feet from the bulkhead westerly towards the Singer Island Channel. The westernmost boundary of the proposed SSLL extends 20 feet beyond the T-head to allow for vessels to tie up at the fueling station. The SSLL will, according to the Permit drawings, extend 324.5 feet into Lake Worth and the Singer Island Channel. The total preempted area for the modified SSLL will be 49,800 square feet. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be open to the general public for use on a first-come, first-served basis to serve the restaurant in Commercial Unit A. Adverse Affects on Navigation/Navigational Hazard The Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“A.H.”),z Vol. I, provides criteria to be considered in conjunction with the standards established in section 373.414, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, for issuance of an ERP.1/ Section 10.2.3.3 of the A.H. establishes that the DEP is to evaluate and consider the current navigation uses of the surface water in determining whether to issue an ERP. Singer Island Channel The Singer Island Channel runs in a north/south direction and is the navigational channel closest to the Buccaneer Condominium Dock and proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, the 144 Dock, Great American’s Sailfish Marina to the south, and the Cannonsport Marina to the north. The east side of the Singer Island Channel is generally defined by the waterward ends of the docks and marinas in the area, while the western side is defined by the Peanut Island shoal. The Singer Island Channel is widely used, but is not to be confused with the Intracoastal Waterway (“ICW”), which is the main navigational thoroughfare for commercial and recreational vessels in the area, and which runs to the west of nearby Peanut Island. The eastern edge of the proposed SSLL extension will become a part of what is an essentially straight line from the Sailfish Marina docks to the Cannonsport Marina docks. There will be approximately 97 feet of open water between the northwestern corner of the proposed SSLL to the closest point on an imaginary straight line drawn from the nearest Singer Island Channel markers located to the north and south of the proposed SSLL. The visible edge of the Singer Island Channel is, at a minimum, an additional 15 feet west of that imaginary line. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the “pinch point” between the SSLL and the navigable edge of the Singer Island Channel is, at its narrowest, 112 feet in width. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that 97 feet of open water is sufficient to allow vessels of the size that frequent the area to easily maneuver if they were to pass at the Singer Island Channel’s narrowest point. Given that there is a minimum of 15 feet of additional open-water space to the visible edge of the Singer Island Channel, there will be no adverse impact to the navigation of the vessels transiting the Singer Island Channel. The finding that the space between the Commercial Unit A Dock SSLL and the edge of the Singer Island Channel is sufficient to allow unimpeded navigation is substantiated by the clearance deemed sufficient to allow for safe navigation beneath the nearby Blue Heron Bridge. The Blue Heron Bridge is north of the proposed Buccaneer Commercial Dock on the ICW. The ICW is the primary channel for commercial, recreational (sport fishermen, yachts, and pleasure craft) and Coast Guard vessels. The passage beneath the bridge is flanked by fixed dolphins or guardrails. The clearance under the bridge is 90 feet, which is sufficient for two vessels to pass in the federally-maintained channel. Petitioner argued that the Blue Heron Bridge is not an appropriate comparator for an evaluation of impediments or hazards to navigation, since the passage beneath the bridge is not in an environment comparable to what would be expected in the vicinity of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, i.e. with vessels tying up at the periphery of the channel for fueling, and with vessels maneuvering into and out of nearby slips. The evidence to that effect was disputed, and in any event was not persuasive. The fact that vessels are able to maneuver and pass one another without incident in a space of 90 feet is persuasive evidence that they will be able to do so in a space of 97 feet in width, and even more persuasive that they will be able to do so in a space of 112 feet in width. Recreational vessels often pull up onto the Peanut Island shoal that extends to the north and east from Peanut Island. The shoal has areas that are above water at low tide, and is apparently a popular spot for small-craft boaters to pull up and anchor. The evidence suggests that boaters more commonly pull onto the shoal closer to the northwest corner of the channel, near the Cannonsport Marina, or off to the west of Peanut Island well away from the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, though there is nothing to prevent boats from pulling onto the shoal in the vicinity of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. However, it is illegal to anchor in or block a marked navigational channel, as