00-003040 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Division Of Hotels And Restaurants vs. Joseph Sansalone, D/B/A Fountainview Hotel Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, January 18, 2001.

Summary: Numerous violations of safety and sanitary requirements warrant revocation of licenses of public lodging establishments.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF HOTELS AND )

RESTAURANTS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 00-2949

)

FOUNTAIN VIEW HOTEL, )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF HOTELS AND )

RESTAURANTS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 00-2950

)

LAMPLIGHTER HOTEL & APARTMENTS, )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

DIVISION OF HOTELS AND )

RESTAURANTS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 00-3040

)

JOSEPH SANSALONE, d/b/a )

FOUNTAIN VIEW HOTEL, )

)

Respondent. )

__________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in these

cases on October 10, 2000, at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before

Administrative Law Judge Michael M. Parrish of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

For Respondent: No appearance.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

This is a license discipline proceeding in which the

Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the licenses

of two public lodging establishments and against an individual

alleged to have operated a public lodging establishment without a

license, on the basis of allegations set forth in three separate

Administrative Complaints.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By written notice to all parties, the final hearing in these

three consolidated cases was scheduled to begin at 8:45 a.m. on

October 10, 2000, at a location specified in the Notice of

Hearing. At the appointed time and place, the Administrative Law

Judge was present and representatives of the Petitioner were

present, but there was no appearance on behalf of any of the

Respondents. Commencement of the final hearing was postponed for

thirty minutes to afford the Respondents an opportunity to

appear. There was no appearance on behalf of any of the

Respondents during that postponement.

The hearing was called to order at approximately 9:15 a.m.,

at which time the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to

present evidence. The Petitioner presented the testimony of two

witnesses and offered seven exhibits, all of which were received.

At the request of the Petitioner, official recognition was taken

of various regulatory and statutory provisions identified by the

Petitioner. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Petitioner

requested, and was granted, ten days from the filing of the

transcript within which to file its proposed recommended order.

There was no appearance on behalf of any of the Respondents at

any time during the course of the hearing.

The transcript of the final hearing was filed with the

Division of Administrative Hearings on November 15, 2000.

Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a Proposed Recommended Order

containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 The

Petitioner's proposals have been carefully considered during the

preparation of this Recommended Order. 2

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material hereto, the Respondent Fountain

View Hotel (Fountain View) was a public lodging establishment,

license number 60-00163-H, located at 5617 44th Street, West Palm

Beach, Florida.

2. Lawrence Joseph Vavala (Inspector Vavala) was at all

material times employed by the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a

Sanitation and Safety Specialist (Inspector).

3. Catherine Driscoll (Supervisor Driscoll) was at all

material times employed by the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a

Sanitation and Safety Supervisor .

4. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala inspected the

Fountain View and found numerous violations of public lodging

service rules, all of which he marked on his lodging service

inspection report of April 17, 2000.

5. On April 17, 2000, when Inspector Vavala performed an

inspection on Fountain View, he observed that the smoke detectors

were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4 in the front building.

This violation is a critical violation because it endangers the

life and safety of individuals living in the public lodging

establishment.

6. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

premises, Inspector Vavala observed that there were no portable

fire extinguishers installed in the back building on either

landing on either floor. Further, there was no fire extinguisher

on the first floor, bottom landing, in the front building. In

public lodging establishments, fire extinguishers are required to

be within 75 feet of potential fire hazards. There was a fire

extinguisher in the hallway on the second floor, but it had not

been inspected since September 1994. Fire extinguishers are

required to be inspected annually. These violations are critical

in that they endanger the lives and safety of individuals

residing in the public lodging establishment.

7. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

premises, Inspector Vavala observed evidence of rodent droppings

in the water heater room on the south side of the building and

cockroaches in the kitchen cabinets of Apartment 4. These are

critical violations in that disease is spread in this manner

which endangers the health and safety of individuals residing in

the public lodging establishment.

