May 12 2010 9:40 MAY-1e-2B1e 89:32 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page:5718 FILED Depa Lert of Business and Professorial Reputation Dapaty Agency Clerk CLERK, Brandon Nichols Date t2f1/2009 File # STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FILED FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL Florida Engineers Management Corporation ENGINEERS, ; . CLER 40e jl lave DATE A. Petitioner, Y. FEMC Case No. 2009010471 LAURIE 8. BURCAW, P.E., Respondent, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint against LAURIE §. BURCAW, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding concerning this complaint shall be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following: 1. Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. This complaint is filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engincers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). May 12 2010 9:40 MAY-1e-2B1e 89:32 From:656 S21 521 Page:618 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 46064. Respondent’s last known address is 3430 Crenshaw Lake Road, Lutz, FT. 33548. 3. Respondent was the principal owner of a land development company, Burcaw Development Group, Inc., and an engineering firm, Burcaw and Associates, Inc. Burcaw and Associates holds a Certificate of Authority from the Board of Professional Engineers issucd under the provisions of Section 471.023, Florida Statutes. Under the terms of that statute, Respondent is the Professional Engineer who qualifies Burcaw and Associates 10 be an engineering firm. 4, In 2004 Ashton Tampa Residential, LLC, an affiliate of Ashton Woods Homes (hereinafter Ashton Tampa), entered inio real eslate sales agreements to purchase two parcels of property (Sagamore ‘Trace and Durant Road Projects) from Burcaw Development Group with the sales price to be based on the number of buildable lots. As part of the real estate sales agreements, Ashton ‘Tampa agrced to retain Respondent and Burcaw and Associates for the site development cnginecring and permitting. 5. Respondent acted as engineer of record for the site development engineering and permitting for the Sagamore ‘Trace and Durant Road Projects and scaled, signed and dated all enginccring documents filed for public record and permit purposes. 6. As is not uncommon in a land devclopment project, Respondent and Bureaw and Associates estimated the number of buildable lots that would be available under the engineering plans that it proposed for the Sagamore Trace and Durant Road Projects. However, in the case of the Sagamore Trace and Durant Road Projects, the property transaction agreements between Bureaw Development Group (owned by Respondent) and Ashton Tampa based the sale price for POPE v. Lawrie Burcaw, I... Case No. 2008010471 May 12 2010 9:41 MAY -1e-2B1e 89:33 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 7718 the property solely on the number of buildable lots. Under such circumstances, it was incumbent upon Respondent to assure that the number of buildable tots on each parcel would be carefully ovaluated and revised as necessary by Respondent, the engineer of record for these two projects. 7. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it turned out that Respondent’s engineering plans allowed for the overdevelopment of the parcels in the Sagamore Trace and Durant Road Projects. As a result, the number of buildable lots in the Sagamore Trace and Durant Road Projects were eventually reduced to conform to local building code, permitting, and zoning requirements. Respondent had numerous opportunities to make cortections in her engincering design and to inform Ashton Tampa of the certainty of neccssary lot reductions in the number of builduble lots in the Sagamore Trace and Durant Road Projects prior to the closing on the sales of the properties between Ashton Tampa and Burcaw Development Group. Instead, however, Respondent chose to withhold such information from her client, Ashton Tampa, in order to boost Burcaw Development Group’s profit on the sale. 8. In addition, the Sagamore Trace Project property transaction agreement specilicd that Burcaw Development Group/ Burcaw and Associates collectively were obligated to obtain all required permits prior to the closing date. As described herein in Paragraphs 5-7, the construction plans developed by Burcaw and Associates required major modifications and without such modifications would not be approved by the permitting authorities. Notwithstanding these facts, Respondent continued to make deceptive claims to Ashton ‘Tampa that most of the permits had been obtained and that permitting processes were on track. 9. Specifically, on June 29, 2005, Respondent’s employee, acting on Respondent’s directions, provided to Ashton Tampa’s office correspondence indicating that all Sagamore Trace closing permits had been obtained. This was a [alse statement. FRPE v Laurie Burcaw, PF, Case Ne 2009010471 ba May 12 2010 9:41 MAY -1e-2B1e 89:33 From:656 S21 521 Page: 8-18 10. On the cve of closing, August 16, 2005, while Respondent informed Ashton Tampa that the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Letter of Completeness actually had not been received, Respondent did not reveal her actual knowledge that the Hillsborough County permit had not yet been received and her actual knowledge that the number of buildable lots would have to be reduced in order for a Hillsborough County permit to be issued. As a direct result of the untruthful representation of the County permitting status, Respondent led Ashton Tampa to closc the transaction at the full price based on the maximum number of usable lots as per Respondent’s-at that time unapproved-engineeting plans. In fact, the Sagamore Trace Project construction plans were not approved by Tlillsborough County until August 22, 2006, onc full year after the closing, and only 25 buildable lots were allowed on the parcel, as opposed to 30 such lots as contemplated at the time of closing. ll. Asaresult of Respondent’s actions, Ashton ‘lampa was damaged in an amount in excess of $280,000.00 due to the required redesign of the Sagamore Trace and Durant Road Projects and, as a result of Respondent’s false assertions, by having overpaid for real property that could not be used as was contemplated by Ashton Tampa when it bought the Sagamore Trace and Durant Road property. 12. Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code, states that a “(professional engineer shall not commil misconducl in the practice of engineering. Misconduct in the practice of engineering as sct forth in Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., shall include, but not be limited to: (b) Being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report, statement, or testimony whether or not under oath or omitting relevant and pertinent information from such report, statement or testimony when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client...” POPE v. Lawie Burcaw, PE, Case No. 2009010471 May 12 2010 9:41 MAY -1e-2B1e 89:33 From:656 S21 521 Page: 9-18 13. By not providing and, indeed, by intentionally withholding and misrepresenting, material mformation to her client regarding the permitting status and construction viability of engineering plans for which Respondent acted as engineer of record, Respondent committed misconduct in the practice of engineering by “omitting relevant and pertinent information... when the result of such omission would or reasonably could lead to a fallacious conclusion on the part of the client...” 14. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G15-19,001(6)(b) by engaging in misconduct in the practice of engineering. WIHERETORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Lngineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or suspension of the Respondent's license, restriction of the Respondent’s practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the assessment of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with an attorney’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relicf that the Board deems appropriate. SIGNED this 7 day of Neve magix 2009, Execptivé Director FRPE v Lanric Bureaw, P.E., Case No. 2009010471 May 12 2010 9:41 MAY -1e-2B1e 89:34 From:65@ Sel @5e1 Page: 18°14 COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes, IIT Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm PCP DATE: November 17, 2009 PCP Members: Rebane, Charland, Halyard CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE : Of Yeti ng344 2009, i om, r PBFE v. Laurie Bureaw, P.E., Case No. 2009010471 6

Docket for Case No: 10-002542PL