is the Singer Island Channel, and any vessels doing so would be required to move by the Marine Patrol or the Coast Guard. Finally, an argument was made that vessels standing off while waiting to fuel at the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock would create an impediment to navigation. It was established by a preponderance of the competent, substantial, and credible evidence that there is sufficient space to stand off without interfering with traffic in the Singer Island Channel, particularly in the open water area to the north of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock, but also to the significantly wider and more open areas to the south of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. Furthermore, the area around the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock is in a less congested area than the fueling facility at the center dock of the adjacent Sailfish Marina which, as depicted on Respondent’s Exhibit 20, is flanked by sizable docks. There was no evidence that the Sailfish Marina has been a cause of navigational impediments as a result of vessels standing off for fuel. Based on the record as a whole, including evidence of the existing commercial docks in the area, current channel width, and boating traffic and use patterns in the area, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that neither the 112-foot width of open water from the northwest corner of the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock to the edge of the Singer Island Channel at its closest point, nor the 97-foot width as measured to the imaginary channel marker line, creates a condition that is reasonably expected to significantly impede navigability or create a navigational hazard. 144 Property The existing Buccaneer Condominium Dock is 162 feet in length, with a fueling facility at its waterward end. As with the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock fueling platform, an additional 20 feet should be calculated from the end of the dock to account for vessels tying up to fuel. There was no evidence that the existing Buccaneer Condominium Dock impeded access to the 144 Dock by persons affiliated with Petitioner or by the more frequent renters of the 144 Property. The evidence was convincing that the Buccaneer Condominium Dock does not create a condition that is reasonably expected to significantly impede navigability or create a navigational hazard. The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock is designed to extend 140 feet from the end of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. The proposed Commercial Unit A Dock complies with the 25-foot setback requirement from the 144 Property riparian line as required by rule 18-21.004(3)(d). The area to the north of the 144 Dock is wide open, with more than enough space to maneuver any vessel that currently uses the 144 Dock. Furthermore, the space available for maneuvering in the waters south of the 144 dock will not be appreciably more restricted than the restriction posed by the Buccaneer Condominium Dock, and will be no more restricted than the space for maneuvering between docks at the Sailfish Marina or the Cannonade Marina. Mr. Fleming agreed that there is no adverse navigational condition, vis-à-vis the 144 Dock, resulting from the Buccaneer Condominium Dock. His concern with navigation was based on his assumption that the Commercial Unit A Dock would increase vessel traffic in the area, blocking the fairway to the south of the 144 Dock and increasing the possibility of a collision. That concern can only have merit if it is assumed that the operators of vessels in the area are completely unfamiliar with common maritime rules of right-of-way and maneuvering. The area around the Commercial Unit A Dock will remain less congested than nearby facilities. It is simply implausible, and unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will adversely affect navigation to or from the 144 Dock. Petitioner holds a self-certification from the DEP which acknowledges Petitioner’s qualification for an exemption for a residential dock of up to 1,000 square feet at the 144 Property. Such docks are exempt by statute and rule. § 403.813(1)(b), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code Rule 62- 330.051(5)(b). Despite the fact that Petitioner is allowed to construct an exempt dock extending from the 144 Property into the waterway, there was no persuasive evidence as to when, or if, the dock would be built, or that the dock, if constructed, would result in the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock being found to adversely affect navigation or create a navigational hazard. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will not adversely affect or impede navigability, or create a navigational hazard for vessels ingressing and egressing the 144 Dock. In addition to the lack of credible evidence that the Commercial Unit A Dock will adversely affect or impede navigation, the evidence is equally unpersuasive that riparian rights incident to the 144 Property will be impaired. There was no evidence, other than speculation and conjecture, regarding the currently non-existent future 144 Dock, that suggest that Petitioner’s riparian interests would be impaired to any appreciably greater degree than they would be as a result of the current 162-foot Buccaneer Condominium Dock and the additional 20+/- feet for vessels tying up to fuel. In addition, the Commercial Unit A Dock is subject to the 25-foot setback required by rule. A preponderance of the evidence establishes that the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock will not unreasonably infringe upon Petitioner’s riparian rights. Commercial Unit A Dock as an Extension of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock The DEP established the propriety of having the Buccaneer Condominium Association as a co-applicant with Commercial Unit A since it is the holder of the existing lease and an upland riparian interest. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(1)(c) and (d). Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2., which establishes a ratio “of no more than forty square feet of sovereignty submerged land for each linear foot of the applicant’s common riparian shoreline . . . to square feet of multi-family residential dock [the “40:1 rule”]” applies only to private multi-family residential docking facilities. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock is a grandfathered dock based on its existence and configuration prior to the promulgation of the 40:1 rule. There is no proposed extension or material alteration of the Buccaneer Condominium Dock.2/ The 40:1 rule does not apply to the Commercial Unit A Dock because the rule applies only to private residential multi- family docks, and does not apply to commercial slips. Thus, the DEP did not apply the 40:1 rule to the proposed Commercial Unit A Dock. The combined preempted area encompassed by the modified SSLL will not exceed 50,000 square feet, or result in a facility of more than 50 slips. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock, as a grandfathered structure, does not require an exception to the 40:1 rule. There was no persuasive evidence that the Buccaneer Condominium Dock and the Commercial Unit A Dock are part of a common plan of development designed to operate as a single dock for the Buccaneer Condominium. The Buccaneer Condominium Dock will be materially unchanged in use and configuration, and will remain dedicated to the owners of Buccaneer Condominium units. The Commercial Unit A Dock will be a first-come, first-served commercial dock for the primary purpose of allowing transient dockage for patrons of the restaurant on Commercial Unit A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant State-owned Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 50- 0147856-003-EI to the Applicants, the Buccaneer Commercial Unit A, care of Benjamin Sharfi, Trustee of the Benjamin Sharfi Trust 2002, and the Buccaneer Condominium Association of Palm Beach Shores, Inc., subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 10th day of January, 2019.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 3, 1976, the Board served its Administrative Complaint upon the Licensee. On May 18, 1976 the Licensee filed its Answer to the Administrative Complaint. The final hearing in this case was scheduled by Notice dated April 13, 1976, and was rescheduled by Notice dated May 27, 1976. John C. Ledbetter holds Certified General Contractor's License No. CG C5281 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The Licensee Ledbetter has been a certified contractor at all times relevant to this proceeding. The Licensee was the co-developer of a condominium project known as Ocean Palm Villas South or Ocean Palms Riverfront Condominium. Gerald M. Hadley, Sr., a certified contractor was initially listed as the general contractor for the project. Later Neil Wayne Smith was designated the general contractor. Smith was discharged as the general contractor, and by letter dated June 11, 1973 the Licensee notified the North Peninsular Zoning Commission that he would be substituted as the general contractor. Shortly thereafter Gerald M. Hadley was again designated the general contractor, and the change was acknowledged by the forth Peninsular Zoning Commission by letter dated August 28, 1973. Construction on Ocean Palm Villas South did not commence until after August 28, 1973. No construction was undertaken during the time that Ledbetter was designated as the general contractor. The general contractor was responsible for installation of the walls in Ocean Palm Villas South. A subcontractor was utilized to install the dry wall, but the wall construction was supervised by the general contractor. The original plans called for use of 5/8" thick gypsum wallboard. The wall units were to be installed in the manner depicted in Board Exhibit 5. The gypsum was to be nailed on either side of 4" studs, with insulating material laid between the studs. 5/8" gypsum was not available to the general contractor. 