8. During his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala

observed electrical wiring in disrepair in Apartments 3 and 4.

Wires were hung through a window out to the back porch, simply

hanging by cord and socket. These are critical violations in

that someone could be injured by the wiring. Further, in being

exposed to the outside elements, it could cause shortage and

fire. These are critical violations in that they endanger the

safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging

establishment.

9. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

premises, Inspector Vavala observed that the cooking stove was

inoperable in Apartment 4 and the air conditioning units were

inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4. This is a critical violation

because tenants may bring in propane or charcoal stoves to

prepare food which would be a fire hazard and could endanger the

safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging

establishment. Inspector Vavala also observed that the air

conditioning units were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4.

10. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

premises, Inspector Vavala observed the locks were inoperable on

the kitchen door to the outside stairway in Apartment 3. This is

a critical violation in that if the door could not be locked, an

intruder could enter the premises and take property or physically

harm an individual inside the apartment.

11. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

premises, Inspector Vavala observed a broken window at the front

door of the front apartment ; the ceiling on top of the stairwell

in the front of the building had a hole through the roof; a hole

was in the stucco on the west side of the front building ; a

window was in disrepair on the west side of the front building;

windows were boarded up on the west side of the building; stucco

was missing on the south side of the front building; a window was

broken on the lower floor of the front building on the south

side; a window was in disrepair, and one window was broken on the

lower floor of the front building on the east side; stucco was

cracked on the north side of the exterior wall of the back

building; the door frame was rotting at Apartment 6 in the back

building; a window was broken on the north side of the back

building at Apartment 6; there were holes in the wall and ceiling

of the water heater room on the south side of the back building;

a window was broken on the south side of the back building on the

second floor; and the cross face on the west side of the front

building and on the east side of the front building was not

enclosed . Further, he observed excessive debris outside

apartments around the building, a broken soda machine on the

north side of the back building was falling over, and the

refrigeration units in it could contaminate the ground water; he

observed a rusting LP gas tank from a barbecue which, when left

outside, will rust through the tank and release the gas in the

air, which would endanger the health and welfare of persons in

the area; there were cars lying around and the oil from those

could contaminate the ground water.

12. On April 17, 2000, in Apartment 4, Inspector Vavala

observed kitchen cabinets in disrepair ; tile was chipped, broken,

and missing on the kitchen floor ; there was a hole in the wall of

the living area ; the window operating assembly was in disrepair

allowing the windows to either remain in a stuck open or stuck

closed position ; the clamps no longer worked on the window ; the

wood framing around a window air conditioner was rotting and had

a hole below it ; the plaster was cracked and chipping in the

bathroom; there was a hole in the wall above the tub in the

shower stall; a hole was in the wall behind the toilet in the

bathroom; and the carpet was stained and unclean in the living

area. The poor condition of the kitchen cabinets, the holes in

the wall of the living room and bathroom, and the broken, chipped

and missing tile could harbor rodents and bugs and nesting

vermin. The rotting frame and hole in the wall underneath could

allow the air conditioner, which was located on the second floor,

to fall and endanger lives of persons beneath the window.

Further, the hole in the wall allowed pests and vermin to enter

the apartment. The window operating assembly which would not

allow the windows to open was dangerous should there be a fire or

other disaster blocking other exits to the apartment. The window

operating assembly, which would not allow the windows to close,

allows the outside elements to enter the apartment during

inclement weather causing further deterioration to the apartments

and personal belongings of tenants. The cracked and chipped

plaster in the bathroom would not allow adequate cleaning which

contributes to poor sanitation . The dirty carpet in the living

area could be harboring insects, mold and mildew. The violations

observed in Apartment 4 affect the health and safety of its

tenants.

