HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 12 10 Regular J Gasoline Station/ Convienence Store
< ,
::..:._- 1-,'.:;:.'
'{ ..'
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM J
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular X
December 10. 2001
Meeting
Dept.
Mgr. /
REQUEST:
The City Attorney requests that the City Commission consider A VA Anthony, lnc.'s request for a
vested rights/equitable estoppel determination for a Gasoline Station/Convenience Store at the real
property located on the corner of S.R. 434 and Hayes Road.
PURPOSE:
This Agenda Item is necessary to allow the City Commission to determine whether the gasoline
station proposed for the subject property is "Vested" from the application of Ordinance No. 2001-13
which prohibits a new gasoline station from being located within 350 feet from an existing gasoline
station.
ISSUE: Based on competent substantial evidence, whether A V A Anthony is entitled by law to
complete the construction of a proposed gasoline station on the real property located on the comer
ofS.R. 434 and Hayes Road, in light of Ordinance 2001-13 which now prohibits a proposed gasoline
station from being located within 350 feet of an existing gasoline station.
[In other words, should the City apply Ordinance 2001-13 and deny A V A Anthony's right to
complete the construction of the gasoline station on the subject property.]
APPLICABLE STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LAW:
The applicable standard of review and law is very complex and beyond the scope of an agenda item.
The essence of the law, however, is as follows:
Page I of 3
, ;
,
.:~ i'.
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW.
Competent substantial evidence is the evidentiary standard which should apply to A V A Anthony's
Vested Rights application.
Competent substantial evidence has been defined to mean sufficiently relevant and material evidence
that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Degroot v. Sheffield, 95
So.2d 912 (Fla. 1957).
B. APPLICABLE LAW.
The common law of Vested Rights/Equitable Estoppel is applicable.
In this case, A V A Anthony, Inc. would be permitted by law to complete the proposed gasoline
station if it can demonstrate by competent substantial evidence that it has a vested project. The
project should be vested if A V A Anthony can satisfy the elements of equitable estoppel. The three
(3) elements of equitable estoppel are:
(1) a property owner's good faith reliance;
(2) on some act or omission of the government; and
(3) a substantial change in position or the incurring of excessive obligations and expenses so that
it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy the right he acquired.
Franklin County v. Leisure Properties. Ltd., 430 So.2d 475 (Fla. pI DCA 1983).
Stripped of legal jargon,
(1) Estoppel amounts to nothing more than an application of the rules of fair play.
(2) One party will not be permitted to invite another onto a welcome mat and then be permitted
to snatch the mat away to the detriment of the party induced or permitted to stand thereon.
(3) A citizen is entitled to rely on the assurances or commitments of a zoning authority and ifhe
does, the zoning authority is bound by its representations, whether they be in the form of
words or deeds.
Town of Largo v. Imperial Homes Corp., 309 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE:
Ordinance No. 2001-13 adopted by the City Commission on July 23,2001 created section 20-417
of the Code.
Section 20-41 7(b) requires that all proposed gasoline stations be located a minimum of350 feet from
any existing gasoline stations.
Page 2 of 3
If"
Section 20-417( d) provides that 20-417 does not apply to any pending gasoline station application
which is "vested" as provided by law.
Ordinance 2001- 1 3 is applicable because it is indisputable that AVA Anthony proposes to locate a
gasoline station within 350 feet of a Cumberland Farms Convenience Store and gasoline station.
However, A V A Anthony claims it should be "vested" from the application of Ordinance 2001-13
based on the facts of this case.
RECOMMENDA TIONS:
A Vested Rights determination is very fact intensive and due process of law is applicable. The
burden to demonstrate a Vested Right is on A V A Anthony, Inc.
It is therefore recommended that the City Commission consider the information and applicable law
included as part of this Agenda Item. Further, the City Commission must permit A V A Anthony and
other interested parties an opportunity to present any other competent substantial evidence relevant
to A V A Anthony's petition for a Vested Rights determination.
If the Commission determines that A V A Anthony has demonstrated by competent substantial
evidence that the elements of equitable estoppel are satisfied and the proposed gasoline station is
vested under Ordinance 2001-13, AVA Anthony's project should be allowed to proceed at the
subject property under applicable City Codes and law.
The City Attorney will further address the legal issues involved at the City Commission Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. AVA Anthony' s Vested Rights Application, dated October 22, 200 I.
2. Ordinance 2001-13.
3. Building Permit dated April 26, 1999.
4. NationsBank Stop Payment ($44,526.56).
5. Staff Comments re: Vested Rights Application.
6. Public Purpose Warranty Deed (A VA Anthony to City).
7. February 4,2000 letter to Ron McLemore from Jimette Cook, Code Enforcement Manager.
8. May 27, 1999 letter to Robert B. Reese from Mark Jenkins, City Engineer.
COMMISSION ACTION:
F:\DOCS\City of Winter Springs\Agenda\Ava Anthony Agenda [tern #2001-,wpd
Page 3 of 3
MEMORANDUM
, w~~~ ~ (&Ji ~(
d<)~~f\-
~ v-(~~;
~(~ 'iJ-.JA-ld!
FROM:
City of Winter Springs
Aaron J. Gorovitz, Esq. k0
Cindy M. Kirkconnell, Esq. ()J~
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed, P.A.
Attorneys for A V A Anthony, Inc. and Kenneth Wood
TO:
DATE:
October 22, 2001
RE:
Vested Rights/Equitable Estoppel:
Gasoline Station/Convenience Store, 434 & Hayes, Winter Springs, FL
Issue:
Whether A V A Anthony, Inc. (hereinafter, "A V A Anthony"), the o~ner of the property
located at 434 and Hayes in Winter Springs (hereinafter, the "Site") is entitled to complete
construction of a gasoline station and convenience store facility on the Site (i) where A V A
Anthony has vested rights to complete the construction and (ii) where, independent of such
vested rights, the doctrine of equitable estoppel requires the City of Winter Springs (hereinafter,
the "City") to permit completion of construction of the Site.
Brief Answer:
Yes. A V A Anthony is entitled to continue construction of the Site based on the fact that:
(i) it has common law vested rights (pursuant to the Winter Springs Code) in the facility's
construction, or alternatively, (ii) the doctrine of equitable estoppel requires the City to permit
A V A Anthony to complete construction.
Facts:
A. History of the Site Located at 434 & Hayes
The Site located at 434 and Hayes is owned by A V A Anthony, Inc. with Kenneth Wood
providing the gasoline for the station.' A V A Anthony purchased the site for $275,000. The City
then began issuing permits for construction of a convenience store and gasoline station facility on
the Site in February 1999. The following list details when specific permits were issued:
I Mr. Wood (and his company, Medallion Convenience Stores, Inc.) is the branding agent for the Site. As the
liaison between A V A Anthony and the oil company, Mr, Wood buys the oil from the terminal and provides it to the
Site.
038315\83818\492204\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 2001
Page 2
2/99 Construction Trailer Permit
3/99 Fuel Tank Installation Permit
4/99 Permit to Open Hayes Road for Waterline
6/99 Transfer of Construction Trailer Permit
6/99 Construction of New Service Station and Convenience Store Permit
6/99 Screening Wall Installation Permit
8/99 Fence Installation Permit
Pursuant to the Winter Springs Code of Ordinances Section 6-57, these construction permits
expired one year from the date they were issued.
During the time period from the date of the initial permit in 2/99, to the date of the last
permit in 8/99, A V A Anthony paid fees to the City, to contractors, to construction companies,
and to the Department of Transportation in order to develop the Site. The following list
describes the costs incurred after the date of issuance of the initial permit in 2/99. The overall
expenditure during this six month period totaled $324,591.93.
2/9/99 Water/Sewer Connection 3,710.00
2/14/99 Engineering Services, Inc. 200.00
2/16/99 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 8,250.00
2/22/99 James T. Melvin Architect 2,050.00
3/8/99 Site Work (John 1. Sexton) 32,000.00
3/2/99 Driveway Permit - DOT 2,000.00
3/8/99 Management Fee, DOT driveway fee 3,450.00
4/9/99 Petroleum Equipment Construction 46,222.85
4/9/99 Purveyors of Underground Gas Tanks 38,000.00
038315\83818\492204\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 2001
Page 3
4/23/99 field & Son Excavating, Inc. 22,909.50
5/5/99 Ardaman and Associates, Inc. 204.00
5/13/99 County of Seminole Impact fees 44,526.56
5/27/99 fields and Son Excavating 6,409.42
5/27/99 Fields and Son Excavating 5,768.47
6/11/99 Transportation Impact Fee. 7,387.20
6/11/99 Police Impact fee 449.86
6/11/99 fire Impact fee 1,124.66
6/11199 Building Permit (9901 1 22) 110.00
6/11/99 Building Permit (99007 43) 125.00
6/11/99 Building Permit (99007 44) 1,751.80
6/11/99 Fields & Sons Excavating, Inc. 18,500.00
6/22/99 Veon & Sons Construction 43,234.43
6/28/99 Fields & Son Excavating, Inc. 450.00
6/30/99 Fields & Son Excavating, Inc. 273.55
7/27/99 fields & Son Excavating, Inc. 35,024.30
7/27/99 fields & Son Excavating, Inc. 436.33
8/17/99 Building Permit (99016 53) 25.00
TOT AL: $324,591.93
During the months between August 1999 and March 2000, construction on the Site
progressed as scheduled. In particular, in the year 2000, all the underground gasoline tanks were
installed, and substantially all the underground pipes to connect to the tanks were laid, an
underground drainage structure was constructed, water and sewer facilities were installed, and a
038315\83818\492204\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 2001
Page 4
retention pond was built. Although the above ground gasoline dispensers and pipes to be
attached to the dispensers were not installed, the gasoline facilities were substantially complete
and remain substantially complete at this time.
In addition, A V A Anthony was asked by the City to donate a portion of the Site property
to create a left-turn lane in exchange for and as part of the negotiation concerning construction of
a gasoline station and convenience store facility on the Site. A VA Anthony complied with this
request and without receiving any consideration from the City or any third party, except an
agreement from the City's staff that A V A Anthony could complete the construction of the
improvements on the Site, A V A Athony deeded to City the property needed by the City for the
left-turn lane; a Public Purpose Warranty Deed was signed by A V A Anthony and the City in
August 1999 and recorded by the City in OR Book 3707, Page 0808, Public Records of Seminole
County, Florida. (Please see Exhibit A)
In March 2000, a dispute arose between A V A Anthony and a contractor providing
services on the Site, John 1. Sexton - Contractor, Inc. (hereinafter, "Sexton"), over improper
installation of an underground drainage pipe. Sexton filed a lien against the Site for its fees, and
litigation ensued. In the meantime, A VA Anthony hired Fields & Son Excavation to correct the
problem and finish the Site. fields & Son began preparing the Site to complete construction of
the gasoline facilities and to construct a convenience store building on the Site. The litigation
benveen A V A Anthony and Sexton was eventually settled out of court.
During the time period of the litigation between A VA Anthony and Sexton, A VA
Anthony continued to work with the City on developing the Site. The City was well aware of the
litigation and its effect on the Site. A V A Anthony was in continuous contact with City staff.
One example is when Jimette Cook, sent a letter to A V A Anthony dated March 20, 2000
notifying A V A Anthony of a fine running against the Site for maintaining a public nuisance.
Ms. Cook indicated that if A V A Anthony fenced the Site, then the City would not place a lien on
the property. A V A Anthony complied with the City's request, spending $227.06 on construction
of a fence on the Site. During the litigation A VA Anthony's representatives continued to work
with the City's staff and at no time did the City make any statements to A V A Anthony that its
permits to complete all construction on the Site would be withheld when the litigation concluded.