1/2" gypsum wallboard was utilized. A new wall assembly was planned. With this assembly gypsum wallboard was nailed to studs, but the wallboard on the other side of the wall was nailed to alternately interspaced studs. Insulating material was woven between the interspaced studs. (See: Board Exhibit 3). The decision to use this assembly was made by Gerald A. Hadley, a labor foreman. Hadley's father was the general contractor, and was consulted in making the decision. A Mr. Rasmussen, the building inspector, was consulted about the wall assembly, and he gave his approval. At the time that construction was under way on the Ocean Palm Villas South project, the 1965 Edition with Revisions of the Southern Standard Building Code was in effect in the North Peninsular Zoning District of Volusia County. The Ocean Palm Villas South project lied within that district. The wall assembly utilized by the general contractor does not precisely follow any of the assemblies set out as appropriate in the code. The wall assembly utilized does, however, meet the one hour fire resistance standard required by the code. There was no evidence presented at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Licensee Ledbetter had any knowledge of the wall assembly utilized in this project other than what was set out in the original plans. Ledbetter was not the contractor for the project when the assembly was constructed.
Findings Of Fact The record presented consists of a transcript of the proceedings before the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board considering allegations against Ronald Pintacuda and a portion of the exhibits presented to that Board during the proceedings. The record does not contain the Administrative Complaint or other charging documents upon which the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board proceeded against Ronald Pintacuda. The allegations against Pintacuda are summed up in a statement by Mr. Flynn, prosecuting attorney for the Board on page 6 of the transcript. The prime contention of the prosecution and the proceeding before the local board was that Pintacuda was guilty of aiding and abetting an unlicensed company to avoid the provisions of the building code by virtue of a specific agreement referred to throughout the transcript but which was not made a part of the evidentiary record presented to the Hearing Officer. Mr. Ciklin, counsel for Mr. Pintacuda, refers on page 5 to three charges outstanding against Pintacuda before the local board, and in his summation at page 38 outlines these as follows: Willful and deliberate disregard of the applicable building codes or law; Combining or conspiring with an uncertified or unregistered person (by allowing one's certificate or registration to be used by any uncertified or unregistered person with the intent to evade the provisions of this part); and Acting in the capacity of a contractor under someone else's certificate except for the name of the certificate holder. In the absence of a charging document or a statement of charges having been read into the record, Mr. Ciklin's outline of the charges considered by the local board against Ronald Pintacuda are taken as true and accurate. The critical element in consideration of this case is the time sequence of the events. The sequence of events between Ronald Pintacuda and Ralph Howell began in 1974, when Howell approached Pintacuda about forming a construction business. C Pinta & Howell, Inc., was created in a corporate reorganization from an inactive corporation, Martin & Pinta, Inc., in January, 1975. Martin & Pinta, Inc., was a corporation formed by John Martin and Ronald Pintacuda in which John Martin was president and Ronald Pintacuda vice-president. John Martin, a Canadian, ceased participation in the business upon his return to Canada, and the corporation went into an inactive status. In January, 1975, Ralph Howell approached Ronald Pintacuda about forming a construction corporation. This resulted in the formation of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Because of domestic problems, Ralph Howell's father, Alexander Howell, served as president of Pinta and Howell, Inc. Ralph Howell was construction superintendent of this corporation and was the primary manager of the Howell interests in the corporation. Pintacuda participated actively in the business affairs of Pinta & Howell, Inc., from January, 1975, until December, 1975. Although it is not explicitly stated in the transcript, it is apparent that Pintacuda decided to cease his active role in Pinta & Howell, Inc., in December, 1975. At that time Pintacuda entered an agreement with Alexander Howell which was the basis of an allegation of combining or conspiring with an uncertified or unregistered person by allowing one's certificate or registration to be used by any uncertified or unregistered person with intent to evade the provisions of the law. Although this agreement is not a part of the exhibits presented to the Hearing Officer, a portion of that agreement was read into the record by Mr. Pintacuda at page 29 of the transcript. That portion of the agreement provided as follows: Agreement between Ronald Pintacuda and Alexander Howell--That Ronald Pintacuda and Alexander Howell, officers of Howell & Pinta, Inc. stipulate that Howell & Pinta, Inc. shall not conduct any business unless both parties agree in writing