The Issue Whether a public at-grade railroad crossing in the vicinity of the Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 16.58 and Southwest 66th Street in Miami, Florida should be closed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner filed an application to close a crossing at the intersection of the Florida East Coast Railway Company tracks and S.W. 66th Street, Miami, Florida. The Respondents, Metropolitan Dade County and the Department of Transportation, concurred that the crossing was unsafe and that it could be closed without undue convenience to the public. The Hearing Officer finds: That there were no letters of objection to the closing of the subject crossing and no one appeared at the public hearing opposing the closing; That the crossing is relatively unsafe because of the general location among trees and other shrubs in the vicinity; and That the public may use alternative routes which are convenient and less hazardous.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Certified U.S. Mail to Oasis Cafe at Key Biscayne, c/o Carlos Flores, 19 Harbor Drive, Miami, Florida 33149; by regular U.S. Mail to the Honorable Darren A. Schwartz, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 3060; and by hand delivery to Marc Drexler, Chief Attorney, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, 1940 North Monroe Styeet, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202, this |@¥day of Yezember , 2013. msn For the Division of Hotels and Restaurants 7196 4008 G11) 4516 1240 | SENDERS, RECORD
Findings Of Fact Dr. Ryan is a chiropractic physician licensed by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners of Florida. Dr. Ryan has his professional offices located on Merritt Island which is an unincorporated area of Brevard County located between Cocoa and Cocoa Beach. Said office did have a sign reading " Brevard Chiropractic Clinic." Dr. Ryan, at the time the complaint was filed, was a sole practitioner. The sign was changed at Dr. Ryan's direction approximately six to seven weeks prior to the formal hearing in this matter. Dr. Ryan had taken steps to order the necessary letters and contract the work shortly after receiving notice of the charges against him in late April of this year to change the sign to "Brevard Chiropractic Office." Dr. Ryan's professional phone number and his business address are listed in the classified portion of the Cocoa-Cocoa Beach telephone directory once directly under the heading "Chiropractic Physicians" and again under the subheading for Cocoa Beach. The directory on its cover states, "Cocoa including Rockledge and Merritt Island" and "Cocoa Beach including City of Cape Canaveral." The telephone directory referenced above also carries a listing for "Acupuncture Center of Brevard" under the heading "Clinics." The telephone number listed for "Acupuncture Center of Brevard" is 636-0560 and the address is listed as 230 South Courtney Parkway. Dr. Ryan's telephone number is listed under "Chiropractic Physicians" as 636-0551 and the address is given as 230 South Courtney Parkway. "Acupuncture Center of Brevard" is a registered fictitious name.
Recommendation The highly technical nature of the violation of the telephone listing rule and Dr. Ryan's immediate action to correct his sign are considered in mitigation of the violations found above. It is clear that his telephone listing was not a blatant attempt at advertising and that other professionals, to include chiropractic physicians, have listed themselves in the same manner in the Cocoa- Cocoa Beach telephone directory. While it violates the State's rules, it appears to conform with the community standard and therefore does not hold the chiropractic profession up to criticism. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, and in consideration of the mitigating factors, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board reprimand Dr. Ryan in writing and suspend his license to practice chiropractic until the Board receives notification in writing that Dr. Ryan has directed the telephone company to change his professional listings to list his professional telephone number and office address in the location appropriate for an office maintained in Merritt Island. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Wiser, Esquire 101 East College Avenue Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jere E. Lober, Esquire Post Office Box 517 Rockledge, Florida 32955
Findings Of Fact Respondent, John E. Mitchell (Mitchell), was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0184919. Mitchell was the owner and qualifying broker for Respondent, Florida East Coast Management, Inc. (Florida East Coast), which was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida under license number 0211550. Respondents are, inter alia, engaged in the business of managing rental apartments for landlords. On April 17, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Chestnut executed an application to rent an apartment through Florida East Coast, and delivered to Florida East Coast a deposit of $460.00. Pertinent to this case, the agreement provided: Applicant has deposited the sum of $460.00 in partial payment of the first month's rent with the understanding that this application is subject to approval and acceptance by the Landlord. Upon approval and acceptance, the applicant agrees to execute the Landlord's standard agreement before possession of residence is given and to pay any balance due on the first month's rent and security deposit within five (5) days after the approval of application or the deposit will be forfeited to the Landlord. If this application is not approved, or if applicant cancels within five (5) days, the deposit will be refunded, the applicant hereby waiving any claim for damages by reason of non- acceptance. This application is for information only and does not obligate Landlord to execute a lease or deliver possession of the proposed residence. (Emphasis added) Within five days of the date of application, Mr. Chestnut spoke telephonically with Ms. Debra M. Best, the rental agent for Florida East Coast with whom he had dealt, and advised her that his anticipated job transfer to the area had not materialized and requested a refund of his deposit. 1/ Ms. Best promised to return his deposit. On April 29 or May 1, 1985, Mr. Chestnut telephoned Ms. Best to inquire of his deposit. At that time, Ms. Best advised Mr. Chestnut that it was company policy not to refund deposits. By letter of May 13, 1985, Florida East Coast responded to Mr. Chestnut's written inquiry of Hay 1, 1985, by stating: "... it is our policy NOT TO RETURN ANY DEPOSIT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER." Following receipt of Florida East Coast's letter of May 13, 1985, Mr. Chestnut filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department). Approximately seven months later, December 10, 1985, Florida East Coast refunded Mr. Chestnut's deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That an administrative fine be imposed against Respondents, John E. Mitchell and Florida East Coast Management, Inc., jointly and severally, in the sun of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1987.
