The Issue Whether the opening of a public highway-rail grade crossing at the proposed intersection of Tyson Avenue and Bridge Street in Hillsborough County, Florida, meets the criteria set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-57.012(2)(a)(1-3).
Findings Of Fact The Department has authority over public highway- railroad grade crossings in Florida, including the authority to issue permits for the opening and closing of crossings in accordance with section 335.141(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ and rule 14-57.012. New Port owns a 52-acre waterfront parcel (New Port parcel) in Tampa, Florida, bordered to the North by Gandy Boulevard, the east by Westshore Boulevard, to the south by Tyson Avenue and to the west by Tampa Bay, in an area known as Rattlesnake Point. In 2007, the City of Tampa amended its comprehensive plan to encourage the redevelopment of Rattlesnake Point from industrial to a residential/commercial mixed-use waterfront community. The City re-zoned the New Port parcel through PD-A Zoning 07-48 to authorize redevelopment of the parcel in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan, which includes residential, office, commercial, and hotel uses. CSX owns and operates a rail spur that crosses over Tyson Avenue, just west of Westshore Boulevard and then runs parallel to the north side of Tyson Avenue (the Henry Spur). CSX operates trains, averaging five cars in length, along the Henry Spur transporting goods to and from the two remaining industrial users located on Rattlesnake Point. The trains generally travel between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m., Sunday through Thursday, at a speed between five and ten miles per hour. Vehicular traffic is stopped by automatic crossbars for approximately one and one-half minutes when the train crosses the intersection at Westshore and Tyson. The Henry Spur prevents public access to the New Port parcel from the south at Tyson Avenue. Two private highway-rail grade crossings over the Henry Spur allowed construction equipment to access the New Port parcel from the south during land clearing. As a condition of the New Port re-zoning, the City required that Bridge Street, a north-south road located in the northern portion of the parcel, be extended to provide a north- south corridor through the entire parcel beginning at Gandy Boulevard and terminating at Tyson Avenue. PD-A zoning 07-48 provides, at item 32, that “[t]he property Owner/Developer shall, at no cost to the City, construct/reconstruct and extend Bridge Street from Gandy Boulevard to Tyson Avenue as part of the redevelopment of the site.” The re-zoning further provides that Bridge Street would be a public right-of-way, deeded to the City, and after obtaining certificates of occupancies for retail, office, residential and hotel space, “the developer will be required to connect Bridge Street, from Price Avenue to Tyson Avenue, with Transportation approval, across CSX property, at the developer’s sole expense.” In 2007, CSX, the Department, the City of Tampa, New Port Tampa Bay CDD, and Ecoventure New Port II, LLC, entered into a Stipulation of Parties (Stipulation) to allow a new public highway-rail grade crossing over the Henry Spur at Bridge Street and Tyson Avenue (Crossing). The Stipulation authorized the Crossing upon the permanent closure of the two private highway- rail grade crossings along the Henry spur, and two public highway-rail grade crossings at 5th Avenue and 35th Street in Tampa, Florida. The Stipulation waived all administrative hearing rights provided that all covenants of the agreement were met within 24 months of execution of the Stipulation. The two public crossings were closed in accordance with the Stipulation, but due to changes in the Tampa real estate market, the New Port project did not immediately advance. The crossing at Bridge Street and Tyson Avenue was not constructed within 24 months and the Stipulation expired. Ecoventure New Port II, LLC’s, interest in the New Port parcel was later assumed by New Port Tampa Bay Holdings and interest in the project’s development was re-ignited. On December 18, 2014, the City of Tampa, submitted a Railroad Grade Crossing Application seeking the opening of a highway-rail grade crossing at Bridge Street and Tyson Avenue, which is the same location previously authorized by the Stipulation. CSX did not agree to an amended stipulation to allow for the opening of the Crossing. Laura Regalado has managed the Department’s rail crossing opening-closure program since August 2014. Ms. Regalado received and reviewed the City of Tampa’s application for the Crossing. Ms. Regalado, in February 2015, visited the locations referenced in the application and examined Tyson Avenue where the Crossing was proposed and the two private crossings that were to be closed. The private crossings were unfinished, rough surfaces and had no gates, bells, or flashing lights to warn of oncoming trains. The proposed public Crossing would be required to have an active warning system of gates, bells, and flashing lights. Ms. Regalado concluded that although any new crossing presents a potential danger to the traveling public, the overall safety of the area would be improved by the opening of one gated crossing, in exchange for the closing of two public crossings and the closing of the two unsecured private crossings. To further improve safety in the area, the Department required improved signalization at two additional public crossings as a condition of approval of the Notice of Intent to Permit. Ms. Regalado also examined three side streets to the west of Westshore Avenue for their potential as alternative access routes to the New Port property. The three streets-– McElroy, Paul and Price-–currently accommodate apartments, single-family houses, and light industrial uses. They are narrow side streets ranging from 16 to 18 feet wide, with on-street parking and drainage ditches. Ms. Regalado determined that the streets were not adequate alternative routes as they could not adequately support two-way traffic, construction vehicles, and emergency vehicles. At buildout, the New Port development is anticipated to have an annual average daily traffic (AADT) count of 16,654 vehicles entering and exiting the development. Bridge Street at Gandy Boulevard is expected to be a primary access point at the northern portion of the New Port parcel. The Gandy Boulevard and Bridge Street intersection was reconstructed after 2008 to provide westbound traffic accessing the New Port parcel a left turn lane onto Bridge Street. Eastbound Gandy Boulevard traffic can turn right onto Bridge Street to access the New Port parcel. Vehicles leaving the New Port parcel from Bridge Street are prohibited from turning left (to go west), but can make a right onto Gandy Boulevard to travel east and can then turn at the signalized intersection at Gandy and Westshore to travel north, south or west (after making a u-turn). For City approval of the New Port project, additional access points were required to accommodate westbound traffic and allow for evacuation and traffic flow. Plans approved by the City required Bridge Street be extended across the Henry Spur to Tyson Avenue as the main north-south thoroughfare for the development. Tyson Avenue is a 24-foot wide east-west roadway designed for two-way traffic and heavy vehicles. The corner of Tyson and Westshore meets the criteria for signalization, which would allow controlled turns from Tyson onto Westshore. Once northbound on Westshore, vehicles desiring to proceed in a westbound direction can turn left on Gandy Boulevard. Westshore Boulevard is approximately a half-mile long between Gandy and Tyson, has one north bound lane, one south bound lane, and a center lane. Northbound traffic on Westshore frequently backs up, even in the middle of the day, from Gandy Boulevard past McElroy, Paul and Price Avenues to as far south as Tyson Avenue. To address some of the congestion, the City has designed and budgeted for a dual left turn lane from Westshore onto Gandy Boulevard. The dual turn lanes will extend south of McElroy Avenue. The City has classified Westshore Boulevard as a failed roadway because it is unable to accommodate traffic volumes that currently exist. Consequently, the City denied the developer’s initial request to have Price Avenue be a gateway to the development as it would generate additional traffic entering directly onto Westshore Boulevard at an already congested point. Of the current side streets providing access to Westshore Boulevard between Gandy Boulevard and Tyson Avenue, Paul Avenue will not be extended to connect to the New Port parcel and Hendry Street (referred to as Bridge Street on Google maps) cannot provide public access as it is a private drive with lateral parking. As for McElroy Avenue, only southbound right turns will be allowed onto Westshore Boulevard due to the installation of the dual turn lanes for northbound traffic on Westshore Boulevard. Price Avenue will accommodate southbound traffic making right turns into and out of the New Port parcel, but spacing requirements prevent placement of a traffic signal at Price and Westshore, so northbound vehicles would have difficulty making a left turn onto Price Avenue. Furthermore, the proximity of Price Avenue to Tyson Avenue, and the near chronic congestion on Westshore Boulevard, would make a left turn leaving Price Avenue onto Westshore Boulevard exceptionally dangerous. Without the Crossing at Tyson Avenue, Price Avenue is expected to have a queue of 16.8 cars waiting to access Westshore Boulevard during peak morning hours, and a queue of 23.7 cars during peak afternoon hours. CSX contends that an entry point, identified as Retail Drive, to the New Port parcel could be an alternative route instead of the connection at Bridge Street and Tyson. Retail Drive connects to Westshore Boulevard at the southeastern portion of the New Port parcel. New Port is under contract to develop a 12-acre parcel at that location as a multi-family apartment complex. To access the apartment complex, the plans contemplate Retail Drive as a gated, private driveway connected to Westshore Boulevard. Due to spacing requirements, traffic signals could not be constructed at both the intersections of Westshore Boulevard and Retail Drive and Westshore Boulevard and Tyson Avenue. Tyson Avenue has already met the requirements for a traffic signal at the Westshore Boulevard intersection and is preferred by the City for signalization because it would serve all of the traffic on Rattlesnake Point, instead of a single development. Absent a traffic signal, vehicles leaving Retail Drive are only permitted to make a right turn to head south on Westshore Boulevard. As only ten percent of the traffic leaving the New Port development is expected to travel south, Retail Drive, if reconstructed as a through road, would not provide an acceptable alternative route for traffic leaving the New Port development. The Bridge Street extension over the Henry Spur is essential to the City’s plan for redevelopment of the New Port development. The Bridge Street extension provides a north-south corridor parallel to Westshore Boulevard that allows traffic to enter onto Gandy Boulevard to the north and Tyson Boulevard to the south. CSX agreed to the Crossing in 2007, but now objects and contends that the situation has changed. Specifically, CSX contends that the amount of rail traffic has increased from an estimated five train movements per week to an estimated ten train movements per week. The trains are still of short duration, with crossings taking approximately a minute and one-half, twice a night, four or five times a week. CSX also indicates it has felt increased pressure from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to decrease its overall number of crossings in Florida. CSX has not approached FRA for its position on allowing this particular crossing to open, and the related offset of the closing of four CSX crossings. CSX expressed concern that they could be subject to FRA fines if the number of crossings is not reduced, but offered no credible evidence in support of this contention.