to such business. This includes, but is not limited to, the signing of any contracts or financial obligations. The basis of the complaints upon which the prosecution of Pintacuda was based, arose in early 1970, when Ralph and Gerald Howell accepted contracts in behalf of Tri-County Marine Construction, Inc., and pulled permits from local authorities in the name of Pinta & Howell, Inc. In addition, Ronald Pintacuda is charged with obtaining four building permits in the name of Pinta & Howell, Inc., for construction contracts taken by Tri-County Marine Construction, Inc. (Tri-County Marine). After the formation of Pinta & Howell, Inc., Ralph Howell who was an officer in Tri-County Marine suggested to Pintacuda that Tri-County Marine be made, an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Pintacuda concurred in this, and Howell had the advertising, letterhead, contracts, and yellow page advertisement for Tri-County Marine altered to reflect that Tri-County Marine was an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. Documentary evidence concerning the corporate status of Pinta & Howell, Inc., and Tri-County Marine which was presented to the local board was not made a part of the exhibits presented to the Hearing Officer. However, testimony of witnesses at the proceeding based upon those exhibits indicate that there was no record in the Secretary of State's office of any corporate interrelationship between Pinta & Howell, Inc., and Tri-County Marine, Inc. The testimony of Pintacuda and the contracts presented in support of the Board's case do show that Tri-County Marine represented itself to the public and functioned as an affiliate or subsidiary of Pinta & Howell, Inc. This affiliation was even recognized by the Board's prosecuting attorney, Mr. Flynn, at page 6 when he stated ". . . Tri- County Marine Construction, Inc. is an affiliate of Pinta & Howell, Inc." Initially, efforts in January, 1976, to contact Pintacuda by local Board authorities and investigators of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board were unsuccessful. From the testimony of Mr. Verner, investigator for the Construction Industry Licensing Board, many telephone and personal messages left with Mr. Ralph Howell and his secretary were not passed on to Mr. Pintacuda. When Mr. Pintacuda was eventually contacted by Mr. Verner, Mr. Pintacuda was cooperative, forthright, and took immediate steps to deregister as qualifier for Pinta & Howell, Inc., in an effort to prevent further abuses by Ralph and Gerald Howell. The Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board did not find Ronald Pintacuda guilty of any of the three allegations charged. The action to revoke the license of Ronald Pintacuda was on a motion by Mr. Barrett at page 41 of the transcript which does not recite a finding regarding Pintacuda's guilt of any of the allegations against him. It was this motion which was seconded and passed by the Board. The local board therefore revoked the license of Ronald Pintacuda without a finding of guilt on any of the complaints against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and review of the proceedings before the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board against the license of Ronald Pintacuda. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Alan J. Ciklin, Esquire Post Office Box 3704 Professional Plaza West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-785 RONALD PINTACUDA dba TRI-COUNTY MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., CG C005834, 6561 Katherine Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Based on the undisputed facts included in pleadings filed in this proceeding and on the documentary evidence attached to the Association's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, the following findings of fact are made: On or about April 16, 1999, Ms. Thornhill filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, in which she accused the Association of housing discrimination on the basis of handicap and coercion. The complaint was apparently based on the Association's attempts to make Ms. Thornhill remove a set of steps leading from the terrace of her apartment. In June 1999, the Association filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Thornhill in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, styled Admiral Farragut Condominium Association v. Maria Thornhill, Case No. 99-15567 CA 22. On or about September 21, 1999, Ms. Thornhill, through her attorney, filed Defendant, Maria Thornhill's Answer to Complaint. Included in the answer was a Counterclaim filed by Ms. Thornhill, through her attorney, against the Association, in which she sought injunctive relief and damages against the Association pursuant to Section 760.35(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. 