13. On April 17, 2000, in Apartment 3, Inspector Vavala

observed the ceiling stained in the back bedroom, reflecting

leaking water damage ; the ceiling plaster cracked in the back

bedroom ; broken and missing tiles in the kitchen, exposing

plywood ; kitchen cabinets that were in disrepair ; an inoperative

assembly in a shower stall window ; all the window operating

assemblies in the middle bedroom in disrepair ; a closet door in

disrepair in the middle bedroom; a sink was falling off the wall

in the bathroom ; there was a hole in the wall under the toilet in

the bathroom; and backflow prevention was not provided on

exterior hose bins. The violations observed in Apartment 4

endangered the health and safety of its tenants.

14. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala observed that the

establishment was operating without a new license in 1998, 1999,

and 2000.

15. On May 2, 2000, an Administrative Complaint was issued

against the Respondent Fountain View Hotel which was docketed as

Case No. 2-00-185 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants,

and as Case No. 00-2949 before the Division of Administrative

Hearings .

16. On April 8, 1999, one year prior to the violations

enumerated in paragraphs 5 through 15 above, Supervisor Driscoll

and Inspector Paul Landmann, inspected the same Fountain View

Hotel described above. Numerous violations observed during the

April 8, 1999, inspection were still not corrected on April 17,

2000.

17. On February 23, 2000, Supervisor Driscoll made a

follow-up inspection of the same Fountain View and found numerous

violations of public lodging service rules, all of which she

marked on the lodging service inspection report of February 23,

2000.

18. On April 8, 1999, the Petitioner issued an

Administrative Complaint against Respondent Joseph Sansalone

d/b/a Fountain View Hotel ( Sansalone) which was docketed as Case

No. 2-99-79 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as

Case No. 00-3040 before the Division of Administrative Hearings .

19. At all times material hereto, Respondent Lamplighter

Hotel & Apartments (Lamplighter) was a public lodging

establishment, license number 60-00167-H, located at 433 40th

Street, West Palm Beach, Florida.

20. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala, observed that there were no fire

extinguishers located anywhere on the premises. This violation

is a critical violation because it endangers the life and safety

of individuals living in the public lodging establishment.

21. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed rodent droppings in an

upstairs apartment in the back building and in the storage shed

adjacent to the back building. This is a critical violation in

that disease is spread in this manner which endangers the health

and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging

establishment.

22. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed that there was no cover on

the wall socket at the top of the stairs in the front building,

and that cover plates were missing on the electrical sockets on

the outside receptacle on the outside of the front area. This

violation is critical because the health and safety of children

are endangered because children could stick their fingers in the

outlets and be electrocuted. Further Inspector Vavala observed a

soda machine plugged into an outlet on the outside which was

exposed to the elements, which could also be a potential danger

to the health and welfare of persons in the vicinity.

23. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed that the stairway in the

rear of the building and the back building on the east side was

in disrepair. These are critical violations because it would not

be safe to evacuate the rear building from the stairwells, in

case of fire or other emergency.

24. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the

Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed windows broken on the

first and second floors of the front building on the south side;

broken windows on the first and second floor of the front

building on the east side; a broken window on the lower floor of

the front building on the north side; a broken window on the door

to the downstairs apartment in the back building; and a broken

window on the east side of the back building on the second floor.

These are violations because there is sharp glass exposed and no

protection from the outside against vermin or the elements. He

also observed stucco falling off the exterior wall of the front

building on the north side; doors falling off the storage shed at

the back of the building, adjacent to the living establishment,

which harbored vermin; and a hole in the roof of the storage shed

attached to the back of the building. The crawl space under the

front building on the south side and under the front building on

the north side was not enclosed; screens were ripped on the north

side of the front building on the first floor and on the west

side of the front building, which would allow insects to enter

the establishment.

25. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector

Vavala observed a second floor hurricane shutter broken in the

down position. This broken shutter would not allow evacuation

through the window in case of fire or other emergency.

26. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector

Vavala observed a door missing at the upstairs apartment on the

back building, and the ceiling was falling in the kitchen and

family room in an upstairs back apartment. The apartment

appeared to be unoccupied; however, it would endanger the health

and welfare of the tenants if it was occupied. Further, the

missing door would allow children playing in the area to enter

the apartment where the ceiling is falling, which could result in

serious injury to a child.

27. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector

Vavala observed an excessive amount of debris in and around the

premises, including a refrigerator in an unused condition that

still had the door attached which could be a hazard to children

that lived in the establishment.

28. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector

Vavala observed inoperable kitchen appliances located in the

upstairs back building. T hese are critical violations because

individuals may bring in propane or charcoal stoves to prepare

food which would be a fire hazard and could endanger the safety

and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging

establishment.

29. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector

Vavala observed that lighting was not provided in the hallway

staircase in the front building. This is a critical violation

because the unlighted area endangers the health and safety of

tenants of the establishment.

30. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala also observed that

the establishment was operating without a new license in 1998,

1999, and 2000.

31. On May 2, 2000, the Division issued an Administrative

Complaint against Respondent, Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments,

which was docketed as Case No. 2-00-186 before the Division of

Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-2950 before the

Division of Administrative Hearings .

32. The Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments, located at 433 40th

Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, and the Fountain View Hotel,

located at 516 44th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, are owned

by Americorp Mortgage Co., Inc., whose president is Joseph D.

Sansalone.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

33. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these

proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

34. The Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional

Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, is the agency

charged with licensure and inspection of public lodging service

establishments in the State of Florida, pursuant to Chapter 509,

Florida Statutes.

35. Each of the Respondents is a public lodging service

establishment, as defined in Section 509.013, Florida Statutes,

and is licensed by and subject to the regulatory authority of

Petitioner.

36. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation,

pursuant to Sections 509.032(2)(d)1 and 509.032(3)(a), Florida

Statutes, is authorized to adopt rules prescribing sanitary

standards which shall be enforced in public lodging service

establishments. Under the authority outlined in those sections

the Department of Business and Professional Regulation

promulgated Rule 61C-4.010(6), Florida Administrative Code,

incorporating by reference Chapter 4, U.S. Public Health Lodging

Code, and Rule 61C-1.004(1), Florida Administrative Code,

incorporating by reference Chapter 5 of the U.S. Public Health

Lodging Code.

37. Rule 61C-1.004(9)(a), Florida Administrative Code,

states:

Fire Extinguisher Installation –Fire

extinguishers shall be installed in

accordance with NFPA 10, Standard for

Portable Fire Extinguishers.

NFPA 10, 1-5.1 [Low hazard . . . locations

. . . include guest room areas of

hotels/motels, etc.

NFPA 10, 3-5 [These locations shall be

protected by the installation of portable

fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of]

2-A; 10-B:C provided for each 3000 square

feet of floor space on each level and

installed so that the travel distance to any

extinguisher shall not exceed 75 feet.

NFPA 10, 3-1.4 On each floor level, the

area protected and the travel distances shall

be based on fire extinguishers installed in

accordance with Tables 3-2.1 and 3-2.1 .

NFPA 10, 4-4.1, Fire extinguishers shall be

subjected to maintenance not more than one

year apart. . . .

38. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondents Fountain View and

Lamplighter violated Rule 61C-1.004(9)(a), Florida Administrative

Code, by failing to have a sufficient number of properly

maintained fire extinguishers on the premises.

39. Rule 61C-1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, states:

All fire safety, protection and prevention

equipment must be installed, approved,

maintained and used in accordance with

Chapter 509, FS, and the National Fire

Protection Association Life Safety Code

Chapter 101, as adopted by the Division of

State Fire Marshal in Chapter 4A-3, FAC.

40. Petitioner has carried its burden o f proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondent Fountain View

violated Rule 61C-1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, by

failing to repair or replace the inoperable smoke detectors in

Apartments 3 and 4 of the front building.

