The Issue The issue for consideration in this case was whether Respondent's license as a registered real estate salesman in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact 1. At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent, ROGER W. DART, was licensed as a registered real estate salesman in Florida under license number 0306123. This license, however, became involuntary inactive on March 31, 1980 and was, at the times involved in this case, delinquent. 2 On February 26, 1984, Respondent placed an advertisement in the Panama City, Florida, News-Herald, under the Condominiums for Sale section of the classified advertisements which read: GULFRONT CONDO., 2BR 2B, fully fur., $79,900 By owner. 243-5356. On February 26, 1984, Respondent was not the owner of the condominium apartment so advertised. The owner was Kendal Sanborn. Telephone number 243-5356, in Panama City, Florida, is the phone number of Respondent. Pursuant to the advertisement referenced above, Respondent procured James D. Hill and Lavanda H. Hill, his wife, as purchasers of the property in question, and as a result, after the closing on April 12, 1984, Respondent received a fee of $2,000.00 for arranging the purchase. This fee was paid by a check drawn on The Commercial Bank in Panama City, on the escrow account of Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation, dated April 23, 1984, and references the file relating to James D. Hill. Respondent admittedly holds an inactive real estate salesman's license, but has not been active in the real estate business for several years. He is a licensed boat captain for off-shore fishing boats and in the winter season, when fishing is not active, he also captains cargo boats and off-shore tug boats. He also buys and sells boats on his own. He knows and is a close friend of Kendal Sanborn, the sale of whose property gave rise to this case. Mr. Sanborn is a real estate developer from Atlanta and Respondent works for him periodically as a fishing boat captain. When Mr. Sanborn comes to the Panama City area, he generally stays with or in quarters belonging to Respondent. At the time in question, Mr. Sanborn owed Respondent a considerable amount of money for fishing trips, tackle, and rental on the property he rents from Respondent. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sanborn currently is indebted to Respondent for the same type of things. The transaction in question here was the only one in which Respondent has been involved for anyone other than himself since his license became inactive. He has never submitted any other advertisement listing his telephone number for real estate transactions (just for boats) since that time. Respondent's involvement in the one transaction in issue took place because Mr. Sanborn was indebted to him at the time for a sum substantially larger than the $2,000.00 he received. He acted as he did here both as a favor to Mr. Sanborn, who wanted to sell his property, and, also, to facilitate getting the money which was owed to him.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Roger W. Dart's license as a real estate salesman in Florida be suspended for a period of six months and that he be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $250.00. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 26th day of September, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 26th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Glenn L. Hess, Esq. 9108 West Highway 98 Panama City, Florida 32407 Harold Huff, Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino. Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Vivian Lide, is a licensed real estate broker holding license number 0157178, issued by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction over licensure of real estate salesmen, broker-salesmen and brokers and regulation of their licensure status and professional practices and operations. In late 1975, or early 1976, Mrs. Eunice McCallum moved with her husband to the Miami area from Canada. When they arrived in Miami, Mrs. McCallum and her husband were referred to the Respondent by a business associate of Mrs. McCallum's husband to obtain her services in locating a home for them to purchase. They sought the Respondent's services and the Respondent located a house they liked and felt they could afford. They closed the purchase of the house in January, 1976. The McCallums were short of cash and therefore gave a second mortgage and note to the corporation of which the Respondent was a shareholder and officer for the balance of cash they needed to close the sale. After giving the second mortgage they were still $300 short of money needed to close and so Mrs. McCallum borrowed the $300 from the Respondent herself, giving back a note. That note was later satisfied. During the ensuing year, Mrs. McCallum and the Respondent became good friends. Mrs. Lide was the only friend that Mrs. McCallum had in Florida at that time and she often confided in her regarding her marital and financial problems. In later 1977, Mrs. McCallum's financial posture began to go awry and her severe marital problems culminated in her divorce. Mrs. Lide, through her friendship with Mrs. McCallum, was familiar with her financial and marital situation at this time and was a witness on her behalf in the dissolution proceeding. Because of her severe financial problems and as a result of the dissolution of her marriage, Mrs. McCallum felt that she had to sell her house in order to stabilize her