On May 4, 200 I, A V A Anthony entered into an agreement to sell the Site, upon
completion of construction, to Phelopateer, LLC for $720,000. On May 17, 200 I , AVA
Anthony requested and obtained from Southern Community Bank construction refinancing for
completion of all the proposed improvements on the Site. During the first week in July, A V A
Anthony met with the City to discuss both completion of construction and the removal of liens
that the City had placed on the Site due to code violations. A V A Anthony was told that if it
cleaned up the Site then the remaining permits to complete construction would be issued. For the
038315.'83818'.492204\ 1
Aaron J. Gorovitz
September 14, 2001
Page 5
first time, however, the City staff raised the possible potential applicability of a proposed
ordinance involving restricting construction of gasoline stations within 350 feet of one another.
At the City Commission meeting on July 9, 2001, a public hearing and a first reading of
the proposed ordinance alluded to by the City staff was held. The proposed ordinance was
discussed at length by the City Commissioners, the City Attorney (Anthony Garganese) and Mr.
Wood. Mr. Garganese proposed consideration of placing a vesting clause in the proposed
ordinance.
It became clear during the Commissioners' discussion that the Site was one of the
properties that prompted the proposal of a vesting clause. Commissioner Blake was in favor of
. tabling the proposed ordinance because the City "may end up \Vith an even longer lasting
problem on that comer [i.e., 434 and Hayes] if we go through with this," and wanted to "work
out that situation" concerning the Site. He also expressed concern that the City "need[s] to take
some special notice of these properties or those applications that may be existing" on a "one-on-
one basis for each individual one." Commissioner McLeod stated that he "definitely believe[s]
the Texaco property...should be [vested]."
Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Gennell and Commissioner Martinez were 10
support of going forward with the proposed ordinance.
During the public input portion of the hearing, Mr. Wood spoke on behalf of AVA
Anthony. He pointed out that he and A V A Anthony had been working \Vith the City to arrive at
solutions to the problems with the Site. He stated that a plan had been submitted to the City, at
the City's request, that enhanced the landscaping at the Site, moved the convenience store
building and incorporated other requests by the City and that he hoped that the City would
consider the fact that he and A V A Anthony had been complying for some considerable time with
the City's requests on how to complete construction on the Site. Following Mr. Wood's
comments, the Commissioners voted to move the proposed ordinance to a second reading.
At the City's request, during the week after the July 9, 200 I City Commission meeting,
A V A Anthony and Mr. Wood backfilled a tank hole, bush-hogged the Site and fixed the fence on
the Site.
AVA Anthony then met with City staff on July 20, 200 I regarding the building plan for
the convenience store on the Site, and asked the staff whether A V A Anthony should resubmit its
old drawings for the convenience store building or whether it should submit drawings for a new
building. The City staff indicated that it wanted drawings for a new building submitted, which
AVA Anthony submitted, and the City staff subsequently expressed approval of the new'
drawings.
038315\83818' ~9220-l I
Aaron J. Gorovitz
September 14, 2001
Page 6
The proposed ordinance was read for the second time at the Winter Springs City
Commission meeting on July 23, 2001. The topic of vested rights was again discussed, and it
was decided that a section addressing vested rights should be added to the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Blake asked whether it was correct that "there has been no determination made as
of yet whether or not its [the Site] is vested" and Mr. Garganese answered that Commissioner
Blake was correct. The proposed ordinance, including the vested rights provision, was then
adopted by a unanimous vote. It is clear from the transcript of this meeting that at the time of the
vote, the issue of whether the Site was vested was not yet resolved. It is also clear that issues
such as equitable estoppel had not yet been considered.
B. Winter Springs Ordinance No. 2001-13
On July 23, 2001, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2001-13, entitled "An Ordinance of
the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, Establishing Distance Requirements
for Gasoline Filling Stations; Providing for Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and
Resolutions; Providing for Severability; Providing for Incorporation Into the Code; and
Providing for an Effective Date" (hereinafter, "Ordinance"). The City stated in the text of the
Ordinance that its reasons for enacting the Ordinance included the high probability. of business
failure in the gasoline station business, abandoned gasoline stations that cannot be used for other
purposes, and aesthetic and safety concerns about having too many gasoline stations in one area.
The Ordinance listed four 'abandoned' gasoline stations to support its reasoning.
Discussion:
A. The Gasoline Station Industry
Oil companies are very large corporations with enormous amounts of money and
resources. Oil company mergers are commonplace in today's economy, and one consequence of
these mergers is that some gasoline stations are closed while the details of the ne\vly merged
corporation are ironed out. These gasoline stations are not 'abandoned'; the legal definition of
abandonment is when an "ov.ner has relinquished all right, title, claim, and possession, with
intention of not reclaiming it or resuming its ownership, possession or enjoyment.,,2 Oil
companies have the financial capacity to close a station temporarily until they decide what will
be done with the station - for example, whether it will be reopened under another name,
remodeled, or tom down (in which case the land is sold to a third party for new development). In
many cases, it is not competition among the oil companies that causes gas station closures, but
rather a situation where two gas stations, owned by two separate companies that are now merged
into a single company, are in close proximity to one another. Because the two stations have now
: Black's Law Dictionary 3 (1979).
038315\83818\49221).r,1
Aaron J. Gorovitz
Septem.ber 14, 2001
Page 7
ovmed by the same company, it doesn't make sense for the company to compete against itself, so
the company will close one of the stations. The station is not closed because the gasoline station
business has failed.
As noted above, the Ordinance cited four 'abandoned' gasoline stations to support its
reasoning for adopting the Ordinance. Not one of these four gasoline stations is legally
abandoned. The site located on State Road 434 in Winter Springs, (Texaco/Chevron) mentioned
in the Ordinance is the same Site being developed by A V A Anthony. It has not been abandoned.
The gasoline station located on State Road 17-92 near the Casselberry City Hall, previously a
Shell station, is an out-of-date 'bay' station that is going to be sold by BP and will likely never
again be a gas station. (BP and Amoco merged and took over many Shell station sites in Central
Florida. Because of duplication, certain gasoline stations were taken out of service and are being
sold for other uses.) The gasoline station located at the comer of State Road 17-92 and State
Road 434 (Ex.xon) and the gasoline station located near the 1-4 on-ramp on State Road 434
(Mobil) \vere closed by Exxon/Mobil along with several others in Central Florida when Ex.xon
and Mobil merged and are to be sold for use as something other than a gasoline station. Merger
of Exxon and Mobil produced surplus properties and, as a result, certain gasoline stations have
been and are being sold for other uses. As the foregoing demonstrates, the Ordinance incorrectly
labeled these four gasoline stations as 'abandoned.'
B. Aesthetics and Safety
Another concern raised by the Ordinance was that of the aesthetics and safety of gasoline
stations. All plans for improvements which have been submitted to the City by A V A Anthony
comply with (and in several instances exceed) all of the City's requirements regarding
landscaping, aesthetics and safety standards. The finished gasoline station located on the Site
will be heavily landscaped, will be pleasing to the eye and will employ state-of-the-art safety
features (such as double-walled gasoline tanks). For these reasons, aesthetics and safety are not
legitimate concerns on which to enact the Ordinance and/or base a denial of a vested rights
determination.
C. Vesting Section of Ordinance and Winter Springs Code
Section 7 of the Ordinance provides that "[t]his Section shall not apply to any pending
gasoline station application which is 'vested' as provided by law, or any gasoline station lawfully
existing and operating at the effective date of this Ordinance." The City granted building permits
for the transfer of a construction trailer permit, the construction of new service station and
convenience store and screening wall installation in June 1999, and granted a building permit for
fence installation in August 1999. As a part of the negotiation process. A V A Anthony
cooperated with the City in deeding a portion of the Site to the City for a left-turn lane. AVA
OJ3J 15\8381 g'~9220~\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 2001
Page 8
Anthony relied in good faith on these permits and negotiations, spending over $320,000 since
that time to commence construction of the Site.
The Ordinance provides in relevant part that "[t]here shall be a minimum air line distance
of three hundred fifty (350) feet, measured in a straight line from the nearest points of lot
boundaries, between a proposed gasoline station and any existing gasoline station or between a
proposed gasoline station." The Site is located within 350 feet of a Cumberland Farms
convenience store and gasoline station, located on the same side of Hayes.
The Winter Springs Code provides for the vested rights application process in Section 9-
402 (quoted here in relevant part):
Section 9-402 Vested rights application process.
(a)(3) Applications for a vested rights special use pennit shall be submitted to the
city manager on a fonn to be provided by the city. Such application must be filed
within one (1) year after the later of (i) the adoption of this article or (ii) the
rezoning of the subject property in order to bring its zoning into confonnance with
the land use designation assigned to the property by the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map adopted on April 27, 1992 (the "plan adoption date"). Except as
provided in subsections (a)(4) and (a)(5), below, failure to file an application
within the required period will constitute an abandonment of any claim to vested
rights. Judicial relief will not be available unless administrative remedies set forth
in this article are exhausted."
If the applicant meets the requirements set out in Section 9-403 of the Winter Springs
Code, then the application for a vested rights special use pennit shall be approved.3 Section 9-
403, entitled "Standards for detennining vested rights," provides as follows:
Section 9-403. Standards for detennining vested rights.
(c) Common law vested rights
(I) Applicants who do not qualify for a presumptive vested rights special
use pennit shall be entitled to a common law vested rights special use
pennit if they can prove the following:
) Winter Springs City Code. Article IX. Vested Rights. Sec. 9-402(a)(I).
038315\83818\492204\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 2001
Page 9
a. Prior to the plan adoption date, there was a valid, unexpired
act or omission of a government agency upon which the
applicant relied; and
b. The applicant's reliance was reasonable and in good faith;
and
c. The applicant, in reliance upon the valid, unexpired act of
government, has made a substantial change in position or
has incurred extensive obligations or expenses; and
d. It would be inequitable, unjust or fundamentally unfair to
destroy the rights acquired by the applicant by means of the
government's act or omission.
(2) The purchase of property in reliance on then existing zoning, without
more, shall not vest the purchaser's right to develop in accordance with
said zoning.
(3) The following are not considered development expenditures or
obligations in and of themselves, without more, unless the applicant was
unable to obtain further approvals because of extraordinary delays beyond
the applicant's control:
a. Expenditures for legal and other professional services that
related to the design or construction improvements;
b. Taxes paid;
c. Expenditures for initial acquisition of the land.
Prior to the July 23, 200 I adoption date of the Ordinance, A V A Anthony reasonably
relied in good faith on the City's issuance of building permits for the Site and the actions and
statements of the City staff. The City had indicated approval by issuing permits in 1999 and by
expressing to A V A Anthony that it would again issue permits for the Site if A VA Anthony
complied with the City's requests. A V A Anthony cooperated in good faith with the City
continuously, including without limitation, when it deeded part of the Site property for a left-turn
lane in August 1999.
A V A Anthony also reasonably relied on the omission of the City, during the year of
litigation with Sexton (March 200-March 200 I). to indicate that it might not reissue permits for
0383 15\83818\~9220~\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 200 I
Page 10
the Site, even when A V A Anthony was still regularly meeting and working with the City on
developing the Site. The Ordinance specifically contemplates an omission of a government
agency upon which the applicant relied, which language is designed to address circumstances
such as the existing circumstances concerning A VA Anthony. The City was not acting
appropriately when it omitted to advise A V A Anthony that its permits may not be reissued at the
conclusion of the litigation. A VA Anthony, in reliance on City assurances, made substantial
changes in its position and incurred extensive obligations and expenses.