41. Rule 61C-1.004(11), Florida Administrative Code,

states:

Electrical wiring – To prevent fire or

injury, defective electrical wiring shall be

replaced and wiring shall be kept in good

repair. . . .

42. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondent Fountain View

violated Rule 61C-1.004(11), Florida Administrative Code, by

failing to repair or replace the electrical wiring in disrepair

in Apartments 3 and 4, and that Respondent Lamplighter Hotel &

Apartments violated the same rule provision by failing to repair

or replace the cover plates missing from several wall sockets.

43. Rule 61C-3.001(9), Florida Administrative Code, states:

Kitchen appliances and refrigeration

equipment shall be kept clean and free from

odors and in good repair. Refrigerators

shall be properly drained.

44. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondents Fountain View and

Lamplighter violated Rule 61C-3.001(9), Florida Administrative

Code, by failing to repair or replace inoperable kitchen

appliances and inoperable air conditioning units.

45. Rule 61C-1.004(6), Florida Administrative Code, states:

All building structural components,

attachments and fixtures shall be kept in

good repair clean and free of obstructions.

46. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondents Fountain View and

Lamplighter violated Rule 61C-1.004(6), Florida Administrative

Code, by failing to repair or replace the many broken, damaged,

or deteriorated portions of the buildings as described above in

the findings of fact.

47. Rule 61C-1.004(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code,

provides, in pertinent part, that bathroom facilities shall be

kept in good repair.

48. P etitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondent Fountain View

violated Rule 61C-1.004(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, by

failing to repair or replace the cracked and chipping plaster on

the bathroom wall in Apartment 4; the hole in the wall above the

tub in the shower stall in Apartment 4; the hole in the wall

behind the toilet in the bathroom in Apartment 4; the sink that

was falling off the wall in the bathroom in Apartment 3; and the

hole in the wall under the toilet in the bathroom in Apartment 3.

49. Rule 61C-3.001(10), Florida Administrative Code,

states:

Locks -- An approved locking device for the

purposes of section 509.211, FS, is a locking

device that meets the requirements of

National Fire Protection Association 101

(NFPA 101), Life Safety Code. Public lodging

establishments as defined in rule 61C-

1.002(4)(a), FAC, shall have at least one

approved locking device which does not

include a "sliding chain" or "hook and eye"

type device, on all outside and connecting

doors which cannot be opened by a non-master

guest room key.

50. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondent Fountain View

violated Rule 61C-3.001(10), Florida Administrative Code,

by failing to replace or repair the locks in disrepair on the

kitchen door to the outside stairway in Apartment 3.

51. Rule 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, states

in pertinent part:

. . . All rugs and floor coverings must be

kept clean and in good condition, free from

holes and rips. . . .

52. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondent Fountain View

violated Rule 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, by

failing to replace, clean or repair the carpet that was stained

and unclean in the living area of Apartment 4.

53. Chapter 5-203.14, Food Code, states:

Backflow Prevention Device, When Required.*

A PLUMBING SYSTEM shall be installed to

preclude backflow of a solid, liquid, or gas

contaminant into the water supply system at

each point of use at the … [public lodging

establishment], including on a hose bibb if a

hose is attached or on a hose bibb if a hose

is not attached and backflow prevention is

required by LAW, by:

(A) Providing an air gap as specified

under § 5-202.13; or

(B) Installing an APPROVED backflow

prevention device as specified under

§ 5-202.14.

54. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondent Fountain View

violated Chapter 5-203.14, Food Code by failing to provide

backflow prevention device on the exterior hose bib.

55. Section 509.221(7), Florida Statutes, states:

(7) The operator of any establishment

licensed under this chapter shall take

effective measures to protect the

establishment against the entrance and the

breeding on the premises of all vermin. Any

room in such establishment infested with such

vermin shall be fumigated, disinfected,

renovated, or other corrective action taken

until the vermin are exterminated

56. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondents Fountain View and

Lamplighter violated Section 509.221.(7), Florida Statutes, by

failing to exterminate rodents, failing to exterminate insects,

and by failing to take steps to prevent the entry of rodents and

insects.