The Issue Whether Application #01109-L and Application #01109-J for a public water supply system to serve approximately 17,500 acres of land in Lee County, Florida, should be granted and a permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that a water use permit be issued to the applicant pursuant to Applications #01109-J and #01109-L for a total annual allocation of 1.64 BGY for ten (10) years subject to the thirty-one (31) limiting conditions attached to the "Florida Cities Water Company" report, which report is a part of the record of this case. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Walker, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Ross A. McVoy, Esquire 318 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Terry F. Lenick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney County of Lee Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in the instant case is whether the Department had notified the owner of the subject sign of the alleged violations as required by Rule 14- 10.05, Florida Administrative Code. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The facts presented show that the Department of Transportation failed to notify the owners of the subject sign. In the absence of notice to the owners of the sign, a final order cannot be entered taking action against the sign because an indispensable party under the Department's rules did not receive notice and therefore was denied due process.
Findings Of Fact Subject sign was a nonconforming sign which had been allowed to remain in place as provided by Rule 14-10.07. The sign was replaced with a completely new structure. The name of the owner was not affixed to the sign. AGENCY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Complete reconstruction of the sign removed its status as a nonconforming sign under Rule 14-10.07. The sign is subject to removal as violating the spacing requirements of Rule 14-10.06 adopted pursuant to Section 479.02, Florida Statutes. Section 479.17, Florida Statutes, requires that the Department remove, obliterate, or abate the sign. No prior notice of Department action need be given the sign owner in the absence of the owner's name being affixed to the sign. Section 479.17, Florida Statutes. It is accordingly, ORDERED that the subject sign be removed forthwith. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1981. JACOB D. VARN SECRETARY STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen F. Dean, Esquire Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jay D. Schwartz, Esquire 901 NE 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick D. Calvin, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions . . . In the absence of notice to the owners of the subject sign, the Department has not complied with the requirements of Rule 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code. Without notice to the owners there is no jurisdiction to enter a final order in this cause taking action against the sign. To take action without the required notice would vio- late the rights of the owners of the sign to pro- cedural due process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head of the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing this cause for lack of jurisdiction over the owner(s) of the sign. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jay D. Schwartz, Esquire 901 NE 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-1704T COURTELIS COMPANY, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact By application filed with Respondent on August 20, 1980, Petitioner requested that he be licensed as a real estate salesman. Question number six on the application was answered as follows: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Yes If yes, state details including the outcome in full: Possession of Marijuana in Vero (Approx Aug '74) Fined $102. The application form included the instruction that if an answer to question six was in the affirmative, the applicant should attach his complete signed statement of the charges and facts, together with the dates, name and location of the court in which the proceedings were had or are pending. Petitioner attached to his application a statement reading as follows: Approximately August of 1974 I was found guilty of possession of marijuana. The outcome was a fine of $102. I haven't had any dealings with this sort of thing since. (Exhibit 1) By letter of October 31, 1980, Respondent's legal adviser informed Petitioner that the Board of Real Estate had denied his application for licensure based on his answer to question six of the application and his criminal record. (Exhibit 4) On April 20, 1975, Petitioner was arrested by the Vero Beach Police Department on charges of driving while intoxicated and possession of less than five grams of marijuana. On April 22, 1975, Petitioner was convicted of the charges and was fined $302.00 for driving while intoxicated, and his driver's license was suspended for four months. He was fined $102.00 on the charge of possession of marijuana. (Exhibit 2) On February 24, 1979, Petitioner was cited by the Florida State Highway Patrol for having no valid driver's license. (Exhibit 3) The application form filed by Petitioner captions that the applicant must answer every question without evasion and recites the applicant's acknowledgment that every answer to the questions therein "states the truth and full truth concerning the inquiry, so far as known or can be ascertained." The affidavit of the applicant to the application includes the statement that all answers and statements therein are true and correct, "and are as complete as h knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever." (Exhibit 1) Petitioner testified at the hearing and admitted the fact of his 1975 arrest and conviction in Vero Beach, Florida. He also admitted being cited for not having a valid driver's license in 1979, but claimed that this charge was dismissed when he subsequently produced his driver's license to law enforcement authorities. During the course of his testimony, Petitioner also admitted being convicted of driving while intoxicated while in Michigan in 1968 or 1969 for which he was fined $175.00 and received a suspension of his driver's license for a period of six months. He testified that he did not list the DWI convictions on his application form because he believed that they constituted traffic offenses which need not be disclosed. His testimony is not deemed credible in this respect. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 10 day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Jeffrey Miller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Board of Real Estate The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip Chandler Post Office Box 406 2000 Baird Street Roseland, Florida 32957 Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dudley Cohn, is a registered real estate salesman having been issued license number 0314085. The last known address of Respondent is 3351 NE 19th Avenue, Oakland Park, Florida 33306. Dudley Cohn also goes by the name of Doug Cohn, under which name he is not licensed. Cohn did not give the name of Douglas or Doug as an alias on his application for licensure. During March and/or April of 1980, several advertisements for real property appeared in the Pompano Shopper in the classified section. In response to the subject advertisements, John Michaelis and Albert Crowley called the telephone numbers listed in said advertisements to obtain information on real property advertised therein. One of the telephone numbers which appeared in the advertisements is a number which was maintained by former real estate licensees, Real Estate Merchandisers, Inc., and George May. Respondent Cohn visited Mr. and Mrs. Michaelis and Mr. Crowley, individually, at their residences in 1980, and at that time he identified himself to them as a salesman associate of Real Estate Merchandisers, Inc. For the purpose of identification, Respondent presented to the Michaelises and to Crowley, individually, business cards from Real Estate Merchandisers, Inc., and/or George May, Broker, on which Respondent had written his name as "Cohn" or "Doug Cohn." (Transcript, pages 16, 41, 44; Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4.) After identifying himself as a representative of Real Estate Merchandisers, Inc., Respondent proceeded to make a sales presentation to the Michaelises and Crowley, individually, for the purpose of persuading them to purchase investment property in the Miami area. Respondent represented to the Michaelises that he had seen the property and it was beautiful, that it was high and dry, and that access by road existed to the property. Based on these representations, on April 10, 1980, the Michaelises agreed to purchase the real property located in Dade County, Florida, being sold by Respondent and executed an agreement for deed. Respondent also represented to the Michaelises that the property was located approximately 2.5 miles west of the Krome Avenue cutoff of U.S. Highway 27, behind a cement plant. Respondent gave to the Michaelises and Crowley copies of maps indicating the location of the subject property and stating it was behind the cement plant. (Transcript, pages 21, 22, 27, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 55, 57, 61, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98; Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 5, 6.) Based upon the representations of its location made by Respondent, Crowley agreed to purchase a piece of real property located in Dade County, Florida, and gave Respondent a check in the amount of $1,000 to serve as a binder on said property. Crowley instructed Respondent to hold the check until Crowley had inspected the real property. Respondent tried to cash the check, but the bank refused to honor the check. Crowley learned from the Miami Planning Commission that the property in question was not as Respondent had represented it to be and did not go through with the purchase. (Transcript, pages 29, 32, 33.) Said properties in actuality were located approximately seven to 15 miles west of the Krome Avenue cutoff of U.S. Highway 27. The subject property is accessible only by air boat or other off-road vehicles. No plans existed to develop roads in this area. (Transcript, pages 31, 58, 62, 63, 64, 99, 100, 101, 178, 179, 184, 185, 186, 192, 193, 200.) When the Michaelises went to view the subject property, it was submerged below standing water. Said property is normally submerged below ground water at least nine months out of each year and lies in a vital water flow area for the South Florida Everglades area. (Transcript, pages 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 184, 185, 189, 190, 191, 198.) At the time that Respondent contacted the Michaelises and Crowley, Respondent was registered as a non-active real estate salesman with the Florida Real Estate Commission. Respondent had never personally seen the property he was selling. (Transcript, pages 203, 206, 248; Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3.) Respondent gave money to his broker to have his registration changed from inactive to active. When advised that his license was not active, Respondent immediately applied to activate his license.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Dudley Cohn, also known as Douglas Cohn, guilty of two counts of violating Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged by the Florida Real Estate Commission, it is recommended that the license of Respondent be suspended for two years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eli Breger, Esquire, and Richard Breger, Esquire 17200 NE 19th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a proposed activity by Cayo Costa Island Partnership is exempt from permitting.