It is important to note that because the installation of the gasoline facilities (i.e., the
underground gasoline tanks and the underground pipes) is substantially complete, most of the
remaining construction on the Site is for the convenience store building. The majority of the
permits necessary for the completion of the Site are for the construction of the convenience store
building, not for construction of the gasoline station facilities. It would be inequitable and
fundamentally unfair to deny A V A Anthony the permits to finish construction of the gasoline
station facilities and to construct the convenience store on the Site.
D. Equitable Estoppel4
Equitable estoppel is "[t]he doctrine by which a person may be precluded by his act or
conduct. or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would
have had."; In this case. vested rights (per the City Code) are somewhat similar to the doctrine of
equitable estoppel, which applies when "a property o\Vner (I) in good faith (2) upon some act or
omission of the government (3) has made such a substantial change in position or has incurred
such extensive obligations and expenses that it would be highly inequitable and unjust to destroy
the right he acquired."6 Wben these elements are met, a local government authority may be
estopped from exercising its approval power.7 In this case it is clear that all three elements of
equitable estoppel are met. We would point out that the issue of "expired permits" is not
considered in equitable estoppel legal analysis.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel as applied to land-use decisionmaking is well
established in Florida law.s The Florida Supreme Court has considered the doctrine of equitable
· It should be noted that in Florida case law. the tenns "equitable estoppel" and "vested rights" are used
interchangeably because they are based on the same fundamental principles. See City of Key West v. R. L.JS. Corp.,
537 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989
\ Black's Law Dictionary 483 (1979).
o Hollywood Beach Hotel Co, v, City of Hollywood. 329 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1976).
7 City of Fort Pierce, 400 So. 2d at 1244.
8 See Sakolsky v. City of Coral Gables. 151 So, 2d 433 (Fla. 1963); Equity Resources Inc. v. County of Leon, 643
So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); City of North !".-Iiami v. Margulies. 289 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); City of
Key West v. R.L.J.s. Corp., 537 So, 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); City of Parkland v. Septimus, 428 So. 2d 681
(Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Walker v. Indian River County, 319 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Lyon v. Lake County.
038315\83818\492204\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 200 I
Page 11
estoppel in the context of many commercial developments, including without limitation, gasoline
stations. For example, in Texas Co. v. Town of Miami Springs.9 Texas Co. purchased land for
the sole purpose of constructing a gasoline station.'o It obtained the necessary permits, but was
unable to begin construction on the buildings due to its inability to obtain permission from the
Civilian Production Administration of the United States government. I I Miami Springs
subsequently passed an ordinance prohibiting gasoline stations to be built within 850 feet of one
another. 12 The ordinance operated to prevent construction of Texas Co.'s gasoline station, and
Texas Co. brought suit. 13
The Court held that these facts constituted a "typical case of estoppel.,,14 The Court went
on to state that "the city should now be estopped from asserting that, by the method of
proclaiming so belatedly an emergency, the permission given by the city had become
undermined -- all to the injury of one who recognized the city's authority and proceeded only
after getting its sanction.,,'5
A similar case regarding equitable estoppel and gasoline stations was decided at the
District Court of Appeal level. In City of Gainesville v. Bishop, 16 Bishop purchased property
across the street from the University of Florida specifically for the purpose of constructing a
gasoline station, and the city approved rezoning the property accordingly for that use. A little
more than a year later, the city adopted an ordinance changing the lot's zoning classification and
prohibiting its use for a gasoline station.'7 Bishop was notified of this ordinance, and he brought
suit against the city.
765 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Citrus County v. Florida Rock Industries, 726 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 5th DCA
1999); Orange County v. Seay. 649 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Council Brothers, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee,
634 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hernando County Board of Commissioners v. S.A. Williams Corp., 630 So.
2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); City of Cooper City v. PCH Corp, 496 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Reedy
Creek Improvement District v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 486 So. 2d 642 (Fla.
t st DCA 1986); Zalanck v. Monroe County, 467 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Bruce v. City of Deerfield
Beach, 423 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); The Florida Companies v. Orange County, 411 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 5th
DCA (982): City of Ft. Pierce v. Davis, 400 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); City of Tamarac v. Siegel, 399 So.
2d 1/24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Jones v. First Virginia Mortgage and Real Estate Investment Trust. 399 So. 2d
1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); City of Coral Springs v. BroH/ard County. 387 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980);
Enderby v. City of Sunrise, 376 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
044 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1950).
101d.
II Id.
I: Id.
13/d.
141d.
151d.
10 174 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1965).
17/d. at 102.
038315\83818'.49220-1\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 2001
Page 12
The First District held that Bishop "in good faith reliance upon the city's action in
rezoning the subject property to permit its use for an automotive service station, purchased the
said property, changed [his] position materially, and incurred substantial expense."IS The court
found that the facts reflected "a clear case of equitable estoppel," and that the city was estopped
from prohibiting the construction of the gasoline station on the property. 19
E. Equitable Estoppel and the 434 & Hayes Site
In the present case, A V A Anthony relied in good faith on a number of the City's actions.
The City approved the Site for a gasoline station and issued seven building permits for
development of the site between February and August of 1999. The construction activities, the
expenditure of $324,591.93 by A VA Anthony, the deed of AVA Anthony property to the City
and the signed contract to sell the completed Site to Phelopateer, constitute a substantial change
in position and extensive expenses for purposes of equitable estoppel. A V A Anthony cooperated
in good faith with the City at all times, including without limitation, by deeding a portion of the
Site to the City for a left-turn lane.
Based upon the City's prior issuance of the building permits for the Site, the City's
failure to advise A V A Anthony that its permits may not be reissued, and A VA Anthony's
expenditures and construction activities on the Site, it would be unjust to deny A V A Anthony
permits for completion of construction. Because each element of equitable estoppel is present in
this case, the City is estopped from denying A V A Anthony permits to continue with and
complete the development of the Site.
The present case is not substantially different from the Texas Co. and City of Gainesville
cases cited above. As in those two cases, A V A Anthony purchased the property for the Site
specifically intending to construct a gasoline station on the property. Like the properties in
question in those cases, the Site was zoned for a gasoline station and approved by the appropriate
government entity for construction of a gasoline station. Like the developers in Texas Co. and
City of Gainesville, A V A Anthony has spent a considerable sum of money in developing the
Site. And, as in those two cases, the City essentially has decided that a gasoline station is no
longer allowed to be constructed on the Site. Therefore, because the elements of equitable
estoppel, as they have been applied by case law to gasoline stations, are all satisfied, equitable
estoppel clearly bars the City from halting development at the Site.
The present case is substantially different from the Texas Co. and City of Gainesville
cases cited above in one important respect. In those two cases, the gasoline station facilities had
not yet been built, but in the present case, the gasoline station facilities have been largely
IS Id. at 105.
I" Id.
038315\83818\492204\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14,2001
Page 13
completed. This fact further strengthens the equitable estoppel argument because it shows even
greater reliance by A V A Anthony on the City's actions than in either Texas Co. or City of
Gainesville.
F. Estoppel and Fairness
1. It will be a violation of fundamental principles of fairness if permits are
not granted to A VA Anthony to complete construction of the Site. A VA
Anthony has invested over $600,000 in this Site - $275,000 for the land
purchase and over $320,000 for developing the Site. A V A Anthony has
also deeded a portion of the Site to the City. After the substantial
expenditures in reliance on City assurances, it is fundamentally unfair to
forbid A VA Anthony from continuing with development of the Site.:o
2. In addition, the Ordinance as applied to the Site creates an unfair result.
As Commissioner McLeod pointed out during the July 9, 2001 City
Commission Meeting, if the Site were on the opposite side of Hayes
Street, it would not be affected by the Ordinance, because it would be
more than 350 feet from Cumberland Fanns. Prohibiting further
development of the Site because it is located on the 'wrong' side of the
street certainly produces an inequitable result.
G. Damages
At the present time. A V A Anthony is faced with a foreclosure action regarding the Site.
A V A Anthony also has signed a contract with Phelopateer, LLC to finish construction of the
gasoline station and convenience store and then sell the completed Site. If the City does not
permit A V A to complete construction of the Site, and the Site is successfully foreclosed upon,
then AVA Anthony will lose both (i) the Site and all the money it has spent, and (ii) the profits it
would make at the time of the sale to Phelopateer, a bona fide purchaser.
Conclusion:
The Ordinance adopted by the City relied on faulty information in determining that A V A
Anthony's Site, along with three other gasoline stations discussed above, were abandoned. The
Site is not abandoned. A V A Anthony has incurred substantial expenses and engaged in
"0 See generally Therrell v. Reilly. 151 So. 305, (Fla. (932) ("Estoppel is a doctrine for the prevention of injustice.
It is for the protection of those who have been misled by that which upon its face was fair. and whose character as
represented. parties to the declaration will not. in the interest of justice. be heard to deny."); IHiami Gardens v.
Conway, 10:! So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1958) ('The doctrine of estoppel was invented and engrafted upon the common law
to prevent wrongs and not to promote them... it is interposed to prevent injustice and guard against fraud.")
038315\83818\492204\ I
Aaron 1. Gorovitz
September 14, 200 I
Page 14
construction activities in developing Site in reliance on City assurances, and it is unfair and
unlawful for the City at this point to forbid A V A Anthony from continuing with the development
of the Site. The law supports the conclusion that the site should be vested and that equitable
estoppel clearly applies in this case.
CMK
038315\83818\~9220~\ I
'.
"
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING
OIST ANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR GASOLINE FILLING
STATIONS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR
INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; A1~D PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act
and the City's inherent police power to zone property; and
WHEREAS, zoning regulations with respect to the erection of filling stations have been
upheld to be a valid exercise of the police power; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has reviewed the case Stone v. City ofllifaitland, 446 F.2d
83 (5th Cir 1971) and hereby finds that it is undesirable to locate too many gas stations in one area
because experiences of Florida cities have shown that the probability of business failure in the
gasoline station business is very high in this competitive area and such failures result in abandoned
gas stations which in most instances cannot be used for any other commercial purposes; and
WHEREAS, for example, the City Commission is aware of the abandoned gasoline station
located on State Road 434 in Winter Springs (Texaco), which has been declared a public nuisance
by the City's Code Enforcement Board, the abandoned gasoline station located on State Road 17-92
near the City of Casselberry City Hall, the abandoned gasoline station on the comer of State Road
17-92 and State Road 434, and the abandoned gasoline station near the 1-4 on-ramp on State Road
434; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission also finds that too many gasoline stations in one area can
cause the area to become a blighted eyesore which greatly diminishes the area in aesthetic and
commercial appeal; and
\VHEREAS, the enhancement of the aesthetic appeal of the City of Winter Springs is a
proper exercise of the police power; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission further finds that too many gasoline stations in one area
presents a high risk of fire, explosion, and traffic congestion. See City of Boca Raton v. Tradewind
Hills, 216 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4lh DCA 1969); and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No.200 1-13
Page I of 3
\VHEREAS, the City Commission also finds that the lighting standards used by gasoline
stations are very illuminous and can become nuisances if located too close to residential
developments; and
\VHEREAS, based on the findings contained in this Ordinance, it is in the best interests of
the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Winter Springs to establish the
distance requirements contained herein for gasoline stations.
NO\V, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF \VINTER
SPRINGS, HEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this
reference as legislative findings of the City Commission of Winter Springs.