1/ She asserted in the Counterclaim that she had filed a discrimination complaint against the Association with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which had been referred to the Commission and that this complaint was still pending before the Commission. Ms. Thornhill alleged in the Counterclaim that the Association had engaged in housing discrimination against her on the basis of her handicap because it had refused to accommodate her disability by giving her permission to retain the steps she had installed leading from the terrace of her apartment. Ms. Thornhill also alleged that the Association had "authorized or acquiesced in a series of actions intended as harassment and retribution" against Ms. Thornhill for having filed a housing discrimination complaint. The factual and legal bases on which Ms. Thornhill requests relief in the Petition for Relief filed with the Commission and in the Counterclaim filed in circuit court are virtually identical.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint filed by Maria T. Thornhill to enforce rights granted by the Florida Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.30 through 760.37, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 7th day of November, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed as a contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. His license for the 1979-1981 license period had not been renewed at the time that the hearing was conducted, and he was therefore delinquent. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibit 1.] During June, 1977, the Respondent entered Into a contract with Emily D. Wohanka and Ruby Sue Dennard. Ms. Wohanka and Ms. Dennard, who are sisters, agreed to purchase a lot in Satellite Beach, Florida, and the Respondent agreed to construct a single-family dwelling on the lot. The parties agreed to an addendum to the contract during July or August, 1977. The addendum included some specifics with respect to construction and provided: Home will be complete and ready for occupancy within a reasonable period of time--normally three to five months. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 9, and the testimony of Wohanka and Jordan.) The lot which Ms. Wohanka and Ms. Dennard purchased was not cleared until December, 1977. No progress on construction was made during January or February, 1980. The Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Satellite Beach, Florida, on February 20, 1978. Construction work commenced in either March or April, 1978. By June, 1978, Ms. Wohanka became concerned that work was commencing too slowly. She told the Respondent that she needed to move in by the end of July. Respondent told her that it was probable that construction would not be completed until mid-August. By September, the project was still not completed. Ms. Wohanka tried to reach Respondent by telephone, but he would not return her calls. She tried to locate him at home, but no one would answer the door. She complained to the building official in the City of Satellite Beach, but the building official had similar problems reaching the Respondent. Ms. Wohanka also complained to N. M. Jordan, the real estate agent who had negotiated the contract. Ms. Jordan was able to locate the Respondent, and the Respondent told Ms. Jordan that he could not complete the project because he was losing money. In late September or early October, Ms. Wohanka and her sister located the Respondent at his home. The Respondent was just walking out of the front door when they arrived. The Respondent told them that he could not discuss the matter, that he had turned it over to Ms. Jordan, and that he was not a part of it anymore. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3; and from the testimony of Wobanka, Hijort, and Jordan.] When Ms. Wohanka contacted the Respondent in late September or early October, no work had been done on the project for at least a month, and the house was not completed. Light fixtures, appliances, and air conditioning had not been installed. Cabinets and other fixtures were stored in a bathroom. Inside doors had not been installed. Flooring was not completed. No sidewalks or concrete driveway had been constructed. There had been no landscaping or sodding, and the sprinkler system had not been installed. The plumbing was not operational. Ms. Wohanka contracted with a new builder to complete the project. She was able to move into the residence on December 28, 1978, but work was not finally completed until late January, 1979. Additional expenses beyond those agreed to by the Respondent were incurred by Ms. Wohanka. The Respondent had drawn on a construction loan; but, there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent used these funds for any purposes other than the construction of the dwelling. [This finding is determined from the testimony of Wohanka.] During July, 1977, the Respondent entered into a contract with James and Eleanor A. Lawrence. The Lawrences agreed to purchase a lot in Satellite Beach, Florida, and the Respondent agreed to construct a duplex dwelling on the lot. The Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Satellite Beach on February 22, 1978. Unknown problems developed, and the project was not being completed. The Satellite Beach building official had difficulty locating the Respondent, but he was ultimately assured by the Respondent that the project would be completed. The Respondent told the realtor who negotiated the contract, Ms. Jordan, that