Findings Of Fact Cayo Costa Island is a bridgeless barrier island situated between Gasparilla Island to the north and Captiva Island to the south. East of Cayo Costa Island is Pine Island, and east of Pine Island is Cape Coral. In the 1960s, Travis Gresham subdivided and commenced development of a portion of Cayo Costa Island. Development included the dredging of canals. Eventually, one or more plat maps were recorded in the public records of Lee County, so that warranty deeds for residential lots referred to such recorded plat maps. There is also a subdivision sales plat map, which may not have been recorded. Not all of the land was subdivided into lots. The sales plat map reserves a considerable amount of land and canals for future development. One of the reserved areas is to the east of the subdivided lots. The location of the proposed dock is in the extreme southwest corner of this unplatted area. The dock would be located at the western end of a relatively wide manmade canal, which measures 2000 feet long and 105 feet wide. The east end of the canal terminates in Pine Island Sound. Petitioner and her late husband purchased from Mr. Gresham lot 16 in block 1 over 30 years ago, and they moved onto the island almost 20 years ago. The lot does not abut the canal, nor the upland adjacent to the subject dock. She has permanently resided on the island continuously since 1976. In 1984, she and her husband conveyed their property by warranty deed to the State of Florida, reserving a life estate. Petitioner's husband and some friends constructed the subject dock at the end of the canal in September 1978. A couple of years later, another nearby resident named Carl Noah substantially enlarged the dock. On March 16, 1993, Mr. Noah conveyed by warranty deed his real property to Paul Faust. At the same time, Mr. Noah gave Mr. Faust a quitclaim deed for "boat docks constructed by [Mr. Noah] to be used with the [residential] structure." After purchasing the property from Mr. Noah, Mr. Faust was contacted by Petitioner, who told him that she had previously owned the dock and that Mr. Noah had shared it with her. Mr. Faust agreed to share the dock with her, for as long as he owned it. There are no recorded easements concerning the use of the dock. On the sales plat map, the west end of the canal is clearly separated from the subdivided area by a road, which is named Harbor Drive. However, Harbor Drive was never constructed and there is no physical evidence of the proposed road. Petitioner's late husband and his friends who helped build the dock mistakenly believed that the west end of the canal terminated at Harbor Drive. Undoubtedly, other persons were similarly confused, including the property assessor, who had never assessed the property that separates the west end of the canal from Harbor Drive. However, in May 1993, Noel Andress, one of the partners of Cayo Costa Island Partnership, obtained a warranty deed from Mr. Gresham for a triangular- shaped piece of land running north just to the existing dock from the intersection of Harbor Drive and an actual road known as La Costa Drive. Mr. Andress quitclaimed the triangular-shaped parcel, which is described by metes and bounds, to Cayo Costa Island Partnership on January 13, 1994. After Mr. Andress acquired the triangular-shaped parcel, he directed his attorney to write Petitioner and Mr. Faust and inform them to remove their personal property from the real property that Mr. Andress had recently acquired. Mr. Faust is contesting this matter in court. Unfortunately, the record does not include the application or applications submitted by Cayo Costa Island Partnership. Mr. Andress testified that he submitted an application in February or March of 1993. The proposed dock, which would replace the dock built by Mr. Sellars and Mr. Noah, would serve a single family. The proposed dock would consist of two sections: a 5' by 92' main section and a 6' by 10' walkway to the upland area. Thus, the total area of the dock would be 520 square feet. The application reportedly provides that Cayo Costa Island Partnership would use turbidity barriers during construction. The location of a 92-foot dock running parallel to the end of a 2000- foot long undeveloped canal presents no impediment to navigation. There is no reason to infer an adverse impact to flood control or, as long as turbidity barriers are used, a violation of water quality standards. By letter dated June 15, 1994, the Department of Environmental Protection acknowledged receipt of the application, as well as additional drawings and documents submitted on April 8, 1994. Based on these materials, the letter states that the proposed project "appears to qualify as an activity which is exempt from the need for a Department wetland resource permit under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-312.050(1)(h)."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner. ENTERED on November 22, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 22, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings A-C: rejected as not findings of fact. A1: rejected as not finding of fact and irrelevant, except for last sentence, which is adopted or adopted in substance. A2-end: rejected as irrelevant, recitation of evidence, subordinate, and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Cayo Costa's Proposed Findings 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-23: rejected as subordinate, recitation of testimony, and unnecessary. 24-31: adopted or adopted in substance. 32-33: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Mathews Trescott Pepper Law Firm 1505 S.E. 40th St. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Mary F. Smallwood Ruden, Barnett P.O. Box 10888 Tallahassee, FL 32302 John Chaves Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