Section 2. Code Amendment. Section 20-417, City of Winter Springs Code is hereby
created to read as follows: (Underlined type indicates additions to the Code.)
Sec. 20-417 Gasoline Stations.
ill} For purposes of this section. a "gasoline station" shall include any building
or structure or parcel ofland used for the storage and sale of gasoline or other
motor fuels. whether such storage and sale is a principal or accessory use on
the land.
ili1 There shall be a minimum air line distance of three hundred fifty (350) feet.
measured in a straight line from the nearest points oflot boundaries. between
a proposed gasoline station and any existing ~asoline station or between a
proposed gasoline station and anv lot zoned residential or anv lot on which
a school or plav!ITound is proposed or exists.
if} There shall be a minimum air line distance of three hundred fifty (350)
feet. measured in a straight line from the nearest points of lot boundaries.
between a proposed residential lot. school. or playground and any existing
~asoline station.
@ This section shall not apply to any pending gasoline station application which
is "vested" as provided by law. or any gasoline station lawfullv existing and
operatin~ at the effective date of this section. However, ifanv such gasoline
station shall discontinue or abandon its operations. for at least ninety (90)
consecutive days at a property. then this section shall apply to said propertv.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No.2001-13
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All ordinances
and resolutions or parts of ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the
extent of the conflict.
Section 4. Severability. Should any section or provision of this Ordinance, or any
portion hereof, any paragraph, sentence, or word be declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereto as a whole or part
thereof to be declared invalid.
Section 5. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance shall be incorporated into the
Winter Springs City Code and any section or paragraph number or letter and any heading may be
changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida.
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular
meeting assembled on the ~ day of July , 200 I.
S TO LEGAL FORlVI AND SUFFICIENCY
Y OF \VINTER SPRINGS ONL Y.
First Reading: July 9, 2001
Second Reading: July 23, 2001
Effective Date of Ordinance: July 23, 2001
F:\DOCS'City or' Winter Springs\Ordinances\Gasolinc: Station jpb.jd
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance ~0.200 I-I J
Page J of J
I (, L..: I -j ~/ DUII.DING DEP,\nTlAENT
V1 U - V' 1 i?G I~S- .;tA TE ROAD <13.1. WINTER SPRINGS. FLORID^ e
(" , EPHONE (<107) 327-1000
. OW'~C1\NAME Yi~. MO~lJJ'.1~ ~~TELEPHONEI1c1)G44 ''357L
\ f', \ '<<'~~ A'o,oRESS 'P. o. Bert: ""I, g . \.v' I ~ p","",-", I R.. 3'2. 790
, t \ \~E SIMPLE TITLE HOLDERS NAME: Av~ J'\.N'\Hotiy 1 LNG.
V\ MA'L1NGAOORESS, ? o. !>Ox 't 7 R ;:;,';v~ ~K. 4 3~790
. .~
;;;,;;;;,,~;,;;~~ ;~~~~~~: -. . - -:; 0 -,- , , ii.~'T . . '~;;m; -. '&;.. - , - 4?:<i' - - - - '- , , , " .... , .~
LEGAL DESCRIPTlON: LOT: 3t>ic; l BLOCK: SUBDIVI:s'ON: ON PU,.,J s J1T. 2. SITe.. PLtvJs
I),',j';:: '1'CO'<jC)
PARCEL I
. ZONING:
Ne,,, c.orJ'IeNI,WCe: "f!;rb{2.(;;..
WORK DESCRlPTlON; ESUIW
UVING AREA: SQ. FT. GARAGE/CARPoRT AREA: SQ. FT. PORCH/ENTRy: SQ. FT.
ESTIMATED VALUE OF ~ORK TO BE DONE: $-.12.~, 8w MODEl:
.
;;;.;;,;;;;~~. 'vE.;;.:r " r' ~$"" ~ ~... i;.i~~~~' ~"l" '*:~;IB i::~- 4:-
ADDRESS, ~ 1-1-, n ~. .. -ees _. '_,
UCENSE' C-elco ..s:z.,Z 'EXPIRES, .. WOAl<MAN's COM? if -7lf: 9 tf l~
BONDING COMPANY: ,JIb ( .. .....umn.............._
ADDRESS:
ARCHITECTIENGINEER: ..JA,..,e.s I. MGU}1,.j'
ADDRESS: ~ e. l'h~ S'61'JlFO~, Fl.. 3'Z7-11>'~
MORTGAGE LENDER: JJI b
I. ......_ _.
~J""'L~Y-Ho~ ~~Ot:.
. tbSo vJOOOCb!.llIZP. ~ ,Ft.
'3"Z.i'O'
'.
.
ADDRESS:
. -. t .., .~
. . . . . . . . ',' . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. ~ ,... . ~'... . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'" '- '-,
',. 'r .' ~ .
(.~:;~;~
ARBOR'PERMIT ,
SEPTIC PERMIT ,
PlEASE RE4D THE FOLLOWlNGANO SIGN JofIHEREAPPUC4BLE:
EVERY APPUC4 nON MUSTHAVE NOTARIZEO SIGNA TURc.~
WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT MAY REsuLT IN YOUR PAYING
lWIce FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY_ IFYOU lNl'ENo TO OBTAIN ANANONG, CONSULTWfTIi YOUR
lENDER OR AN ATTORNEY BEFORE RECORDING YOUR Nond:' OF COMMENCEMENT.
OWNERS AFFlDAVrT: I CERnFY lliAT ALL THE FOREGOING INFORMATION IS ACCURATE AND TliAT AiL WORK
WILL BE DONE IN COMPlJANce WITH ALLAPPUCABLE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND ZONING. I
FURTHER UNDERSTAN W. MUST~MMENCE WITHIN 60'OAYS'AN~BE COM~'N ONE
(1) YEAR FROM DATE Or. ljA GE OR ruE PERMIT WILL EXPIRE. r ./
( ~ '''.It 'J0. ./'''''''
SIGNATURE I ,fv.~' ~'.. SIGNATURE '. _ ~ I
AS TO OWNEPJAGEt--/T . AS TO CONTRACTOR
/I
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWlEDGED
BEFOREMETHIS-.I_'_ BY
WHO IS PERSONALLY
KNOWN TO ME AND WHO PRODUCEO
AS IDENTIFICATION AND WHO
DID (DID NOT) TAKE AN OATH.
NOTARY AS TO en if
COMMISSION /I ~
STATE OF FlORIDA COUNTY OF
MY COMMISSION EXPIRE
(SEAL)
.~, ,u,,(
.)....~ '"
.. :f-Y-
...~~il*
~~~
""'4"Y1f" ~~...
'FOft\\l
SYLVIA P D~NS~~50e31 e
M ComfTWS",n
E:pirf>9 Nov, 06. 1999
NOTARY AS TO OWNER/AGENT
t:OMMISSION I
$TATE OF FlORIDA COUNTY OF
'-1'( COMMISSION EXPfHES
(SE^l)
~~r--
:,QOmONAL PERMIT INFORMA1l0N
.j
\
AMPERAGE; +,d) '. ~~~~~GE:"i4r;Z ~O .'~~~ ,', 3 ,:'~1 .. ,:~~LE;" YES ~ NO_
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~. \ ~ '. .. ~ .. .. ..:.. .'...' .0 ~ .. .. .. .. . ~".. ~ 11II ~ .. .. .. -. .. .. .. ~ .. .. 11II .. .. .. .. .. .. 11II .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
COI<TRACTO", .td~ . t?j f~- UCENSE. .
CONTRACTOR ADDRESS: . !aUt) U ~SOV .~.
tJ/~ II.. / rI'" <3 2- ;'.Fff:"'~"~"'" . PHO~'~ ,'. (O/o7,:'(,/l(l{-OOF:f
;;.r....~ .
,....-.
",
r.-:':
.:. .
~;;~ '.,:.
. ,~ : : -. . ....i . ~
,
..' \ :.:" ~
'. ,
~~-,;. .
>":0.;:.;'.,' '.
.~;~..::.:'.::::'.:
. ~~.~~.~~..
~~{f:~ ..
, .
WORK DESCfUPTION:
CONTRACT AMOUNT:. fIt 000
SYSTEM'TYPe: 'p~~rr EER:
\\ (',-~'
SEER:
\
. ~ ~
, ,"",' ,
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ~.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .* .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .~ 11II .. .. ,* ~ .. .. .. ,* .. ~ ~ .. .. .. ~ .. .. .. .. "." .
III fJI^ II PLI/,YBINGPERloI/T . .,' '. · . . .'
CONTRACTOR: ({ I"V ( , ;1& AI 6>> UCENSE , .
C:I-: #- S
'(7b"2- Pi ~7rZ-\ J$Iro~ <.
tJ,4ANO" '" riA" 3 2~~L
CONTRACTOR ADDRESS:
PHONE'
<'In) 21,~ ....CYttJi
, "
WORK DESCfUPTION:'
NO. OF FlXTURES':
s;
. ' .
.....................'...............................................~.............
"RESIDENllAL FIXTURES: LAUNORYTRAY. SINK WATER a.D5ET. TUB OR SHOWER.
"OJMMEROAL FIXTURES: AS OEANED BY 1994 STANDARD PLUMBING CODE FIXTURE UNIT - TABLE 713.1.
OffiCE USE ONt Y
CALGULATED VALUE:
2rt"~ &-'1 L2.
PERMIT FEES:
PERMIT TOTAL:
t2~. 3/
a:.
.J -::;: (/ i .
~ 7sj..~()..
: "
BUILDING PERMIT:
PlAN REVIEW:
ELECTRICAL PERMIT:
MEOiANICAL PERMIT:
PLUMBING PERMIT:
RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT:
. ~t~,J
IMPACT FEES:
TRANSPORTAllON IMPAci/
POUCE IMPACT: . I'
ARE IMPACT: '
~.
~6"
. .:".
" '1,
fl.;!' .,
~~~~~~~~ ~~. "" "...
...........o~~VLj~Ar~
( ,
r-IRE !AAnSHAll APPROVAL OY:
OL.DCPEIlM;'JIl0l11l9:,
DATE:
- I
DATE 06107199 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS PERMIT # 99-00744
1126 E. STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS FL 32708
OFFICE PHONE 407-327-5963 INSPECTION LINE 407-327-7596
COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT
SITE ADDRESS: 701 E SR 434
SUBDIVISION: TEXACO
LOT# 30/5
PARCEL#
OWNER: ANTHONEY, AVA/ MONSOUR, GEORGE
OWNER ADDRESS: POBOX 478
CITY: WINTER PARK
PHONE: (407)-407-4076
STATE: FL ZIP CODE: 32790
CONTRACTOR: VEON, FRANCIS DWIGHT JR
ADDRESS: 5049 HWY 17S
CITY: GREEN COVE SPRINGS
LICENSE# CBC 035202
PHONE: (904)-904-9042
STATE:FL ZIP CODE 32043
WORK: CONSTRUCT NEW SERVICE STATION AND CONVIENENCE STORE
DESC.
VALUE OF WORK: 249861.00 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: lVU
SQUARE FOOTAGE: 3749 OCCUPANCY TYPE: M
STORIES: USE ZONE:
DWELLING UNITS: SPRINKLERS:
ARCHITECT
ENGINEER
FEES:
100-0001
100-0002
100-0003
100-0004
100-0005
100-0006
100-0007
100-0008
BUILDING PERM
PLAN REVIEW
ELECT. PERMIT
MECH. PERMIT
PLUMB. PERMIT
R.O.W. PERMIT
ARBOR PERMIT
RADON
1249.31
25.00
170.00
145.00
110.00
15.00
37.49
--------
--------
TOTAL FEES 1751.80
******************************* NOTICE ********************************
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION IS NOT
BEGUN WITHIN 2 MONTHS,OR IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION IS SUSPENDED OR
ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS ONCE WORK IS STARTED. PERMIT
EXPIRES 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF ISSUANCE.