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the opening of a public railroad-highway grade crossing at Bridge Street and Tyson Avenue in Hillsborough County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should grant the Petitioner’s application for a Class “C” Private Investigator license and the application he filed as President on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner’s Class “C” Application The Petitioner applied for his Class “C” Private Investigator license on April 29, 1996. The application included the Petitioner’s Affidavit of Experience, which represented the following qualifying experience: employment with Telephonic Collections, Inc., from 3/91 to 9/93, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “credit and asset investigations for recovery of debts; did skip-tracing full-time to locate subjects for debt recovery; utilized collection network and data base information.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Collections, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment with Telephonic Info, Inc., from 9/93 to 2/96, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself full-time to: “administrative processing of investigation files; computer data base research and information recovery; computer preparing or reports; administrative dutys [sic] in investigation agency.” Joseph Apter, President of Telephonic Info, Inc., was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. employment as an auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven, Connecticut, from 1965 to 1967, during which employment the Petitioner devoted himself part-time as follows: “received police training and performed assignments as required.” The Petitioner did not specify how much time was devoted to those duties. Captain Stephen D. Rubelman was listed as the individual who could verify this employment. Processing of the Petitioner’s Applications The Respondent began the process of verifying the information in the Petitioner’s Class “C” application on May 8, 1996, when it had referred the Petitioner’s fingerprint card to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for a criminal history. The Respondent subsequently began its own verification of the information in the application by telephoning Apter. On June 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned Apter, who verified the representations in the Petitioner’s application as to his experience with Telephonic Collections. Specifically, Apter stated that Telephonic Collections was a collection agency and that, for two years and five months, “100% of the applicant’s job was skiptracing [sic] individuals with delinquent accounts for the purpose of collecting the money owed to creditor.” Since this experience exceeded minimum requirements, no further verification was considered necessary, and the Respondent awaited the criminal history report from the FDLE. While the Respondent was awaiting the criminal history report from the FDLE, the Petitioner telephoned the Respondent to inquire as to the status of his application. On August 2, 1996, after being told the status, the Petitioner filed an application as president on behalf of Info, Inc., for a Class “A” Private Investigative Agency license. Eventually, on August 27, 1996, the Respondent received the Petitioner’s criminal history report from the FLDE, and it showed no reason not to grant the Petitioner’s applications. But earlier in August, Garry Floyd, an investigator in the Respondent’s Tampa office, learned that the Petitioner had filed applications for licensure. From prior dealings with the Petitioner and Apter, Investigator Floyd was unaware that the Petitioner had any qualifying experience. To the contrary, during a June 1994, investigation Floyd was conducting into unlicensed activities by employees of Telephonic Info, a licensed private investigation agency, the Petitioner emphatically denied that he was conducting investigations for the company. The Petitioner told Floyd that the Petitioner did not know how to conduct an investigation and did not want to know how; he said his role in the company was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd obtained a copy of the Petitioner’s applications and saw the Petitioner’s representations as to his experience with Telephonic Info as well as Telephonic Collections. Since those representations did not comport with statements the Petitioner made to Floyd in June 1994, and did not comport with Floyd’s understanding as to the nature of the Petitioner’s experience, Floyd recommended on August 13, 1997, that the Respondent allow him to investigate further before approving the Petitioner’s applications and issuing any licenses. During his investigation, Floyd obtained statements from three individuals thought to be former employees of Telephonic Collections to the effect that they had no knowledge of any skip- tracing or other investigative work being conducted by the Petitioner. All three—C.J. Bronstrup, Jason Gillard, and Duncan Tate—thought that the Petitioner’s role was strictly administrative. Investigator Floyd also was aware that Apter’s applications for renewal of his Class “C” and Class “A” licenses had been denied due to what Floyd understood to be a felony conviction. (Although Apter’s testimony on the criminal charges against him was confusing, it would appear that he entered a plea on the felony charge, and adjudication was withheld. There apparently also were unconnected charges of perjury against him, but the disposition of those charges is not clear from Apter’s testimony.) Finally, Investigator Floyd also recalled that Apter once told Floyd that Apter thought he might have the beginnings of Alzheimer’s disease. For these reasons, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent not credit the Petitioner with any qualifying experience from his employment with Telephonic Collections and also recommended that the representations on the application regarding that employment experience be considered fraudulent misrepresentations. When the Petitioner’s experience with Telephonic Collections was called into question, the Respondent attempted to verify the Petitioner’s experience with the City of West Haven Police Department but was unable to contact Stephen Rubelman at the telephone number given in the application. (According to the Respondent’s witness, “the phone rang off the hook.”) Then, on September 26, 1996, the Respondent telephoned the City of West Haven Police Department but was informed that the Respondent’s employment there between 1965 and 1967 was too old to verify. For these reasons, on September 27, 1996, Investigator Floyd recommended that the Respondent deny the Petitioner’s applications. On October 7, 1996, the Respondent mailed the Petitioner a letter giving notice of intent to deny the Petitioner’s applications. The letter was addressed to the Petitioner as president of INFO, Inc., at “13575 - 58 Street North, Clearwater, Florida 34620.” This mailing was returned undelivered on October 14, 1996, and the letter was returned undelivered. On October 15, 1996, the letter was re-sent in another envelope to “Post Office Box 1241, Largo, Florida 34649,” the mailing address on the Class “A” application. But apparently this time the mailing was returned for postage. The envelope was meter-stamped on October 26, and was received by the Petitioner on October 29, 1996. Verification of Petitioner’s Qualifying Experience The Petitioner did not directly dispute the testimony of Investigator Floyd as to what the Petitioner told him during Floyd’s June 1994, investigation. See Finding 5, supra. Instead, the Petitioner testified essentially that he in fact knew how to do skip-tracing and conduct investigations, having been taught and trained by Apter, and that the Petitioner had extensive experience doing skip-tracing and conducting investigations working for Telephonic Collections, which was a debt collection agency. While not directly disputing Floyd’s testimony as to what the Petitioner said to Floyd, the Petitioner alleged that Floyd may have been biased against him (due to his association with Apter) and suggested that Floyd knew or should have known that the Petitioner knew how to do investigation work because Floyd once asked the Petitioner to get some information for him and watched as the Petitioner placed a pretext call. Regardless of Floyd’s alleged bias or pertinent knowledge, it is found that Floyd accurately related what the Petitioner said to him and that the Petitioner’s purpose in making those statements was to avoid any further investigation into whether the Petitioner also was participating in unlicensed investigative activities during his employment by Telephonic Info. Even assuming that the Petitioner did skip-tracing and investigations for Telephonic Collections, it is clear from the testimony that the Petitioner did not do skip-tracing and investigations full-time, 100 percent of the time, as represented in the Class “C” application and as verified by Apter upon telephone inquiry. At final hearing, Apter testified that, when he verified the Petitioner’s experience for the Respondent on June 26, 1996, he did not mean that the Petitioner had no other duties but rather that the Petitioner did no collection work— i.e., the collection employees would take the information the Petitioner developed from his skip-tracing and asset location efforts and telephone the debtors to try to get satisfaction of the debt. Apter conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. It is the Respondent’s policy, when an applicant has employment experience in a full-time