57. Rule 61C-3.001(7), Florida Administrative Code, states:

Premises -- The yards, alleys, driveways,

sidewalks, and other exterior portions of the

licensed premises shall be kept clean, free

of debris, free of objectionable odors, and

properly drained, maintained and mowed. All

unused and discarded equipment and materials

shall be removed from the premises, except

when placed in a designated storage area.

58. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondents Fountain View and

Lamplighter violated Rule 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative

Code, by failing to remove excessive trash and debris on property

outside of their respective buildings.

59. Section 509.241(1), Florida Statutes, states in

pertinent part:

LICENSES; ANNUAL RENEWALS.--Each public

lodging establishment and public food service

establishment shall obtain a license from the

division. Such license may not be transferred

from one place or individual to another . . .

Licenses shall be renewed annually. . . .

60. Section 509.241(2), Florida Statutes, states in

pertinent part:

APPLICATION FOR LICENSE.--Each person who

plans to open a public lodging establishment

or a public food service establishment shall

apply for and receive a license from the

division prior to the commencement of

operation.

61. Rule 61C-1.002(6), Florida Administrative Code, states

in pertinent part:

It is the responsibility of the licensee to

renew the license prior to the expiration

date… Any public lodging… establishment

operating on an expired license is deemed to

be operating without a license, and subject

to the penalties provided for this offense in

law and rule.

62. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondents Fountain View and

Lamplighter violated Section 509.241(1) and 509.241(2), Florida

Statutes and Rule 61C-1.002(6), Florida Administrative Code, in

April of 2000 by failing to renew their respective licenses in a

timely manner.

63. Petitioner has carried its burden of proving by clear

and convincing evidence that the Respondent Sansalone violated

Sections 509.241(1) and 509.241(2), Florida Statutes, and

Rule 61C-1.002(6) , Florida Administrative Code, in April of 1999

by failing to renew the licenses for operation of public lodging

establishments at the Fountain View and Lamplighter locations.

64. Section 509.211(2), Florida Statutes, provides that the

Department of Business and Professional Regulation may impose

administrative sanctions for violations of rules promulgated

under Chapter 633, Florida Statutes.

65. Chapter 509.261(1)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the

Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of

Hotels and Restaurants, to suspend or revoke a license, or to

impose administrative fines, not to exceed $1,000.00 for each

offense, for violations of Chapter 509 or the cited rules.

RECOMMENDATION

On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that

the Division of Hotels and Restaurants issue a final order to the

following effect:

(1) Concluding that the Respondent Fountain View Hotel is

guilty of the violations observed during the inspection of its

premises on April 17, 2000, as described in the foregoing

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and imposing a penalty

on the Respondent Fountain View Hotel consisting of an

administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and the revocation

of its license.

(2) Concluding that the Respond ent Lamplighter Hotel &

Apartments is guilty of the violations observed during the

inspection of its premises on April 17, 2000, as described in the

foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and imposing a

penalty on the Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments

consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00

and the revocation of its license.

(3) Concluding that the Respondent Joseph Sansalone is

guilty of operating a public lodging establishment at the

premises of the Fountain View Hotel during April of 1999 without

a then-current license for that establishment, and imposing a

penalty on the Respondent Joseph Sansalone consisting of an

administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00.

DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

MICHAEL M. PARRISH

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state .fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 18th day of January, 2001.

ENDNOTES

1/ The Respondents have not filed any post-hearing documents.

2/ Substantial portions of the Petitioner's findings and

conclusions have been incorporated into the text of this

Recommended Order.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202

Joseph D. Sansalone, President

Americorp Mortgage Company

1444 North State Road 7

Margate, Florida 33063

Susan R. McKinley, Director

Division of Hotels and Restaurants

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the Final Order in this case.