*************************************************************************"
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS DOCUMENT AND KNOW THE
SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT: ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS ~>>-8~~~~?S GOV-
ERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETH~~6~9~~~LEroMHEREIN
OR NOT. GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO~E#AN~t~~~O VIOL-
ATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY STATE OR LOCAL LAW RkbUtAT~ CONST-
RU~N~THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
- - - - - -,I -'~~~~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _/_ _ _ _/_ _ __
(signature of contractor or authorized agent)
..)u,,-04-99 03: lOP Bross ier CO.llpany
407 644 7496
P.02
I ;f II i! ; I / f II ~. i ".. J :(!: I
1"!I'!"jl j 11:'1:' t"' " "il.!-!;
It) r1. I'il 1'1 1 ~Il i1'1[~I: 'f::, '.."':" "."i',.,,..~:
:,'rl l.)U.:l~ r.,F'I':'I...r.C(\TllJl~ II: 1(,1'.)1
:, , : I. [) II..,,: f'l 'W'" J'f HlIl'lI'li '1."
~"II r I"p:ln:,'r:~-,~;;: /01 ::i"l,.YTF ,,'J) "'1.::'"
'I.:(\! If!" ,,'rH.II..:: OL;I~
. ;\::1':: :;"1 i I~r:-:: ;:~O
!:III:l! I '.J 1.!'.::U.ll-1, :'i('oioJ
!:'I.,\ r ~'fJ"'<:
:IUr:,:r::I.'TC'1 ,rill, 0:,
I~:I"H:; ;: :'.; \) ~ "-;ur:- ::
W:I. t I fER r:i'f.::r ~,Ir.;!:.'
PI...t.,T [.(1I"W "i\(,I.c:
!dl"!:: to: I.lf".l~\
r'T)l\!~T'r;~'i :
) It, II :: I-Il,y :1 ~'"'' J ','1, .,..
t.( 1'.II"lt)' l'IUr1.r:tF: h': 1;'''''('.1
~.' .: I /.~:r~!.:Lr.~':': t Ilq':.
01. ,),'~ It ::
Tr':IlCT:
UOO''> U.ll::
0:;,'\
'1 'II i ''')1.11 Hil!'W.
('llilH'::!..~~\:; :
Vr.OI.) ,;: bO~I!:; C[)I'I~; i!-:III."fIOt.1
f:,Oll'] H~JY 1. ';' ::;
(,I.,'il (,1-1 n 1~11'1'" J ;'If ~ LJn"f(W:.,:',,; I. r:l.J
,:- f) I.fl~IX I.!'/U l.J 1':'1 i r:r:: r'(\r~l<
,
",'.
.:!\
,)i'IV t ":..;1. :. C, 1ft V(':'~II :i. ell Cl:~ l"li-\ l' J.:.(~ 1
) ;.t" "~:;I'c" c.:tJl'1I'1I:C1'(Cr,~I. I\(.~I:.;,\!
111.;1( 1..1 ~:r.I,II'Ill.J"':
I:
,"'"!
HFI'JFFTT
Il:U:;T
F,tYIF:
SCI.II:))'.I! ,F,-:
1I,-:i.'C> Ill.: II: ;." r.;I..~'~
.cu .~n m,:
(IfW ,I' 1'!(,I.ICe
"".;,;', "'::01 .IYCTOJ'::S ~;n. CF~nF:(,'<l.. ()I;: I) r 1'1('\1'/1';1::
: 11I-:"'d,y' t-I/,^,
! :11111 .11 ;.: :O-!/Il
",11 I'I! III
, I 'I \/: f,' 1:'1':
. _I!.o.gert ,,~: g::::~c::..
~.:. r [;1'/(", f I l. ,"
(! ;'U-:r.,:;I.:' ,..,:: T1'1T I'IAI'!!.)
'!i: f,}
!, :1, n.:'
I::I':'I:I'~ I:V 11'11; :,;:CCH,\Tl)I",y /AI"I"'I f(:,)I'IT:
.""1"1 '( f'('\YI'W"1T rlt,y F;:r:::S!.II..'r ! 1'1 '([It II:,
I.''' ('.'1.1""1 r 1>'\:, 1."-(flUI'll'(
.'.1"::11','
:. ,,1":'1:'1... T 1~,)i'l :
fl. ,', .11./"1 "Y
'1: II I I: .~. 'f:
:.':.rll!~; ,\1-:1' ;))IV;UIFl.l "If'I(,!" THIS :r~', (, STA'1f;p';
-.i'II/H"II' ("11./1'.11'1 1'::01','), '.T[lf:;:,V,y ,^,J.m/I)I...
'0 ','\1 : I I I. !ll,,f' J ".I(\/.ICY':.. . F FC~; ("f'" ')1 ," (:1,11) f'r,
;', 1 'I' II .f) II !,.~ 1:'1"'1':1'1'1: T ., /"ilYI'1I".I'11 I'ltoY 1:'1 :
':: l'III.llill 1.(/1.11'11'" UUJI nfl,lr; DFf'ill:':',',,::: ~rr.
rl ,';,,':/'iO -000')
r.jl~~::T.t'1 l:"I'I'..lC r:t.:'n 11'11.,':)
:.n] , ;~:?O/f .":i
""~I.r.:UI.,.)TlIJl.1 '.j(
Ti J I"ill JH n.:
~'.'I.# :'l il7 ~'1 .. ~., ~...
1.1-1. O~, I. _ ::11.
" I)'~l
".\J.<)..
;',; ilJUNT
D72g~'^""'o'"
!;,"',,: .. ..,I,~..~.j5.9~
I'" I' 'ii:'I': )"t"l I'~U rlFy/m'JI'II:J"-: 1~1'1l)
I. :i,".,':I! .l.T)' f:'f'F( 'l'IIF FTC. lfo":.n:i'
I: r 0:" H.:r:.:!:: nue 111'.101:'.1'; (HI
1" 1)1 1I.:il )' I (1I'1N. I ~;, :III"H 1I... \
:"",:1 f f"fUC.If( T\.I J'r:!:;!.I('d.IC;f""
,':"IlI' ,'1'1" CllIlI':r~ niL I:!.r)'
III':: i',I..: ,'.: '"II t"1!)',II.~:;"'I) TI'((\I (\/'IY l.;ffjljJ"(; III ::::' (\/"PI.\'(;(\I"I1".. em (11.'11'11:,1\.,
".r'I" (\: "Ii C:,',I ClJl (,IHII'! rw ('\HY II, 'rlW r,I:;~ ',:' ~:i:!.II.1!'H"':f.I lr'Ir:'''.CT FIL":
:n. I ".:'!.:':l:,!:'.[) flY Fll..U'II} 1', ':IIUTTF:i'l r:'i'/l:!I:~;T ~Hn'IU~ II:i r:ill..l:Hn,~I(
'" '. 'Ii rill r-:I CT l VJHI i ~;:rr';I.lr>'l Uf,r 1l(ITF: (,BCl\.'[. r'Li"i I'~UT lJ,'ru:; l/1r.I!.
'." "" ," I" fl" 'IF' q("'n.lJ""'r ~~l 'Y 01'" .'11"'1 'I '''''(",:'1'''' , , :'. "'FIJ' ,. ", ' r FIll" r'FV (1-'l'l
".f ':.!!', " II;; r::r:::r:ici:ir.:r','II:':H)'!,;" err: "hi, r/II:Jt-H'i 1,.11':11 '';r:i.;fl.I.'f'I;lr''ff '(:IJI'I:".
. , 1.11' :;'11'-1>; ,';Il'iFF:I'IU'II:; r,I"'F""(,I~; l'Ir.)Y rn.. ""'1'1.:1.' 1/1." Ilr( r;:CUl.Jr-:!;lVn.
,', ,i', I III. '" I/f. I. .(If'rlF. t.: f fiF:V'! ,..'~J I': ,00 I U '" :I .' '::' I r "I!:;T . r' H(~:;.f !::Tr,'F. ,. I.
\;'1: """:') ::1 :.;;~II1.~ ::;';'1."1L";0,. 1'.;":1 i:j',t. .
'., h' l./"f '.: "'1 il " "I:.. rl,',)JH:: 1 U:
['lI( ;
CJ"I'( Ur l" I r.:: j I'.: ~::I 'I." :'lG(".~
li,'/, 1::A:.f ;':""'1: I':lil',l) '1.;':1
1.".1 ~'I !'I.1': ~:;!:-I.. r I",',., r I . ;;:~"/Ol:l
!;I J 1 i., I,ll 1.1t i 1 ~i.! "I!'
, :1' 1" I" 1.1, 1I.r: l"" ,. , :
11("'1 ! ,. I I:.:
':,',1/: i:!,:i,l.. :',
,:"'1 !.' I ':111" I: I' W: 'i)' U II'::CI< f'h' I"':: ::.. Y Ct,-:",
. 1111;11'( :'!I"'l(~:',:';: r".r 1'lr:' T[1F' 1:~rGlr: (II: TlU:-
'l'i"'I,: (,I 1I1f"' 11.11" /..1.1'1 (Jr' 'nlF Hlnll!.. r,~:, L,;'I
I.':", 1'1\11'11:1...
'~'I:I~. ~:T(\fr:'Il'H'f l~"; I'!(J l,n~w.;Fr~' \.'(l! I''> ::r: '''I
':~;1 )', l.J r 114: :.; .')0 1"(~I.I'-:IH)('lr\ D(Y(~:) ....'1- II;" r.'l"'!:l" I
1J!":1'(\ I I. r.Jf' C(\LCUUH! ON AVf\! I.ABLE UPON REl'!)
"'11 III
V ~~I"I,'\JTi.:I::~:
11::1":/ I
PI..Dr:-;
.~.;~ /'/ l.
,"~ II! ~;'II )111..1> r::Fr. Ff~Fi'11 ,I
: ':,. AI'1f) 1'1 :1':' :.; r('\\"I"',111.I'11
,-,C, '(!"IU',,: (,'CIY l"IU.n:fl.Il:
';\'1111., f'l r::r'it'r n; N~n~:.1*
:': :; r'i1'I"" "";:1.' ))'^rTrA~~"ANtHONY INC CK 2740
C?'\L.L ::;21"1130,X7:SS00UNTY I/llPACT FEES
" OfdH999/03:47 PM
RCPT#:Ol-44447
$44526.56
NATIONSBANK, N.A.
RETURN ITEMS DEPT FL1-002-01-23
P. O. BOX 31590
TAMPA, FL 33631-3590
DATE OF NOTICE:
06-25-1999
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
DEPOSITORY ACCOUNT
1126 ESTATE RD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FL
DEPOSIT ACCOUNT:
CHARGE ACCOUNT:
RETURNED DEPOSITED ITEM NOTICE
PAGE
1 OF
1
CUSTOMER SERVICE: 1-800-299-2265
CENTER: 0109035
BANK: 00075
32708-2715
STORE/REFERENCE: 0000000000
WE HAVE CHARGED YOUR ACCOUNT WITH THE RETURNED DEPOSITED ITEM(S) LISTED BELOW.
FEES FOR ANALYZED ACCOUNTS ARE ITEMIZED ON THE ACCOUNT ANALYSIS STATEMENT.