job that involves some investigative work or training in addition to other duties, to credit the applicant for a pro rata amount of qualifying experience based on the quantifiable percentage of time devoted to the investigative work or training. It could not be determined from the evidence what percentage of the Petitioner’s work at Telephonic Collections was devoted to skip-tracing and investigation work and how much was administrative. The Petitioner and Apter testified that Apter trained the Petitioner in skip-tracing and investigation work and that the Petitioner did a substantial amount of skip-tracing and investigation work from March 1991, through September 1993; but both conceded that the Petitioner also had administrative duties. Apter did not break down the Petitioner’s time spent between the two. The Petitioner made a rough approximation that 25 percent of his time was spent on administrative matters. Sharon Jones, who worked for both Telephone Collections and Telephone Info, testified that the Petitioner did some skip-tracing work, as well as other duties, between June through September 1993, but she also could not estimate the percentage of time spent between the two. Other witnesses, including Bronstrup and Tate, were not aware that the Petitioner was doing any skip-tracing at all during the times they were working for Telephonic Collections. (Bronstrup worked there for approximately ten weeks between March and June 1993; Tate worked there from February 1993, through the time it became Telephonic Info in September 1993.) In partial response to the testimony of Bronstrup and Tate, the Petitioner suggested that it was not surprising for them not to be aware of the Petitioner’s skip-tracing and other investigative work because much of it was done at the Petitioner’s home after hours and because most of the employees were treated on a “need to know” basis. (The Petitioner also contended that Bronstrup did not spend much time at work for Telephonic Collections, as he also had another part-time job and did some personal investigation work on the side.) But even if it is true that the Petitioner did much of his skip-tracing and other investigative work at home after hours, only the Petitioner and Apter even knew about it, and the amount of time the Petitioner spent doing investigative work at home clearly was not verified. The Petitioner continues to maintain that he stopped doing any skip-tracing or investigative work after Telephonic Collections, the debt collection agency, ceased doing business and became Telephonic Info, the private investigation agency. As for the Petitioner’s experience as a part-time auxiliary policeman with the City of West Haven police department, the application does not give any indication as to how much time, if any, the Petitioner spent doing investigation work or being trained in that work. The Rubelman affidavit introduced in evidence to verify his experience likewise does not give that kind of information. It only states generally that the Petitioner received training in and assisted in police work. It does not indicate that any of the training or work was in investigations. It also indicates that no records of the Petitioner’s employment exist and that Rubelman cannot reconstruct even the months the Petitioner worked, much less what the work consisted of. Although it is not clear, at final hearing it appeared that the Petitioner may have been claiming credit for work he did collecting Telephonic Info’s accounts receivable. However, the amount of any such work was not quantified. It also appeared at final hearing that the Petitioner also was claiming credit for doing background investigations on prospective employees of Telephonic Info. However, the Petitioner also did not quantify the amount of any of this work. Alleged Fraud or Willful Misrepresentation The Petitioner stated in the Affidavit of Experience in his Class “C” application that the “approximate percentage of time devoted to” the qualifying skip-tracing and investigation duties listed for his employment with Telephonic Collections from March 1991 to September 1993 was “full time.” This statement clearly was false. All of the witnesses confirmed that the Petitioner spent at least some time doing administrative work; several thought that was all the Petitioner was doing. The Petitioner conceded in his testimony at final hearing that at least 25 percent of his time was devoted to administrative work, and it is found that the actual percentage probably was much higher. Unlike Apter, the Petitioner made no attempt to explain his false representation, and it is found to be a fraudulent or willful misrepresentation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying both the Petitioner’s Class “C” license application and his Class “A” license application. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry P. Schlenther 12155 Meadowbrook Lane Largo, Florida 33774 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Sandra B. Mortham, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue in case number 94-6750 is whether Respondent's Class "A" private investigative agency license should be disciplined. The issue in case number 95-1084S is whether Respondent's application for a Class "C" license should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of State, Division of Licensing (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"), is responsible for, among other things, the licensing of privateinvestigators and private investigative agencies in the State of Florida. Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. In pertinent part, the Division may issue, pursuant to Section 493.611, Florida Statutes, the following classes of licenses: Class "C": private investigator; Class "CC": private investigator intern; and Class "A": private investigative agency. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Keith P. Acuff, was licensed by the Division as a private investigator intern. Mr. Acuff holds a Class "CC" license from the Division. Mr. Acuff is also the owner of a private investigative agency known as Chatoyant Executive Protection and Investigative Services (hereinafter referred to as "Chatoyant"). Mr. Acuff holds a Class "A" license from the Division for Chatoyant. License Requirements. In order to qualify for a Class "C" license, an individual must operate for a minimum of twenty-four months as a private investigator intern. Section 493.6203(4), Florida Statutes. During those twenty-four months, the intern must be sponsored and supervised by an individual holding a Class "C" license. See Sections 493.6101(11) and 493.6116, Florida Statutes. Anyone, regardless of licensure, may hold a Class "A" license. In order for the business to operate as a private investigative agency, however, the agency must be managed by a person holding a Class "C" license. Mr. Acuff's Investigatory Experience. Mr. Acuff first received his Class "CC" license in July of 1990. In October of 1994 Mr. Acuff applied for a Class "C" license. See Petitioner's exhibit 1. The Division denied the application based upon its conclusion that Mr. Acuff had failed to verify that he had accrued twenty-four months of sponsored service as a private investigator intern. Mr. Acuff was first employed by Don Hubbard Investigations. Mr. Acuff had not claimed, nor does the evidence support a finding, that he is entitled to any time toward a Class "C" license for his employment with Don Hubbard Investigations. From the middle of September, 1990, until December, 1991, Mr. Acuff was employed by The Brown Group. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at The Brown Group was Steve Brown. The Division was able to verify from documentation submitted by Mr. Brown that Mr. Acuff was entitled to 12 months of investigatory work while employed at The Brown Group. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to more than 12 months credit for his employment with The Brown Group. Although Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 15 months under Mr. Brown's sponsorship, he offered no proof from Mr. Brown to substantiate his testimony. From December 15, 1991, to February 15, 1992, Mr. Acuff was employed by Intercontinental Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at Intercontinental Detective Agency was Sean Mulholland. The Division was able to verify that Mr. Acuff had performed investigatory duties for Mr. Mulholland for 1 month. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to more than 1 month credit for his employment with Intercontinental Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 3 months under Mr. Mulholland's sponsorship but he offered no proof from Mr. Mulholland to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Acuff's testimony that he submitted a Sponsorship Term Addendum completed by Mr. Mulholland to the Division was not credible and, even if it had been credible, was insufficient to constitute substantiation from Mr. Mulholland of Mr. Acuff's work for him. Mr. Acuff's next investigatory work was for MG Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff's sponsor at MG Detective Agency was Michael G. Hatcher. Mr. Hatcher agreed to sponsor Mr. Acuff by executing a Letter of Intent to Sponsor Private Investigator Intern on October 27, 1992. See Respondent's exhibit 2. Cynthia L. Cartwright signed the form agreeing to be an alternative sponsor. Mr. Acuff did not list any time under Mr. Hatcher's sponsorship for credit on his application for Class "C" license. See Petitioner's exhibit 1. The Division was not able to verify that Mr. Acuff had performed any investigatory duties for Mr. Hatcher. Mr. Acuff failed to prove that he was entitled to any credit for his employment with MG Detective Agency. Mr. Acuff testified that he believes he worked at least 3 months under Mr. Hatcher's sponsorship but he offered no proof from Mr. Hatcher to substantiate his testimony. Mr. Acuff claimed on his application for Class "C" license that, upon leaving MG Detective Agency, he worked for Chatoyant from June of 1993 until August 1994. Mr. Acuff claimed that he was sponsored by Ms. Cartwright while employed for Chatoyant. Mr. Acuff also claimed that he performed investigatory work under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship during the period he worked for Chatoyant for at least 3 and 1/2 months. Initially the Division planned to issue Mr. Acuff a Class "C" license. The Division concluded that Mr. Acuff was entitled to at least 11 months of sponsored investigatory work under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. Before the Class "C" license was issued to Mr. Acuff, however, the Division concluded that Mr. Acuff was not entitled to any sponsored time under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. The evidence, as discussed, infra, proved that Mr. Acuff is not entitled to any credit for work performed under Ms. Cartwright's sponsorship. Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Acuff provided verification that he had 13 months of sponsored investigatory service. Mr. Acuff is, therefore, 11 months shy of the 24-months of experience required for a Class "C" license. Mr. Acuff's Association with Ms. Cartwright. Mr. Acuff met Ms. Cartwright in late 1992 when he was employed briefly at MG Detective Agency. Ms. Cartwright has held a Class "C" license since 1991. Upon Mr. Acuff's termination of employment at MG Detective Agency, Ms. Cartwright was told by Mr. Acuff and a mutual friend, Carolyn Barber, that he only needed 2 or 3 months to complete the 2 years of internship required for a Class "C" license. Ms. Cartwright was asked if she would sponsor Mr. Acuff and act as the manager of Chatoyant for 2 or 3 months. Ms. Cartwright agreed to Mr. Acuff's request. She did so because Ms. Barber had asked her to and she felt sorry for Mr. Acuff because he had been terminated by MG Detective Agency only needing, Ms. Cartwright thought, 2 or 3 more months of sponsorship. Ms. Cartwright signed a Letter of Intent to Sponsor. The form she signed was blank. The Letter of Intent to Sponsor was subsequently completed, dated April 14, 1993 and filed with the Division. Ms. Cartwright admits she signed a blank form even though she understands that it was improper for her to do so. After agreeing to sponsor Mr. Acuff and act as the manager of Chatoyant, Ms. Cartwright changed her mind. She telephoned the Division's offices in Tallahassee in August of 1993 to ask how she could have her name removed as manager of Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright was informed that her name did not appear as manager of Chatoyant. In the fall of 1993 Mr. Acuff asked Ms. Cartwright to sign a form terminating her position with Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright told Mr. Acuff she did not see why she needed to sign a form based upon what she had been told during her conversation with the Division. When Mr. Acuff suggested that the Division might have made a mistake, Ms. Cartwright agreed to sign the form. In January or February of 1994 Ms. Cartwright signed a blank copy of a Termination/Completion of Sponsorship for Private Investigator Intern form. She gave the signed form to Ms. Barber. This form was ultimately completed, Ms. Cartwright's signature was notarized by Mr. Acuff's girlfriend, the form was dated August 30, 1994 and was then filed with the Division as part of Mr. Acuff's application for licensure. See Petitioner's exhibit 6. It was represented on Petitioner's exhibit 6 that Ms. Cartwright had sponsored Mr. Acuff from June 3, 1993 to August 26, 1994. An Employee Action Report was also filed with the Division. Petitioner's exhibit 5. The form indicates that Ms. Cartwright had resigned as manager of Chatoyant as of August 30, 1994. Ms. Cartwright did not sign the form. On October 5, 1994, Ms. Cartwright executed a Termination/Completion of Sponsorship for Private Investigator Intern form attesting that "I did not sponsor Patrick Acuff to my knowledge. I was not aware of Intent to Sponsor." Petitioner's exhibit 7. Ms. Cartwright did not sponsor any investigatory work by Mr. Acuff or act as the manager of Chatoyant. The Administrative Complaint. During the summer of 1994, the Division's office in Jacksonville received a letter questioning how Mr. Acuff could be working for Chatoyant without an appropriate license or manager. Ms. Norma Benvenuto, an investigator for the Division, checked the Division's records and determined that there was no sponsor listed for Chatoyant. Ms. Benvenuto spoke with Mr. Acuff and asked that he come to her office. Mr. Acuff complied. Mr. Acuff informed Ms. Benvenuto that Ms. Cartwright was the sponsor of Chatoyant. When asked for documentation, Mr. Acuff was only able to produce a blank form signed by Ms. Cartwright. Ms. Benvenuto asked Mr. Acuff to bring any documentation that would support his assertion that Ms. Cartwright was the manager of Chatoyant and that they had met to discuss his work during her sponsorship of him. Ms. Benvenuto telephoned Mr. Acuff more than once to remind him to bring the documentation. Mr. Acuff failed to provide any such documentation. Ms. Benvenuto contacted Ms. Cartwright in an effort to verify Mr. Acuff's assertions. Ms. Cartwright denied ever sponsoring Mr. Acuff or every actually performing any duties as the manager of Chatoyant. Ms. Cartwright also admitted that she had initially agreed to sponsor Mr. Acuff but had subsequently changed her mind. On October 20, 1995, the Division entered an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Acuff. The Denial of Mr. Acuff's Application for a Class "C" License. By letter dated December 16, 1994, the Division notified Mr. Acuff that his application for a Class "C" license was denied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Division sustaining Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Acuff in case number 94- 6750, requiring that he pay a fine of $1,000.00 and denying the application for a Class "C" license filed by Mr. Acuff or about August 30, 1994 in case number 95-1084S. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX The Division has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Acuff did not file a proposed order. The Division's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. See 4-5. 2-3 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 22, 28 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 25 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 22 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 17 and hereby accepted. See 26 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 16 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 13, COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, MS #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Jeffrey Grainger, Esquire 1722 University Boulevard South Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Don Bell Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue As to each case, whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the respective administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Robert C. Seitz, held a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C88-00643 and Respondent, Investigative Services International, Incorporated (ISI), held a valid Class "A" Investigative License. Mr. Seitz is the president of ISI. All acts described in this Recommended Order committed by Mr. Seitz were in his capacity as an employee and officer of ISI. CASE NO. 95-3553 On December 30, 1994, Mr. Seitz executed a contract on behalf of ISI by which he agreed that his agency would perform investigative services for Jacqueline Alfaro. The nature of the investigation was the surveillance, videotaping, and documentation of the activities of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law. Ms. Alfaro suspected that her sister-in-law was engaged in an extramarital affair and wanted proof of her suspicions to give to her brother, who was incarcerated on federal drug charges. Ms. Alfaro gave to Mr. Seitz a retainer of $1,000 in cash, as requested by Mr. Seitz. The contract for services executed by Ms. Alfaro authorized ISI to bill for the expenses of computer research. Petitioner asserts that Ms. Alfaro provided Mr. Seitz with all pertinent information that was required for the investigation and that additional computer research was not necessary. Mr. Seitz testified, credibly, that some computer research was appropriate to assist him in preparing for his surveillance of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law by identifying suspects and possible locations of meetings. Consequently, it is concluded that some of the computer research done by Mr. Seitz was appropriate. In addition to the computer research that was in furtherance of the investigation, Mr. Seitz conducted computer research on his own client. The computer research on Jacqueline Alfaro was inappropriate and was not in furtherance of the investigation of the sister-in-law. The records of ISI for the Alfaro investigation consists of a bookkeeping entry that merely reflects that expenses in the lump-sum amount of $100.00 were incurred for computer research. This record is insufficient to substantiate what was being billed. 1/ Mr. Seitz testified that his company's records of the expenses for the computer research excluded the time he spent researching his own client. This testimony is accepted and, consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the bill to Ms. Alfaro 2/ included expenses for inappropriate computer research. The contract authorizes charges for mileage incurred outside of Dade County at the rate of 45 per mile. Ms. Alfaro was told by Mr. Seitz that she would not be charged mileage because the investigation would be exclusively within Dade County. The bill submitted to Ms. Alfaro included a charge for mileage of $33.75 incurred on January 5, 1995. This mileage was purportedly incurred for 75 miles driven by Mr. Seitz in Broward County. There was also a billing of $32.50 for one-half hour driving time on the same date. Respondent's testified that he was spending time on a weekend with his family in Broward County when he was summoned by Ms. Alfaro back to Dade County. He further testified that he billed for only the mileage he incurred while in Broward County traveling to Dade County. This explanation is rejected as lacking credibility for two reasons. First, January 5, 1995, fell on a Thursday, not on a weekend. Second, it is doubtful that Mr. Seitz would have traveled 75 miles going from Broward County to Dade County. It is concluded that Ms. Alfaro was inappropriately billed for the 75 miles that Mr. Seitz allegedly drove in Broward County on January 5, 1995. Petitioner did not establish that the billing of $32.50 for driving time on January 5, 1995, was inappropriate since that was for time spent driving within Dade County, Florida. Ms. Alfaro frequently spoke with Mr. Seitz about the investigation, requesting details. She came to believe that Mr. Seitz was not performing his investigation and sent her nephew to check on him. On different occasions, the nephew went to the locations where Mr. Seitz had told Ms. Alfaro he would be conducting a surveillance of the sister-in-law. The nephew reported to Ms. Alfaro that Mr. Seitz was not at those locations. On or about January 9, 1995, Ms. Alfaro instructed Mr. Seitz to terminate the investigation because her nephew caught his stepmother with another man. There was a dispute as to whether Ms. Alfaro requested a written report of the investigation and copies of video tapes taken during the investigation. Ms. Alfaro testified that she wanted a written report and copies of videotapes because she did not believe that Mr. Seitz had conducted an investigation. Mr. Seitz testified that she did