he could not complete the 3 reject because he was losing money. The Lawrences did not testify at the hearing, and specifics regarding their relationship with the Respondent are not known. It is not known whether the Respondent abandoned the project uncompleted without notifying the Lawrences, or whether some agreement was made between them regarding completion of the project. There is no evidenced that the Respondent diverted any funds from the project. [This finding is determined from the testimony of Hjort and Jordan.] No building codes from the City of Satellite Beach were received into evidence. There is no evidence in the record from which it could be concluded that the Respondent violated any provisions of the building codes in either the Wohanka or Lawrence transactions.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents, The Fourth Bayshore Condominium Association, Inc. (“Bayshore”), Karl Stemmler (“Stemmler”), and/or Richard Grove (“Grove”), discriminated against Petitioner, Robert Pagano (“Pagano"), on the basis of his physical handicap in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Pagano is a Caucasian male who is handicapped by virtue of medical complications which resulted in the amputation of his left leg in March 2008. He has been confined to a wheelchair since that time. At all times relevant hereto, Pagano was renting a condominium unit at Bayshore. In January 2012, Pagano saw another unit at Bayshore advertised for rent. He called Grove, listed as the owner of the unit, and inquired about renting the property. Grove told Pagano that a key to the unit would be left under a mat between the screen door and front door on January 19, 2012. On that day, Pagano went to inspect the unit, accompanied by a friend, Philip Saglimebene. Upon arrival at the unit, Pagano and his friend began looking for the hidden key, but could not find it. They apparently made some noise while searching for the key, because they were confronted by Stemmler. According to Pagano, Stemmler began asking them in unfriendly terms who they were and what they were doing at the unit. The friend then told Stemmler they were looking for a key so they could go in and inspect the unit as Pagano was interested in renting it from Grove. Stemmler, supposedly identifying himself as a “building representative,” said there was no key to be found. He also reputedly told Pagano and his friend that they would not need a key anyway, “because you are not moving in.” When the friend explained that the unit was for Pagano, not him, Stemmler allegedly said that Pagano was not moving in either because he was an “undesirable.” When asked to explain that comment, Stemmler purportedly said, “He just is; that’s all you need to know.” (None of Stemmler’s comments were verified by competent evidence and, without verification or support, cannot be relied upon to make a finding of fact in this case.) Pagano believes Stemmler’s purported comments were based on the fact that he (Pagano) has long hair and a beard and does not fit into the conventional norm at Bayshore. He also believes that his handicap served as a basis for Stemmler’s alleged comments. There was no credible evidence presented at final hearing to substantiate Pagano’s suppositions. Grove had put his condominium unit up for rent at the beginning of the year. When Pagano called to inquire about it, Grove – who lives out-of-state – notified a friend to leave a key under the mat, as described above. That friend simply forgot to leave a key at the unit on the designated date. Grove knew nothing about Pagano’s interaction with Stemmler. Grove had not spoken to Stemmler prior to the day he and Pagano had their interaction. Stemmler had no authority to speak for Grove or to make a decision concerning to whom Grove would rent his condominium unit. Subsequent to the day Pagano visited the unit, Grove took the unit off the rental market because his wife decided to use the unit to house family and friends rather than renting it out to someone else. It took several weeks for the rental advertisement for the unit to be removed from a locked bulletin board at Bayshore. Grove said that if the unit ever went back on the market, he would call Pagano first about renting it, i.e., Grove had no opposition whatsoever to Pagano’s being a tenant. Van Buren, president of Bayshore, explained that the condominium association utilizes the support of voluntary building representatives to assist with security and minor maintenance at Bayshore. The volunteers, who are generally seasonal residents at Bayshore, do not hold keys to individual units and have no authority to grant or deny an applicant’s request to rent a unit. Stemmler is one of many building representatives who resides part-time at Bayshore. Pagano does not know of any non-handicapped individual who was allowed to rent a unit at Bayshore to the exclusion of himself or any other handicapped person. In fact, Pagano currently resides in another unit at Bayshore; he is already a resident there.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Robert Pagano in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 5th day of September, 2012.