NUMBER OF RETURNED ITEMS:
AMOUNT OF RETURNED ITEMCS):
1
44,526.56
SEQUENCE ABA NUMBER MAKER
0020005074 0000-0000
.
RETURN REASON
STOP PAYMENT
AMOUNT
44,526.56
@
t'..
.:
. ';\}'
\;',
.:i
O'OOG+
.~.~~
I'?
;' ~:'
L,'r..
~I~
t~.'"
~"'1:
~1':;
~'~",
~ :~~
......
:v~ :
!" c,'
t;;' '~ . .
,
, ,
c
". ~
!j . 0 D G 'r
..~.
l'r ~\ , 5 (~ (; .. :-; S +
2J22..'}-3:;>
(I ..'
G-t-
.,. .~; ~:
I.:
I:. L'
...
o
.J]
.J]
.J]
~~
ru
o
U1
o
--:l
r
.' , ,.' . ' . - - ~:~:~~...-' :~,: :.. ...... :
. I., . .
ack of Check for deposit
AVA ANTHONY, INC.
PRIME TIME
P,O. BOX 607777
ORLANDO, FL 32860
BANK CENTRAL FLORIDA
Orlando FL 32810
PAY TO THE
ORDER OF
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Fax (407) 327-6695
Code Enforcement
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 8. 200 I
TO:
FROM:
Anthony Garganese. City Attomey
Jimelle Cook. Code Enforcement Mnonger@
A VA AnUlony vested rights
RE:
I have reviewed the Memo from the attorneys for A VA Anthony. Inc. and olTer the following response:
· In my opinion. Ule common vested rights issue pursuant to Winter Springs Code Section 9-401 does
not apply. The code gives a property owner the opportunity to apply for a special vested rights
exception for zoning changes Uwt were made to bring said property into compliance wilh Ihe 1992
Comprehensive Plan. Thc "zoning changc" alluded to in Ule memo does nol apply in this case.
Utcrefore Ule special use pennit is not applicablc. All arguments Umt thc case meets the standards for
detcnnining vcsted rights (Section 9-403) arc moot.
· The argument for equitable estoppel. in my opinion, is not substantiated. The 3 elements have not
been met. The first element of "good faitll" has not been met. A VA Anthony did not acl in "good
faitll" to continue construction of the gas station. A Stop-payment ordcr was issued by thc owncr
against Ule $42.000.00 check for impact fees. Attempts at contacting Ule owners went unanswered for
monUls. llle City was not kept informed of the status of the abandoned site and had to force the
owners to construct a safety fence around the property to protect the public from falling into Ihe large
open pits surrounding Ule partially installed gas tanks. llle City contacted Texaco Corp. in :111 attempt
to reach Ute owners of the property and was informed that Texaco was "looking for them" as well. llle
standard of "good faiUI" Ik1s not been mct.
· llle second standard for equilable estoppel is based on some omission or action by the govemmental
agcncy. llle City of Winter Springs adopted Ule Ordinance requiring certain distances betwecn gas
stations while Ulere were no active building permits in place for gas stalions. 'ncre wcrc no
applications for building permits at Ulat site. This standard for equitablc cstoppel has not becn mct.
· The property owner chosc to abandon the construction sitc. llle property owner chosc 10 stop payment
on Ule impact fce check. llle property owner failed 10 reasonably inform the City of it's intenl and
furthcr. avoided communication wiUI Ule City for months. Bccausc of thc abandonmcnt of the site. the
f:lilurc to jJ<1Y impact fees, the failurc to communicate with the City. and thc failure of A VA Anthony
to rencw any building pennits. the City had no rc.1son 10 believe thm the site would ever be developed
by A V A AnUwny as a gas Sl.1tion. lllis standard has not becn met.
· In Texas I'S. TOlI'n Of Miami Springs. UIC developer had obtained nccessary building pcnnits before the
City changed thc ordinance. lllis is not the situation in this instance. A VA Anthony allowcd the
permits to expire well before the City of Winler Springs changed Ihc ordinancc. In /Jishllf \'s. Ci~v oj
Gainesville. the City approved a zoning change specifically to allow the gas stalion to be constnlctcd at
Ihe sile. then later changed Ule ordinance and prohibited gas stations. In this casc. howcvcr. a changc
was notmadc to the zoning dcsignalionto allow A VA Anthony to constnlct a gas station. Pcrmits
.j,
were issued to A VA Anthony to conslmcl a gas station per code at the time of application. They failed
to constmctthe gas station. Through no faull of the City. those pennits were left to expire and no
allempts were made prior to ordinance change to renew those permits. The cases are not similar
enough, in my opinion. to constitute precedence.
. On page 4, paragraph 3, the allorneys for A VA Anthony allege that the owners were in continuous
contact with City staff. They refer to a request from Code Enforcement to install a fence to prevent a
filing of a code enforcement lien and Ulat AVA AnUlOny installed Ule fence at the City's request.
What actually occurred was that afier weeks and weeks of calling, writing and allempting to contact
AVA Anthony about Ule unsafe conditions atthc abandoned site ( open pits and large piles of sand and
aggregate material) Ule property owner finally had a chain link fence installed. Aftcr a public hcaring
before the Codc Enforcemcnt Board for Public Nuisance charges, (A V A Anthony did not rcspond to
Ule charges and did not appear at Ule hearing to answer the charges) a fine was imposed. A V A
AnUlOny continued to ignore Ule City's rcquest for information. Finally, in an allcmptto abate the
visual nuisance of the abandoned site, Ule City offered not to place Ule code enforccmentlien on Ule
property if A VA AnUlony would completely fence the property with a 6 feet industrial or heavy
weight, opaque fence. TIus olTer was ignored. TIle City had no choice but to placc Ule code
enforcement lien against Ule property.
In paragraph 4, page 4, referencc is made to a meeting held in July 2001. TIlat meeting was held on
July 5, 2001. At Ulat meeting. discussions were made relating to the condition of the site and Ule code
enforcement lien. A VA AnUlOny was not told that if improvements were made then building permits
would be issued. City stalT informed AVA Anthony of a pending ordinancc concerning separation of
gas stations. During Ule week of July 9, somc improvements were made to thc site. but failcd to mcet
Ule conditions for compliance Ulat was discussed at the July 5, 2001 meeting and that was ordercd by
the Code Enforcemcnt Board. TIle codc enforcemcnt lien is still accming and will continue until
compliance is achieved.
. In conclusion, in my opinion, A V A Anthony is not vested. The property owner avoidcd
communication wiUI Ule City, failed to complete the project, allowed the pcnnits to expire. ignored
Code Enforccment action, stopped paymcnt of the impact fee check, and advcrsely impacted the
community by allowing Ule site to become abandoncd and degraded. TIle "good faith" elcment was
not met by the property owner. TIle Ordinance to restrict gas stations was duly advertised and adopted.
TIlere were no active pennits and no applications for site plan reviews submilled or pcnding at UIC timc
of adoption.
cc Ron McLemore, City Manager
Charles Carrington, Conununity Development Director
=.:JI..;-........:,z.___~..... .....-~.::.II'1
__!!.'~..lt.l.fI..,_'J....~..____...._..,'II'I.......'I........._______~
'Nov-07-01 03:22P
I ~fY:>/AJ Jt- AnI1H P. 01
\J~r2.10J>
WINTER SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT 0 RIG I N A L
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
TO:
FROM:
I DATE:
SUBJECT:
REF#:
Anthony Garganese, City Attorney
Glenn Tolleson, Captain
Wednesday, November 07,2001
Staff Comments on AVA Anthony Vested Rights Application
058-008-01
I have reviewed the Memorandum in reference to Vest Rights/Equitable Estoppel:
Gasoline Station/Convenience Store, 434 & Hayes Road. During the staff reviews
in 1999 the developer had met all staff requirements and was approved for
building permits. However, I am not aware of any other issues other than in March
2000 there was some litigation on the property. All the facts that are stated in the
Memorandum appear to be correct as stated.
Jan Palladino
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
donald leblanc [proudcajun@worldnet.att.net]
Thursday, November 15, 2001 7:58 AM
Jan Palladino
other infor
tell Ron that at one time the people with Texaco at the corner of Hayes and
SR 434 owed the city beaucoup monies for impact fees. they had written a
check and then put a stop payment on it. don't know if they made it good or
not. Jimette, I believe, is familiar with that which I bring to his
attention. If Louise has no record, Ron could get in touch with Harry.
Take care.
1
(j)Jt'l'l ,4.1I-11n ~ i::/J
.~ .---..
/
/0
~vvj
~:-.-
/'-."'_' .-~. S'..cj...'.
1t:J\..._- . i" ..
/;,.. ,-....' ,'. . 1"
(i- - ;".-.. - Cl i
\u '~-, (J) J
. ,I"". OfT'Jr.rlroJ \. J. '/'
. )'-.l5Q ,~~
" .f;> ----'.. /
~
Utility I Public Works
Department
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Fax (407) 327.6695
November 26, 200 I
TO:
Anthony Garganese, City Attorney
Kipton LockcufT, Public Works/Utility Director j#"
FROM:
RE:
A VA Anthony Vested Rights Application
I have reviewed the memo from Mr. Gorovitz dated September 14, 2001 and generally find the
representations relating to Public W orks/Utility Department to be factual.
Right of way was conveyed by the property owner for improvements to the Hayes Road
intersection which were completed by the City. Mr. Gorovitz states on page 4 that the
conveyance was". .. in exhange for and as part of the negotiation concerning construction of a
gasoline station and convenience store facility on the Site." Any development which occurred on
the property would have been required to convey the necessary right of way to match the rest of
the Hayes Road right of way.
The off site water and sewer improvements have been constructed but the necessary DEP
certifications have not been completed. Both DEP permits have subsequently expired and they
would need to be reauthorized for the the certificaitons to be completed.
I do recall a problem with the Transportation Impact Fee payments that had insufficient funds.
Finance is researching to determine whether this situation was rectified.
Cc: City Manager
File
~ece1ved: 10/25/01 8:47AM;
407 423 4495 -> 8AOWN.WAAD,SALZMAN&WEISS.PA;
Page 2
14J00::!
_ 10/25/01 THU08:4iF.il40
2J 4-195 LDDKR
.._----~--.._-~- -------.--
----
LOWNDES
DROSDICK
DOSTER
KANTOR &
REED, P.A.
215 NORm EOLA DRIVE
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801
450 SOUIl:l ORANCE A. VENUE, SUITE 800
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801
POST OrFlCE BOX 2809, ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32802-2809
TEL.: 407-843-4600/ FAX: 407-843-4444
www.lowndes-law.com
Attorneys at Law
CINDY M. l<JRKCO/lo'NEI.L
Nortb Eol. Drive Office
DirtCt Dil1l: ~41S-626l
[-mail: eiady.ldrkcoDDell@lowodC3-l:aw.colQ
October 25,2001
Vl4. FACSIMILE
Anthany A. Garganese, Esq.
Winter Springs City Attc1rney
Brown, Ward, Salzman & Weiss, P.A.
225 E. Ro.binson Street, :;uite 660
Orlando, Florida 32802-:~873
Re: Vested Ri ghts Determination for Hayes & 434 Site
Dear Anthany:
In cannectian wirh the vested rights special USe permit applicatio.n memarandum submitted to.
you an Mo.nday, Octobe:r 22, 2001 by Aaro.n 1. Goro.vitz, please find enclosed "Exhibit A" to. the
memorandum. "Exhibit A" represents the Public Purpase Warranty Deed fro.m A V A Antho.ny, Inc.
conveying a partian af the Hayes and 434 praperty to. the City of Winter Springs far creation af a left-
turn lane and is referred t,) an page 4 of the memorandum.
you.