not ask for a written report because she did not want her brother to know that she had been investigating his wife. This conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Alfaro did ask for a written report of the investigation and that she wanted copies of any video tapes. This finding is reached, in part, because Ms. Alfaro clearly did not believe that Mr. Seitz had performed an investigation as he had verbally reported to her. A request for a written report would be consistent with that belief. The finding is also based on an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses offering the conflicting testimony. On or about January 12, 1995, Mr. Seitz left Ms. Alfaro a handwritten note and $170.00 cash under the door of her business. The note reflected that the total of time and mileage for the investigation was $830.00. The $170.00 purported to represent the difference between the amounts incurred by Ms. Alfaro pursuant to the contract and the amount of the retainer. Ms. Alfaro requested an itemized statement to substantiate this billing. She never received a written report, any videotape, or an itemized billing. Mr. Seitz and ISI failed to maintain investigative notes of the surveillance activities on behalf of Ms. Alfaro. Mr. Seitz produced to Petitioner's investigator what purports to be a computer record of the charges incurred by Ms. Alfaro. The hourly rate specified by the contract was $65.00. The charges reflected by the computer record are as follows: A. 1-4-95 Computer Research $100.00 B. 1-5-95 Surveillance 130.00 C. 1-5-95 Travel Time 32.50 D. 1-5-95 Mileage (75 @ 45 ) 33.75 E. 1-6-95 Surveillance 325.00 F. 1-6-95 Travel Time 65.00 G. 1-7-95 Standby Time 65.00 $751.25 The computer records also reflected that the agency agreed to absorb taxes in the amount of $48.83. Mr. Seitz rounded these figures and determined that Ms. Alfaro was entitled to a refund of $250.00. Mr. Seitz testified that he actually returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $250.00 in the note he left for her on January 12, 1995. He testified that his note reflecting that the sum of $170.00 was being returned to her was an error on his part. Ms. Alfaro's testimony was that she was returned only $170.00. Since Ms. Alfaro's testimony is consistent with Mr. Seitz's handwritten note, the conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that Mr. Seitz returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $170.00. His testimony that he simply made a mistake as to the amounts due to be refunded is found to be credible and is, consequently, accepted. CASE 95-4775 At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Robin Bloodworth held a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued by Petitioner. Prior to January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was told by a friend of hers that he knew someone who might be interested in employing her. This friend asked her to fax to him a copy of her resume. On January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was contacted by telephone twice by Mr. Seitz. She faxed to him her resume in response to the request he made during the first conversation. He thereafter called a second time, at approximately 10:15 p.m. and asked whether she could be available for a surveillance the following Sunday (January 22, 1995). In response, Ms. Bloodworth told him that she could be available for that assignment on Sunday. On January 18, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth received another telephone call from Mr. Seitz. He asked if she could be on a surveillance by 11:00 a.m. that day in Hollywood, Florida. Ms. Bloodworth accepted that assignment after Mr. Seitz told her what he wanted her to do, thereby beginning her employment with ISI. Ms. Bloodworth did not meet Mr. Seitz in person until 6:30 p.m. on January 18, 1995. During that first meeting, Ms. Bloodworth gave to Mr. Seitz a copy of her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license and was told by him that he was going to fill out her sponsor forms and send them to the Petitioner. Mr. Seitz knew that Ms. Bloodworth was a novice investigator with little field experience, other than process serving. Ms. Bloodworth never actually saw any documentation from Mr. Seitz or ISI regarding forms pertaining to her employment that were required to be submitted to the Petitioner. She never received a copy of a letter notifying Petitioner that either Mr. Seitz or ISI intended to sponsor her. Prior to being employed by ISI, Ms. Bloodworth had held her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license for approximately six months and had conducted only two or three surveillances. Ms. Bloodworth received no formal training from ISI. During the course of her employment with ISI, which lasted approximately three months, she conducted approximately 35 investigations. Ms. Bloodworth was not directly supervised by Mr. Seitz or by anyone else while she was in the field conducting her investigations. Prior to undertaking an assignment, Mr. Seitz would explain to her the assignment and generally instruct her as to what she would need to do. He frequently told her to use her "judgment" as she was a "big girl". He told her that he did not have time to "baby-sit" her. Ms. Bloodworth had a cellular telephone at her disposal and she knew Mr. Seitz' pertinent telephone numbers at all times. She was instructed to only call him in the event of an emergency. The only time Mr. Seitz visited Ms. Bloodworth in the field was on one assignment for approximately an hour. That visit was prompted by her needing batteries for a camcorder. During the latter part of her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was told to contact Michael Graff, the lead investigator for ISI, and not Mr. Seitz. During her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was assigned to conduct an investigation in Haiti. Prior to being sent to Haiti, Ms. Bloodworth was briefed as to the assignment, which included instructions as to where to go, who to meet, and what to do. Ms. Bloodworth was able to contact ISI personnel by telephone. Petitioner does not regulate investigations outside of the United States. Ms. Bloodworth's official Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern application file as maintained by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, does not contain a notification that ISI or Mr. Seitz intended to sponsor her. This file does not contain any documentation relating to Ms. Bloodworth's hiring by ISI, her termination, or an intern biannual report. Mr. Seitz testified that he submitted to Petitioner a form notifying it that ISI intended to sponsor Ms. Bloodworth. He displayed to Petitioner's investigator a form that he represented was a file copy of the notification form. That form was dated January 13, 1995, which was four days before he first talked to Ms. Bloodworth and five days before he met her in person and received a copy of her license. He was unable to produce any other documentation as to this notification. Mr. Seitz's testimony as to this issue is rejected as lacking credibility. Mr. Seitz admits that ISI did not submit any documentation relating to the termination of Ms. Bloodworth's employment and it did not submit an intern biannual report that would have been due as a result of her employment having been terminated. Mr. Seitz testified that he did not file these reports when Ms. Bloodworth's employment was terminated because she threatened him and he was awaiting the results of a police investigation before filing the reports. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Respondents, Investigative Services International, Inc., and Robert C. Seitz, be fined in the total amount of $1,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent held a Class "C" Private Investigator's License Number C90-00727 and a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License, Number G90-02226. In April 1991 Respondent taught a Saturday morning class, the third or fourth week of that month, in which Beatrice Price and Ryan Martin were trainees. At the conclusion of the lecture Respondent took the two trainees on a "real" investigation. The subject of the investigation was a dentist, Dr. Kathleen Gerreaux, under surveillance on either a worker's compensation claim or a liability claim (conflict in the testimony and the type of surveillance is not relevant). Respondent placed a microphone under the blouse of Beatrice Price a/k/a Beatrix Herrera and had her go to the office of Dr. Gerreaux to try and learn in what activities she was engaging. The conversation was recorded in Respondent's van parked some distance away. When Herrera returned to the van the tape was replayed in her presence and the words of the investigator and Dr. Gerreaux could be clearly understood. Shortly thereafter Dr. Gerreaux left her office and returned to her home. Respondent took the van to the vicinity of the residence, parked several houses away and rigged Ryan Martin with a microphone under his shirt and had him go to Dr. Gerreaux's home to attempt to get her to go jogging or perform some other exercise which could be videotaped. Herrera overheard the conversation between Martin and Dr. Gerreaux while waiting in the van. This incident was not reported to Petitioner until several months later after Herrera had contacted plaintiff's investigator to complain about an incident which she was told she had been taped without her knowledge or consent. When told that her evidence was insufficient to support her claim Herrera told the investigator about the taping of the conversation with Dr. Gerreaux. This initiated the investigation which led to the Administrative Complaint filed herein. After talking to Herrera and Martin the investigator also interviewed Respondent regarding the taping incident. Respondent admitted to the investigator that he had used Herrera and Martin to intercept the conversations with Dr. Gerreaux, but said the tapes were unintelligible. Respondent's version of this incident was similar to the testimony given at the hearing by Herrera except for the clarity of the taped conversation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding David J. Berry guilty of violating section 493.6118(1)(f), F.S. and that an Administrative fine of $1000 be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Henri C. Cawthon Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ronald L. Jones, Esquire 1020 East Lafayette Street, Suite 108 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint dated August 28, 2002, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case Respondent held a Class "C" Private Investigator License, number C87-00343, as well as a Class "E" Recovery Agent License, number E87-00046. By Final Order dated January 22, 2002 (Final Order) Petitioner determined that Respondent had conducted or advertised the