Please call me if)'ouhave any questio.ns regarding this matter. We loo.k farward to. hearing from
CMK
Enclasures
c: Aaran J. Go.ravitz, Esq.
Kamil Gowni
Ken Wood
03&409\83818\5020177\1
Sincerely,
6>>~
A foundini mClTlbcr ofCornmen:ial Law Affilill'Ccs. 11 worlmv;dc /lttWortc o(indcpcndent law ti:ms.
F'ece.1.ved: 10/25/01 8:47AM;
10/25/01 THlT 03:4i F.\X 4Q
407 423 4495 .> BROWN,WARD.SALZMAN&WEISS,PA;
'2J 4495 LDDKR
Page 3
[4]OOJ
--.---
- --'---"-
-'-'-'-
-----
------.--
r-
J
EXHIBIT -A-
~ .
'........... . "'. 7o~
c..u::~.' :"1
.,. 1'J.
. ux~~~:C~POSEWARAANTY CEED
(SaClan 337.2S (4) F.S.J
Grantar.
Ava Anltlony, me
841 East 5th Sl
Mt Dora, Fl 32757
c;
9C
Grantee: .., CX)
@ Citj of Wmtllr Sprltlgs ,.. 0
~, 1126 5.R. 434 co
Winter Springa. Fl32708
Property Cesaiptfon:
Part of Lots 30 and ,;, plU:Slhe vacated street between said fols, Entzminger Farms
Adaition No.2, SCClJI "ing to the p/at lt1ereor as recorded in PIal aaak 5, Page 9 of 1110 Public:
RlICOrda of Sem1nokr County, FTctida, beir1g mOn3 particularly deliClibed In E:d1Jbit "A"
ACQUlSmON PARI ~ atl.ac:hed to 111$ document
(iax Parcel: 34-20.:10-5- AW-OOCO-0300)
THIS WARRANTY C EED, exacuted Itlls Lday o~/l,,,, ,'1'1999, by and between
Ava Anthony, lnc., th a Party oHh8 First PlIl1 and City ~l9r Springs, Florida, lh& party
of lf1e Sec:md Part
WlTNESSE:iH
WHEREAS. 'he hlIn!Ins1tsr desc:ib8d Ilrtlperty held by Ava Anlhony, Ine.. a Flerfds
Corporation is need,,~ far public Improvements. Ava Anthony, lne, on ,1(., (" I'/'''{ has
approved convElyanr.a to the Gl'lIllIDe without considaratlon, to be used solely ror PU/:Uc
Purposes, pursuant I) the PR1v\s1cns of Sedlen 937.25 (4), otthoAalida Slatulas.
WHEREAS, the City of WlllSr Sprinqa nsed$ltle right of WtrJ 10 Impll3YS and
raaa(lO ltlB entrance 10 S. R. 434. and
WHEroEAS tile CIty of 'Mrtsr Springs will utilize said right of way for fngrn&8 and
eqrass from Hay" R~aoj 10 S.R. 434.
NOW, THERI;FORE, THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH; Thalltle P::ty or the
rlTSf Part doe.s heretr I remJsa and 19/sI1S8 unto Itla party (partlllS) of tile
Seci:Jn.cI Part, and rori1ver, all right. tlIle and intetS4t of Ava Anlhony, Inc. to Ihe
property della1bed or' EJchibIt "A", ~on ParcsI, attached hemto and rIlIId9 Ii
part thereof. wilh lhe : arms and ecndiIions aat rOlth therein.
TO HA'IE A.'1 J TO HOLO Itls ilIld premises and tlIe appW'tananeaa Ihanlof
unto the ?arty (Parue: I) of fJ1e Second Part
I
~
W
..;.;-...J
~o
-...J
a
r-
.....
'-1.1<.:-
o~
<::)....
;:.:-
1'":.
.b
." ~,
,',
'QCJ
.I>.::to
C'lQ
('1(11
n
",,...
~.
~7.1
<<" So:
'"" = - ...,,;
N ."t'n:
..,~;
Onr
.c- ec:.
(0 :~~~
.<('i(
:~g:
:u
...
CD :u
..... ,..,
to n
- <:>
'- 0
<:">
,."
....., c
Iloo
;::: <
.....
~ ;::,
5
W '''I
N
-
i
I
~.
i'lece~ved: '0/25/0' 8:47AM;
10115:01 THt. 08: -Ii F.il 4
407 423 4495 .> 8ROWN,WARD,SALZMAN&WEISS,PA; Page 4
12J 4495
LDDKR
@004
'--""-"-'-'
'---'-.
--"-
r I~
I
L
.-'"
l
I
Page 2
THIS CONVHYANCE is f\rtlQr condilionad on the following:
AU. rfghlS at acow Ii om adlolnlng ptopelty 0'M100 by the party at the Fltst Part and all rights
of Ugh!. air and vlllW. Ull. hereby rllSGIved to !tie Party of ttle F"1I'3t Part In addition. it,
at any lime Party at t 1e SeCOnd PM abanacns lI'Ie property, Oilases use of I!le property for
PubUc Purposes, aQ light, IilIe and inIerost in and to ttle prcperty shaD automalical/y
revert lD ttle Party of ttle FIrst Part
c.J
The Grantor hereby (~vensnts to I8Id Grantee that at the time at delivery at this deed cr. ~ we..
Ihe property \VBlJ fnIfl from all <<1ClIllllrance made by him, 8J<C8;lt taxes acc:rui1g ff ~ g ~
subsequent to 0ealr.1ber 31. 1998, IIl1d that he Will warrant and defend the SlIlll8 a :'CE
ag.a/nat the IavduI da ma and detnlltlds at all penon:s c:!aInW1; by, through. or rmder ~ ' .
but against none oltu".. No olllerWlmllltles, 8llpr8S$ Of implied, arQ glVlln by lhl9 C"l 'J
Public Purpose Wan: lllty Deed. ~ 0 .::;
CQ ':lLo
~ 0 ~5
l.O 1'1U.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Aw Anltlony, Inc. has caused thase presents 10 be
signed In the name 01 Ava ~ by its Director, and its seal to be herelnunder affixed,
attested by iI3 Olredc r. on the dalD first atlow wr1tten.
,
SIgned; ~ and .
~~rod in our pt'B8E nee
rJ?a$S~../.. ('"
/. / .~.;< 1/;.'1.'( . /
. Cic~~ ~.,. /- ,. :-( ,." t. ..::,
AVA ANTHONY. INC.
..,.=.....---- ----...
) .. .
.., .-J. I..~ I
By
George R. Mansour
Director
STATE OF FLORIDA,
COUNTY OF SEMINOLE
(SEAL)
Before Me, Itlll undarnlgnad autltotity, thia day pet'3cnally appeared Mr. George R.
5.1tll'l;;uur, [JircQw uf J,vu IlIri;'QIIY, ~l\,;. 11 FlurilJu w'i^'{anon. ....ill.. U~lJr, PflJduting Pl'lJIJCI
r~nliflcatLon, to me kr awn to be ~ pe/'3an dssaibed In and who eJC8C1Jtad ttle f~
lnatNme"t. and I1e tld :nowled;ed tB exsaztfon thereot to be hili tree act ar.d dEled liS lIUCt'I
Olredor for ftle uses 3 nd ptlTpOSea !lenrin menllcned. end !tIst he affixed theraID toe
Official SeaJ of i8ld A lrida Corpa;;llcn, and ltle 3ald lna1rum1lflt is the act and deed of
said Flotfda ~ln. Iff Ie
WITNESS my :,and end otficiaJ seal lhls
1959 .
~0J4fil!Al. SEA/J
;~*lIy~CCl7"lo'
".:.iI E_~...~
l
f4L,r.i1 I, \.- (l' '*" '
Notary PubHc, ::,tata of Florida
Ny <Xlms~, I .
/ 'tc' - ~JfI
,. Tp..~ ....1/1
PamIIJ r-. tJ or -- .......~
""'~ID.?r96aIf ' II l:(. )} "',~J~
.~J~ . (if.
'(,. i ~ (I
,
L
I
I
. AeceJ..ved: 10/25/01 8:48AM;
407 423 4495 .> BROWN.WARO.SALZMAN&WEISS.PA; Page 5
10/:!5/01 THU 08:48 F.il 4r \234-195
LDDKR
[4J 005
"_.-..-.-..._~
---"- - '--.-----
---....---
---'-
----.
r-
I
The fCl1lgDltlg instil mutt prepncr by George F. Edwards, P.E.
CIty ot'M1blr $Jlltgs, FICIlda 1118 Eat SA 434 'MnfIr SllfIrrgs FL 3270lI
w
c/. -J cnc-
/Tl Q Q'"
:r 0'"
...,J :'Xc:;
Q 1F
.....
.~ ".rJ
n Q ."n
? "
CO ~o
..., ;:;0
r- (;')0
0 r"",
t.
=.J
.Received: 10/25/01 8:48AM;
10/25/01 THw 08:~S FAX ~r
407 423 4495
. 2J H95 LDDKR
BROWN,WARD,SALZMAN&WeISS,PA;
Page 6
141006
..__._...._~._._-..
..-.-..----....--.--
._~--._._-.-
Ir
-
-
r"'l
r\,
,
Sheet lof2
See Sketch ofDesc:ripoOll
Included as .......JR..]W1 "A-
~"".\1""
DESCRlPTION' (OVERALL PARCEL)
A pan of Lot:: 30 and SI plu3 the Y3l:ated strcec bctwCetl said Jots, Entzminger F~
Addition No. 2, 11cx:ardiDg to tile plar t/mafu ~ ill Plat Book: S. Page 9 oIrhe Pubuj
Records of Sem nolc Cwnry, Florida, beiaB IlIOte parlicuJarly d=ribed .u foU0W3: :a
...
Begin 25 feet l"onh aDd 511 feet West of the NonhtASt COl"ller of 3aid Lot 5 I: thellce ni
Soutb 12" 38' 3:'. West, 437.1 feet; dleucc I'IID NOttb 17" 21'2)" West, /9O.S feet; drencH.
run North 12" : 8' 37. Ea.sl493.4J feel; t!Ience run South 198.65 teet to the POINT dF
BEGINNING. (..ess road Righr-<lf-Way).
W I
" ~c.. j
C 0-.,
0'" I
-' :.;-
("')
> [
I-
";J I
0 !"ol
0;"\ I
Cl:) ~c I
;:;0
C'JO
''1(J'1
Li~"1W~Oli (f.CQUlmiCN ?;,;.crt)
Begin at a point 25.00 feet North aad 50.00 fa:! Wes: of the Nott.i~t cornet of Lot 51,
EntmUngcr Parm: Addition No. 2, according to the pial t.'tcrC!t1f' as re:orded iD Pial Book 5,
Page 9, Public R ~rds of Seminole Courrty, Florida; thence South 12. 18' 37. We.~ fOr a
di3tl1nce of 8.34 feet; tlIencc 'N0l1h 00. SJ' 23" Wet alOlIg I Une 33.00 f'cot West of and
JW!llel to the Cetlterlinc of Hayes Road ~ dcscribed in O.R. Book 1042, Page 220, Public:
Rc:con:!s ofSeminJle Couney, Florida, tbradimac.:of I86.BO feet; chence Soufh 54. 01' 2.3*
East for a distan< e of 9.99 teer. lhence Soutb 00. SJ' 2)" E.1st alOl13 die existing W<:3terly
Riglu-<lf.Way !in: or said Hayes Road !'or a dWnce of 173.46 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Contains 1461.0:5 square fuel or 0.033S a.cro. more or I~.