business of a private investigative agency without a valid Class A license, and had performed the services of a private investigator after his Class C private investigator license had been suspended. Baro was fined for this conduct, and ordered to cease and desist from such activities until such time as he was properly licensed. Baro did not appeal the Final Order. Baro subsequently violated the Final Order by advertising his availability to serve as a private investigator in Palm Beach County, Florida, without first obtaining the requisite licensure. On or about January 14, 2002, in Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent subcontracted investigative work to CTC International Group, a licensed Florida investigative agency. At that time, Baro did not have a Florida private investigative agency license. In July, 2001, in Palm Beach County, Florida, Baro was working for Mrs. William LeNeve, who was embroiled in a contentious divorce. Baro's services to Mrs. LeNeve included concealing her whereabouts from her husband. Desperate for money, Baro approached Mr. LeNeve and offered to switch sides and help locate Mr. LeNeve’s wife and children for a price to be agreed upon. By way of defense, Baro contends that Petitioner is conducting a "vendetta" because, "[O]pposing Counsel did not appreciate my telling him years ago that I thought what they did to me then amounted to nothing short of extortion." See Baro's letter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, dated April 8, 2003. In a letter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, dated March 14, 2002, Baro asserted, "I know that we can clearly show that the states(sic)case is unjust and that Mr. Bensko's only motivation is a personal vendetta. I would very much like the opportunity to prove that." Baro made no attempt to back up the claim of improper motivation. To be clear, the record--both before and after Baro was represented by counsel--is completely devoid of any evidence that the Petitioner has acted improperly, or is improperly motivated with respect to Baro.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Class "C" Private Investigator License and the Class "E" Recovery Agent License, held by Respondent be revoked and that he be fined $1,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: State Road Number 688, also known as Ulmerton Road, is a major east- west arterial road in Pinellas County. The Paradyne Corporation owns property south of Ulmerton Road and the intervenors, the Millers and the Benjamins, own property located immediately adjacent and to the west of the Paradyne property. Located on the Paradyne property are six or eight commercial buildings, parking lots and a road which runs between Ulmerton Road and 126th Avenue, a county road. At the present time Paradyne employs approximately 1,700 persons who park approximately 1,400 cars per day in the parking lots located on Paradyne's property. On a form entitled "State of Florida Department of Transportation Driveway Permit," Paradyne requested "permission for the construction of a driveway(s) on Department of Transportation right-of-way" at State Road No. 688, Section No. 15120, Mile Post No. 6.350 in Pinellas County. The request was approved by the Department of Transportation on June 6, 1981. Attached to the approved permit were various conditions and stipulations and a sketch or drawing of the proposed construction. Paradyne constructed the connection with the Ulmerton Road light- controlled intersection, as well as a private road leading to it, in a manner whereby only vehicles utilizing the Paradyne property would have access to the intersection. The actual location or configuration of the connection on the State's right-of-way deviated somewhat from the location or configuration shown on the sketch or drawing attached to the permit. The permit issued to Paradyne in 1981 did not include any provisions regarding or sketches illustrating an access road on private property. The property owners adjacent to Paradyne, the intervenors herein, also desired a means of access to the light- controlled intersection on Ulmerton Road. Paradyne refused to allow intervenors to use the private road on its property. The intervenors' request to DOT for a separate connection to Ulmerton Road was denied for safety reasons. The DOT also denied the intervenors' request that a cease and desist order be issued that would require Paradyne to allow the intervenors the use of Paradyne's road. DOT's reason for refusing such a request was that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the DOT to order a 250- foot access road over the parties' private property. Apparently, the construction of a 250-foot joint use road was the subject of preliminary discussions between Paradyne and persons who had previously held an option to purchase the intervenors' land. However, as noted above, the permit was issued only to Paradyne and there is no mention therein of a 250-foot joint use drive on the private property of either Paradyne or the intervenors. Having failed in their attempts with Paradyne and the DOT to gain access to the Ulmerton Road light-controlled intersection, the intervenors filed an action in the Pinellas County Circuit Court seeking a declaratory judgment and a mandatory injunction requiring Paradyne to participate with them in the construction of a 250-foot joint use drive. The Circuit Court ordered Paradyne to so participate in accordance with the driveway permit and the DOT drawing. On appeal to the District Court of Appeal, Second District, it was concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the Circuit Court's finding that DOT intended that the owners of both parcels would have access to the light- controlled intersection. However, the appellate court found "that the circuit court violated due process of law because it did not have authority to order appellant to participate with appellees in the construction of the 250-foot-connector road. The permit, as issued, did not require a 250-foot connector road. The circuit court is only authorized to enforce the DOT permit under section 120.69. The authority to regulate connectors to state roads has been delegated to DOT pursuant to section 335.18, Florida Statutes (1981). Therefore, we reverse and remand to the circuit court to enforce the DOT permit pursuant to section 120.69, so both parcels will have access to the light-controlled intersection. Upon remand, DOT may intervene as a matter of right pursuant to section 120.69(1)(d), or be joined as an indispensable party based on its duties under section 335.18: It is possible that DOT will find that the intersection, as designed, does not meet the standards in section 335.18, Florida Statutes (1981). In this event, DOT should be allowed to re- design the connector road to meet the standards of section 335.18, and to have minimal impact on the property rights of appellant and appellees. In the event it becomes impossible to provide the parties access to the intersection as contemplated by DOT's permit, DOT has authority under section 335.18(4) to deny access and revoke the permit. Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded with instructions." Paradyne Corporation v. Miller, 455 So.2d 432, at 434 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 1984). On remand, the DOT intervened in the proceeding. By Order filed on December 23, 1985, the Circuit Court of Pinellas County noted that the intervenors herein and the DOT sought to present a redesign of the intersection and connector road and that Paradyne objected. The Court denied the proceedings sought by the intervenors herein and the DOT, concluding that "this hearing is premature in view of the fact that a new permit must be issued for a material change of the intersection, and that Defendant (Paradyne), in the issuance of a new permit has all the rights of objection and administrative process that it had under the first permit..." Irvin E. Miller, et al v. Paradyne Corporation, et al, Case No. 82-3441-8 (Circuit Court for Pinellas County, December 23, 1985). The instant "Alleged Violation of the Florida Statutes and Notice to Show Cause" is dated March 31, 1986. That document charges that the highway connection constructed by Paradyne is in violation of Section 335.18(3) and 335.18(1) for the reasons that: it was not constructed in accordance with the permit design plan to provide joint access to Paradyne and the intervenors' adjoining properties, and (b) a material redesign of the existing connection in accordance with an attached drawing is required due to disruption of traffic and safety hazards caused by the greatly increased numbers of vehicles using the road connection. Paradyne was ordered to comply or show cause why its connection permit should not be revoked and access denied to the connection. On the south side of Ulmerton Road, the DOT's right-of-way extends 38 feet from the berm of Ulmerton Road. There is no dispute over the fact, and petitioner so admits, that the connection Paradyne constructed on the State's right-of-way was not in accordance with the drawing attached to its 1991 permit. However, the DOT presented no evidence that it now desires Paradyne to alter the connection so as to be in compliance with the 1981 permit drawing. In late 1984, after the remand from the District Court of Appeal, Second District, the intervenors retained the DSA Group, formerly Diaz-Seckinger & Associates, Inc., to prepare a report on the joint use of improvements at the intersection of Ulmerton Road and the Paradyne entrance. The DSA Group conducted traffic studies and prepared a "Report on Existing Conditions and Joint Use Access Proposal at Ulmerton Road and Entrance to Paradyne." The report recommended a redesign and contained drawings for a major revision of the intersection actually on Ulmerton Road, the connection on the right-of-way and a 250-foot long joint access road on the private property of Paradyne and the intervenors. While DOT employees were consulted regarding this report and its recommendations and had some input during its preparation, there was no showing that Paradyne participated in the report or the recommended redesign of Ulmerton Road, the connection or the joint use drive. Indeed, according to the engineer responsible for the DSA report, the report and redesign were developed and submitted to the intervenors and the DOT "for their use in meeting and negotiating with the Paradyne. At the time we took the contract we were under the opinion that they were hopefully resolving things with the property owners and they wanted something to go to Paradyne as an offering of one alternative, frankly, with the expectation that there may be something coming back saying "Well, we need to modify this and this." As it turns out, this plan as of a year ago or over a year ago, it's the one that stands right now." (Transcript, pages 98 and 