Prepared by.
This clc:Jaipli<a IIld tb: ~IJ sbrdJ at
Jtdcla:s W been prc:pu=f ill G~ IIiIh /he
SlandmIs JCI bib ia ~lcr 61017. FAc...
~rO~177ll1loJm.Jo1..ada~
. .lJ~ii,ll.;'3nd.1!.lr~ar;lIldlll..cricindrub:d .
. ~ at .JIfCt~ li~~ IIad =(IF UIio
' dla~:~ [lj.aI, rrr '~,1s lUr in(ulIUllillNl
~~~Yal&,,:oljJ,
'*'~
~~i~l ..:M9~KI ~=
l/.
.
linklepaugh Sur\' !}'ing Services. Inc.
319 West MichigiJ n Sired.
Orlando, Florida ~ 2&06
(401) 422-Q9S1
LB. 3178
File 1rT99-A6J
1=
I
I
:J
Aeca~ved: 10/25/01 6:46AM; 407 423 4495 .> 8AOWN,WAAD,SALZMAN&WEISS,PA;
10/25/01 THl' 08:-18 FA.! -1'- -I2J -I-l95 LDDKR
r-=.
J' . 'Snf'CH t'F DffSt}\'/P.7'l'QH
I POR BCD? O)~ JUT ACQt7ISJ7'./OH
- NOT A SURVEY _
S'lJ1l~'s 1IOTiS:
I.) THIS /5 HOT A BOUNOAAY 9JR'ttY.
2.) ~CS AIlE BASt!) ON T;;e: 'lrtSTtllI. Y RlGHT -<If" _ W.a Y
:.IN[ Of HA'rtS RO~ AS BDNC S ocr S2' U. EASr (.AN
ASsuIolED WEiltDlAH).
1) CESCRlPnOH AIIC OOUHCARl Of.TA ~OIlN 'Of! THE
OI,fRAU PARca ARE FRau A !OWlllARY 9.JltVE"r i'.t!:?AREO
. BY OnERs, SUt/l@ TO M F1I:I.l 9'1' !liE CUtNT.
..) 0EScRIPT10H OF ~CQUlSInOH PARCa QJ/(RATID BY
1IiIS .!RIoI.
, I'Ilt NO. n9-44,J FIl.tO IN Sl("6724
C
I
I
I
I
~
~ 0/1
.r!E
.~. i5
~~
c: ...
::1.2
"=
?;o-
- ...
.= a
.a....
W
'"
-'
Page 7
14J00i
--'--.-.
-..,_._,._._~-_..
'-'-"-"-
'--~'---'-
l
A TTACHEMENT 'A.
~ . POINT Of' CO~MENCEJ.lENT
8. . NCR1I1(m CO~ ~ I.or 51.
1 - ~ J CIl),.. EHl7llIt(CCR rA1lJ.lS. AllOfIlOH H)
~ I ..........--.1 ;'.h~~ 1. PlAT 9OQ(,. PACE Il
~ .'~ ~-.q-~<P~I~
~, ~,'!J~ /S'~- 4>O';~~
q; I <; <;,{~ ~ Oo'SJ~'<Ilt~ ~ r~Oo'
~ ~4 C ,;~~ i~n:; ~
~ \0. J Ii OO'.s:J ~ 8.46' .~.. q
~ .,#,1 LJ P <.j-... . l<:ip'7"--i.
~ ~I ' ~~ - ~CPoStD R:, Iv I /"l! POINT OF
~ .~ ~ I ~~ ; CIt., 0,. It4r :~~ ;3:.' _ eECINNING
~ ~"" !;I :~ -. -ot.:.-, : II .\,-.....
.. l")~.' I: --............
I ~ 0 r: q'!orr '"
~ :r~ I .::~~..~
~ ~/I ,\{ ~:o.~ :.' I~' I'>>t.~~ltt
~ ~ ~ P~7' Mar So .P..iQ' .I J ~
~ ~/' ~.;,' ~lJr 3tJ ;' ;:/.-. '~l
~ ~ ., t:' .' l'
~ ~1' ;,: ;.:" :;
-. I~
....
i r :~
I r .' I
t _. - - - - _I _ ~ _ _ ~f! J
N 1 nl'2.r' 'tt 190.J2'
. ~~D f.uurs
..i.t1.1}TJ771)1'f .Yo. ~
.P.JJ7' Jt7t7r g; P..i&'.l 3
Co.)
en -./
:2Q
%-./
o
r-
,..
go
..,c::t
r-
N
~/HCb ?~JlJIJ'
4oVP7".;;7V,!t .r,,- ,;;
PU7" 400r S; P.I(;J' !J
TlnkJepaugh J
SURvE'rlNC SERVlCfS. IHe.
>>t .. W'ocNojao su..~ Sola ZOII, Cflt-. fbloo )~
r.1o. ~ (ill'7l c:2.~ ,.;-x;:.r;-aTj "~r:-
~ ilUelllJ:>':j w.. :rna
j
I
I
.1
I
--.J
~.
~~~.:~~.:~, s
(fL~ . n ,,~
)...{.., ~'- -~.'-' \1
1-( . 1 '-."
- '. \ !
u .~.... ,en
.~I~Y"
.~l..ORIOp.:
Code Enforcement
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Fax (407) 327.6695
rvtEMORANDUM
DATE:
Febnrary 4, 2000
TO:
Ron MCLemt;,re, C' Man<lger
Ch<lrles Carri t n, Community Developmen~~irector
Jimette Coo , e Enforcement M<lnager @
Texaco project/ S.R. 434
THROUGH:
FROM:
RE:
· In June. 1999 the City received notification tlmtthe projectman<lger of the Tex<lco project had
resigned. We were instructed to direct all correspondence to I1le owners George Mansour and
Kamil Gowni.
· On July 29. 1999, the City instructed \lIC owners to install a fence around \lIe perimeter of the
site and to keep the arc.1 locked until such time as impact fees are paid and penn its are issued.
· A fence was installed <lbout a mon\ll later after re(JC<1ted cOnVers.1tions and correspondence
with \lIe owners. It was installed wi\llOut pcnnits. on the right-of-way and in such a way that
it impeded tralTic visibility. It was finally moved after repeated conversations and
correspondence.
· TIlere was information I1lat some sort of litigalion was involved between \lIe owners and the
previous contractor and that construction was halted until I1mt situation was resolved.
· Impact fees were paid 10 I1le City, but a "SLOp payment" was put on the check before it could
clear. Those fees arc still outstanding. ( approx. $44,000.00 and 5% penalty for "stop
payment")
· Late 1999 \lIe City obtained \lIe area along Hayes road and constructed a turn lane. TIle
City's contractor removed part of the fencing to construct \lIe turn lane. At some point. I1le
reminder of I1le fence along I1le rear of the property next to Hacienda Village was removed.
but we do not know who removed it..
· In November, 1999 charges were brought against the owners of the property. Ava Anthony
Inc. for crc.1ting a public nuisance. TIle Code Enforcement Board found I1le owners in non-
compliance and levied a fine to be imposed after notification to the owners and after a
reasonable time Notice was sent to \lIe owners of this Order.
· The Certified letter was sent to I1le owners of record, but was refused and marked
"refused/moved/no forwarding address". No fine could be imposed at \llis point.
· Research into the Department of State records revealed the corporation's allomey is loc.11ed in
MI. Dora. The Order was faxed to the allomey and telephone conversation verified Ihat it was
received. The Corporation's allorney gave me the correct address for \lIe olTieial office of the
corporation and lhe Board's order was sent certificd mail.
· There were many telephone conversations with lhe owners over lhis lime period and each
time the owncrs insisted that the litigation was drawing to a close <lnd that we would sec
;lction on the site "in 2 wccks".
· There was a lelephone conversalion on Febnlary 2. 1999 wilh Mr. Gowni in which Mr.
Gowni said Ihat inlpacl fees were indeed paid. Ihal building permils were in order nnd Ihal
construclion would begin on Monday, Februnry 7. 1999. As of Febnwry 2. 1999 illlpncl fees
were not paid nnd building pennits were expired.
· The owners of Ihis property have been less Ihan coopernlive wilh the Cily since they became
involved in this project.
· Wc have received many complaints from the residcnls in Hacienda Village and from olhcrs in
thc Cily aboul the potential hazards tJlat exiSI al this site.
· Options 10 consider:
· Bring tJle isslIe back to tJle Code Enforccment Board and ask that Ihey order Ihc Cily to
correct the violnlion by fencing tllC property and licn the property to recoup the cosl of
the fencing.
· Bring the issue back to tlle Code Enforcemcnt Board and ask tlk1t Ihey order the Cily to
correct tlle violation by mowing tJle property, filling in the holes, removing thc debris.
and fencing the property and lien tlle property for costs involved.
· Respond to tJle management of Hacicnda Village suggesting that tJley erect a fence on
tlleir property at their cost to protect tJlemsclvcs from visual distractions and what they
perceive to be a "dangerous situation".
L '1:::7Y3 L OJ/.\- ,..r ~
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
May 27, 1999
Robert B. Reese
Brossier Company
P.O. Box 478
Winter Park, FL
32790-0478
RE: Texaco Station Construction Delay - Corner of SR-434 & Hayes Road
Dear !vIr. Reese:
As you know, construction commenced and then stopped at the subject site. We understand there
was a change in the choice of site contractors. Presently. there has been no construction activity at
the site for five (5) weeks now. My assistant, Zynka Perez, made a site inspection this morning to
log existing construction hazards and deficiencies. They are:
1. Trees, that were to be removed from the site, are uprooted and still on the site.
2. There has been no removal of damaged storm pipes and structures.
3. There are various amounts of loose debris on site.
4. The Hacienda Village sanitary sewer connection is incomplete. Their roadway is still unusable
in the vicinity of the proposed connection. The excavated trench, for the sanitary piping is still
open in Hacienda Village.
5. The proposed stormwater retention pond on site is basically an open trench in it's incomplete
state of construction.
6. lbere arc sections of broken sidewalk at SR-434 and Hayes Road, due to your construction
equipment entering the site.
At present, this site is in violation of City Code. Discussions with Jimetle Cook, City Code
Enforcement Officer, indicate you must begin construction at the subject site bv Mav 28. 1999,
or the matter will be taken to the City's Code Enforcement Board for action and/or fine. The site is
now in violation for five (5) weeks. The Building Division states your contractor failed to pick
up the construction permit today because he did not wnnt to pay certain impact fees. If there
is no construction activity commencement by May 28, 1999, it is my understanding that Code
Enforcement will require that you immediately crect a stockade fence arollnd the whole site.
; ..."
, . \
,.
Robert B. Reese
Texaco Station - SR-434 & Hayes Rd.
May 27, 1999
page 2
Presently, the subject site is unsightly, at best, and residents and elected officials are complaining.
Payment of impact fees is not optional, it is required by law. It is recommended that YOU eet in
touch with Jimette Cook. in Code Enforcement (ohone # 407-327-5979) immediately to avoid
Code Enforcement actions by the City.
If you have any engineering questions, please give me a call at 407-327-1800 ext. 315.
Mark L. Jenkins, P.E.
City Engineer
cc: Community Development Director, Charles Carrington
Land Development Coordinator, Donald LeBlanc
Code Enforcement, Jimette Cook
Building Official. Don Houck
Robert Reese, FAX # 644-7496
Roscoe Biby, PE., FAX # 894-4791