99). Apparently, the intervenors, prior to commissioning the DSA report, requested the DOT to perform a survey or study. DOT declined to do so on the ground that "this had to do with private drives, private property and it was DOT's position that we did not fund evaluations for access into private development." (Transcript, page 136). The redesign of the Ulmerton Road intersection and entrance to the Paradyne/Intervenors property, along with the 250-foot joint use road, recommended by the DSA Group is identical to the redesign required under specification (b) of the Notice of Violation and to Show Cause issued by the DOT. The drawing attached to the Notice to Show Cause is the drawing prepared by the DSA Group. Traffic has increased at the intersection of Ulmerton Road and the entrance to the Paradyne property. The traffic signal in the center of Ulmerton Road allows Paradyne employees traveling westward on Ulmerton to turn south into Paradyne's parking lots, allows exiting employees to turn westward or eastward and also allows traffic exiting from a development known as Tall Pines Estates on the north side of Ulmerton to turn east or west. During two peak traffic flow hours in 1981, 780 vehicles traversed the intersection straight through from east to west, and 235 westbound vehicles turned left or southward into the Paradyne parking lot from Ulmerton Road. In 1985, the through vehicles numbered 1,224 and the left-turning vehicles numbered 379 during the peak traffic hours. It was not established by the testimony and evidence that the increase in through traffic from east to west is the result of any increased activity on the part of either Tall Pines Estates on the north side of Ulmerton or Paradyne on the south side. The increased number of westbound, left-turning vehicles into the Paradyne parking lots causes some backup from the existing stacking lane during the morning and afternoon peak hours, thus causing some congestion on the north or westbound half of Ulmerton Road. The single, existing stacking lane for westbound, left-turning vehicles is approximately 120 to 150 feet long. A survey conducted in late 1984 demonstrated that for the morning peak period, the level of service was an "E", indicating forced flow with traffic backing up. In the afternoon peak period, the level of service was a "D", meaning that drivers had to wait two or three cycles to get through the intersection. The desirable or comfortable level of service is a "C", meaning that the motorist has to stop for only one change of lights. The DOT's minimum accepted design standard in an urban area is a level "D" service. In 1985, the actual accident rate in ratio to the critical accident rate slightly exceeded 1 in the area of the subject intersection. The recommendations of the DSA Group, and the redesign required by the DOT in its Notice to Show Cause, calls for the construction of a dual or double stacking area, 350 feet in length, for the westbound approach on Ulmerton Road and a widened receiving approach on the property to the south to accommodate the dual left-turning traffic. The plan also calls for two westbound turning lanes out of Paradyne property. The median barrier for westbound traffic on Ulmerton Road would need modification. In addition to the widened entrance on the private property to the south, the DSA design calls for the private access road to be extended to a point 250 feet south, with a fence or curb barrier to control the flow of traffic from Paradyne's parking lots at designated points into the access road. The access road would require approximately 22,700 square feet for a joint use area, with 13,980 square feet located on Paradyne's property and 8,750 square feet located on the intervenors' property. The joint use road could either be maintained as a private road pursuant to an agreement between the property owners or it could, perhaps, be dedicated to public use. There was no evidence as to whether Pinellas County would be agreeable to accepting the dedication and thereby becoming responsible for the road's maintenance. It is anticipated that this redesign, primarily because of the dual left turn lanes on Ulmerton Road, would improve the level of service in the morning peak hours to a level "D", and in the afternoon peak period to a level "C". The cost for construction on Ulmerton Road is estimated to be $310,000.00 and the cost for the private 250-foot long drive is estimated to be $50,000.000. In the opinion of the designer of the DSA plan, there is no practical method of design that would allow two separate accesses for Paradyne's and the intervenors' use. The provision of separate accesses would create a five-lead intersection which would cause "even more difficulties in traffic operations." (Transcript, page 86). The DOT's traffic engineer would not approve the traffic signal operation which would be required if there were separate access roads ingressing and egressing the two properties south of the subject intersection. All the proposed modifications at the approach to the property south of Ulmerton Road could be located on Paradyne's property. This would cause a slight offset of the intersection and would cause Paradyne to lose some property now used as a parking lot.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the "Alleged Violation of the Florida Statutes and Notice to Show Cause" be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT said dismissal be without prejudice to the Department of Transportation to issue to Paradyne Corporation a new permit specifying the location and design it considers appropriate for Paradyne's connection to Ulmerton Road, said design containing specifications for construction on Ulmerton Road and its right-of-way, as well as any requirements at Paradyne's entrance beyond the DOT's right-of-way deemed necessary to accommodate proper traffic flow and eliminate safety hazards. Should a new permit be issued, Paradyne should be afforded thirty (30) days within which to indicate its intent to either comply with the new permit terms and conditions or forfeit its access rights to Ulmerton Road. Respectfully submitted and entered this 4th day of February, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 4th day of February, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1709 The proposed findings of fact submitted by each of the parties have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner, Department of Transportation Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. Respondent, Paradyne Corporation NOTE: The respondent's proposed "findings of fact" contain many statements which constitute legal argument or restate the legal positions of counsel for the parties. To that extent, those statements are not proper "findings of fact" and are rejected as factual findings. All but the last sentence is rejected. The documents referenced were not the subject of a proper request for official notice and, therefore, cannot be considered evidence in this proceeding. 4 and 5. Rejected. Under proper circumstances, as discussed in the conclusions of law, the term "connection" may include more than the DOT right-of-way. First sentence rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted only insofar as it correctly states that the responsibility for cost of construction on Ulmerton Road was not made an issue in this proceeding. Intervenors, Miller and Benjamin NOTE: The intervenors have filed a proposed recommended order which is not separated into "findings of fact" and "conclusions of law." To the extent that proposed factual findings are suggested in said filing, they are accepted with the exception of: Page 1, last sentence: Rejected; the document does not cite Paradyne for refusing the redesign. It simply states that a redesign is required. Page 4, next to last paragraph: Rejected as contrary to the evidence and contrary to the law. Page 5, 3rd paragraph: Rejected as erroneous legal conclusion insofar as "joint access" is intended to encompass a "joint use road" on private property. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Haydon Burns Building M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 John R. Bush, Esquire Bush, Ross, Gardner, Warren & Rudy 220 South Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Bruce Marger, Esquire Gardner, Reams, Marger, Davis, Piper & Bartlett, P.A. 1700 66th Street North - 501 Post Office Drawer 41600 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743 Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Richard K. Black submitted his application for a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license and a Class "C" Private Investigator license to the Department of State on November 11, 1982, together with all the fees. By letter dated November 19, 1982, the Department advised Mr. Black of the approval of the issuance of the Class "A" license subject to certain qualifications, which were not challenged by Mr. Black and are not at issue. By letter dated November 18, 1982, the Department advised Mr. Black that it had denied his application for licensure as a Class "C" Private Investigator because Mr. Black failed to meet the experience requirements of Section 493.306(4), Florida Statutes. Mr. Black made a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Mr. Black is qualified to hold a Class "C" Private Investigator license except for his lack of experience. Investigative activities of a private investigator include, but are not limited to, searching records, interviewing witnesses, making personal observations of physical evidence, conducting surveillances, and reporting the results and conclusions of these activities. While a student at Broward Community College during 1974 and 1975, Mr. Black served as a member of the "504 Committee," a volunteer organization whose purpose is to assist persons protected by Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Mr. Black's primary duties with said committee consisted of receiving complaints of alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act concerning lack of physical access to public facilities, taking physical measurements of said facilities, performing library research to determine the applicability of the Act to said facility, and attempting to obtain compliance of the owner of the facility when a violation was found. Of these duties, the interviewing process and taking physical measurements would be qualified experience. No evidence was presented by Mr. Black regarding the specific amount of time which he devoted to these functions. While a student at Broward Community College during 1976 and 1977, Mr. Black engaged in a volunteer voter registration project for the handicapped. Mr. Black's primary duties in this regard consisted of obtaining voter registration data from public records, identifying areas in which registration of the handicapped was low, conducting house-to-house registration drives in said areas, writing letters, and arranging car pools. None of these activities qualify as experience for licensure as a private investigator. Mr. Black served as a volunteer firefighter for the North Andrews Volunteer Fire Department from 1972 to 1976. During this time, he attended a bomb and arson investigation seminar and assisted in a few arson investigations. Mr. Black did not document the specific number of investigations which he conducted or the amount of time spent in said investigations. During 1979 and 1980, during the tenure in office of Sheriff Ken Katsaris, Mr. Black served as a volunteer "special deputy" in Leon County. Mr. Black's primary duties consisted of inspecting polling places in the county to determine if proper access existed for the physically handicapped and reporting non-complying conditions to the Sheriff. While not all of Mr. Black's activities were qualified experience, he spent approximately 120 total hours on all activities in this project in 1980. For approximately three months, from August until October 1981, Mr. Black served as a nonpaid intern with the Florida Parole and Probation Services. Approximately 50 percent of this time was devoted to the qualified activities of locating probationers and parolees and assisting in investigations. Mr. Black assisted in processing service-connected or related disability claims for disabled veterans on a volunteer basis in the Leon County area. He assisted on five or six cased during the last several years. No evidence was submitted to document the specific amount of time Mr. Black devoted to the investigation of these claims. Mr. Black assisted the Alburquerque, New Mexico, police in locating the whereabouts of a fugitive from justice. This assistance was as a volunteer, and Mr. Black testified that he spent 20 to 25 hours a week for three months on this project. While attending Florida State University, Mr. Black participated in various programs to assist handicapped students. These activities are similar to the activities in which Mr. Black engaged as described in Paragraph 6 above. No evidence was presented as to the amount of time spent in qualified investigative activities during this time period. Mr. Black completed a four-day course in crisis intervention in 1981. Mr. Black obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from Florida State University. Although some of his course work in general subjects would be the same as the general course work required for a degree in criminology and some of the psychology courses which Mr. Black took would be helpful to an investigator, none of the course work which Mr. Black took is directly related to training as a private investigator. In evaluating the experience requirement for a Class "C" Private Investigator experience which is substantially identical and equal in force, power, effect and import as the experience gained in actually performing the services of a private investigator as a Class "CC" intern investigator. In evaluating the amount of time spent in investigative activities, the Department applies a standard 40-hour work week to the hours submitted by the applicant. The Department does not count volunteer experience in evaluating whether an applicant has met the time requirement unless the number of hours worked and the supervision exercise can be fully documented. Mr. Black has never been licensed as a Class "CC" intern investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the application of Richard K. Black for licensure as a Class "C" Private Investigator be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Richard K. Black 249 Oakview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Stephen Nall, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable George Firestone Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (“Department”), properly denied Wilton Manors Street Systems, Inc.’s (“Wilton Manors”), applications for outdoor advertising sign permits.
Findings Of Fact Wilton Manors is a for-profit corporation authorized to engage in the business of outdoor advertising in the state of Florida. The Department is the agency vested with the responsibility to administer and enforce the provisions of chapter 479, Florida Statutes, including the approval and denial of applications for permits for outdoor advertising signs that are located within 660 feet of the State Highway system, interstate, or federal-aid primary system. In July 2012, Wilton Manors entered into a lease agreement with the City of Boynton Beach (“City”) for the construction of a two-sided billboard on a portion of real estate owned by the City on the east side of Interstate 95, located at 510 Northwest 14th Court, Boynton Beach, Florida. The site is located in an area commonly known as the City of Boynton Beach Public Works Site. The Public Works Site consists of two parcels bordered by Interstate 95 to its west. The north and south portions of the property totals approximately nine acres. The two parcels are contiguous and have the same zoning and future land use classification. Each parcel consists of approximately four and one-half acres. The subject sign is proposed to be placed on the far northwest section of the southern parcel near the border of the northern and southern parcels. On August 9, 2012, Wilton Manors submitted two applications (application numbers 58994 and 58995) to the Department for a double-faced outdoor advertising sign to be located on the east side of Interstate 95, 0.75 miles north of Boynton Beach Boulevard. The applications were assigned file numbers 58994 and 58995. The applications were complete and the appropriate fee was provided. The proposed sign structures met the size, height, and spacing requirements of section 479.07, Florida Statutes. The proposed sign would be visible and within 660 feet of an interstate. On September 6, 2012, the Department issued Wilton Manors a Notice of Denied Outdoor Advertising Permit Application, advising that Wilton Manors’ applications for double-faced outdoor advertising sign permits were not approved because of the following reasons: Location is not permittable under land use designations of site. [s.479.111(2), FS] Location does not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial area. [s.479.01(26), FS] On December 14, 2012, Wilton Manors filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to challenge the Department’s denial of its applications. By agreement of the parties, referral of the petition to the DOAH was deferred. In 2014, while the petition remained pending before the Department, statutory changes were made to chapter 479, to include a new section 479.024, effective July 1, 2014. After the new law became effective, Wilton Manors supplemented its permit applications and submitted additional information to the Department. The supplemental information provided by Wilton Manors to the Department in response to the statutory changes included a certification from Michael Rumpf, the City’s Planning and Zoning Director since 1999. Mr. Rumpf completed the portion of the Department’s application regarding land use, certifying the designation of the Future Land Use Map for the parcel as Public, Private Governmental and Institutional (“P, PG & I”), and the current zoning of the parcel as Public Usage (“PU”). Mr. Rumpf confirmed that the parcel is in an industrial zone or commercial zone in accordance with the new statute. Mr. Rumpf certified and checked the box “yes” under the question: “Does the referenced property qualify as a commercial or industrial parcel as defined in section 479.024, F.S. and section 14-10.0052, F.A.C.” Prior to executing the verification form, Mr. Rumpf reviewed the new statute and definitions of industrial use and commercial use in the statute. The Department requested that its expert in the area of land use and comprehensive zoning, David Depew, review the supplemental application and information submitted by Wilton Manors to the Department and determine whether the proposed parcel is in an industrial zone or commercial zone as defined in the new section 479.024. Mr. Depew concluded that it is not, and therefore, the Department did not alter its initial decision to deny Wilton Manors’ permit application based on the changes to chapter 479. The central factual issue to be determined in this case by the undersigned is whether the subject parcel is located within a commercial or industrial zone as defined in section 479.024. The City determined that the parcel is located within a commercial or industrial zone, in compliance with chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The parcel is appropriate for commerce, industry, or trade. The parcel is comprehensively zoned PU, and the City’s land development regulations include commercial or industrial uses as allowable uses. The parcels were previously used by the City for its wastewater treatment plant. The parcels continue to be actively used by the City for industrial uses and as an industrial site for the staging of waste collection, vegetative debris, recycling activities, and the storage of equipment, materials, and supplies in connection with the City’s solid waste management system and public works. Many large industrial waste-type dumpsters and recycling bins are located on the parcels. The storage of the recycling bins is part of the City’s recycling service which generates revenue for the City. Large trucks access the property on a regular basis. An existing cell tower on the northern parcel services both public and private users. The parcel can reasonably accommodate a commercial or industrial use under the future land use map of the City’s comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Sufficient utilities are available to support commercial or industrial development. The public access to the parcel is sufficient to accommodate a commercial or industrial use. Currently, the City utilizes large commercial trucks in its conduct of the aforementioned industrial operations. The parcel is not being used exclusively for noncommercial or nonindustrial uses. In sum, the persuasive evidence establishes that the parcel is located within a commercial or industrial zone.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order granting Wilton Manors’ applications for outdoor advertising sign permits (application numbers 58994 and 58995) and issue the requested outdoor advertising permits. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. Suite 202 119 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Susan Schwartz, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Stop 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Stop 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Stop 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) James C. Boxold, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Mail Stop 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