financial situation. Accordingly, on December 14, 1977, she entered into an exclusive listing contract with the Respondent to sell the subject residence located at 10400 S.W. 155th Terrace, Miami, Florida. The listing contract enumerates a sale price of $38,000. The Respondent advised Mrs. McCallum to sell her residence because her first and second mortgage payments were both in delinquency and this was the only way she had to recoup her financial deficit. Thirty-eight thousand dollars was determined by Mrs. Lide and agreed by Mrs. McCallum to be the price which would allow her to pay off both mortgages and recoup a small amount of cash in her pocket. On approximately January 10, 1978, a realtor, Jack Rosha, came to Mrs. McCallum's home with Mrs. McCallum and the Respondent present and brought an offer to purchase the property. The evidence is unclear regarding the precise amount of the offer, it was either $39,000.00 or $39,500.00. Rosha represented to the Respondent and Mrs. McCallum that he had received a deposit or binder from his client, but refused to disclose to the Respondent, who represented Mrs. McCallum, whether he had actually placed a binder deposit in his escrow account and Mrs. Lide felt that it was not truly a bona fide offer. In any event, she advised Mrs. McCallum that since it proposed a purchase financed through a Veterans Administration loan, which would require the seller paying a substantial amount of money as "points" (a fee required to be paid by the seller in order for the Veterans Administration to finance the purchase), then the offer would not allow her enough money to retire the two mortgages and have any cash for herself. After this meeting and several phone conversations this offer and a later offer were rejected for this reason and no sales transaction was ever consummated with Jack Rosha's clients. Some weeks later, with Mrs. McCallum's financial difficulties unresolved as yet, Mrs. McCallum and the Respondent entered into an agreement whereby Mrs. Lide, on behalf of her corporation, would forebear requiring payments on the outstanding second mortgage, which was delinquent, and would allow Mrs. McCallum to retain possession of the property in return for which Mrs. McCallum would execute a quit claim deed to Mrs. Lide and would pay her first mortgage payments to Mrs. Lide in order for Mrs. Lide to ascertain that the property and the mortgages encumbering it were secure and that payments thereon were being kept current. As a Part of this agreement, Mrs. Lide assured Mrs. McCallum that she could redeem the property at any time when she paid off the delinquent amounts on the mortgages, thus redeeming the property without paying any additional purchase price fees or profit to Mrs. Lide. With this arrangement in mind, the parties met in late January, 1978, before a notary and executed the required transfer of title document to file with Stockton, Whatley and Davin (the first mortgagee), and Mrs. McCallum executed a quit claim deed in favor of Mrs. Lide. At this meeting, the notary duly notarized the documents and asked Mrs. McCallum if she understood the import of what she was signing and the contents thereof. Mrs. McCallum gave every indication that she understood the nature and purpose of the transaction at that time. Some months later, a dispute arose as to amounts of money which remained due on the first and second mortgages between Mrs. McCallum and Mrs. Lide and Mrs. McCallum demanded an accounting of the amounts paid Mrs. Lide and the amounts remaining due, at which point relations between the two parties became strained, with the ultimate result that Mrs. McCallum filed suit against Mrs. Lide in Circuit Court. The ultimate result of the Circuit Court action was that the quit claim deed was set aside and the judge awarded a judgment in favor of Mrs. Lide for in excess of $11,000.00, representing the amounts found by the judge due to the Respondent from Mrs. McCallum, representing the first and second mortgage payments due up to that point. It was in the course of these proceedings, after the parties had become hostile to each other, that Mrs. Lide instituted the corollary eviction action against Mrs. McCallum. Although Mrs. McCallum represented at the hearing that she signed the quit claim deed without knowing what she was signing and with the content of the deed concealed by another piece of paper so that she could only see the signature line, this testimony is belied by that of Mrs. Lide. Mrs. Lide disclosed the entire nature of the transaction to Mrs. McCallum and the purpose of it, which was to both protect her security interest in the property and to enable Mrs. McCallum to avoid foreclosure, to remain living in the premises and still have the opportunity to redeem the property upon bringing both mortgages current. The testimony and evidence adduced by the Respondent regarding her desire to protect her security interests and still help her former friend, to stabilize her financial situation and still have a place to live, coupled with the testimony which establishes that the notary asked Mrs. McCallum if she understood the content and import of the papers she was signing, obtaining Mrs. McCallum's assent, establishes Mrs. Lide's account of the circumstances surrounding this transaction to be more accurate and worthy of belief. The Hearing Officer finds the testimony of Mrs. McCallum to be too colored by the later hostility that arose between her and the Respondent concerning the accounting for monies owed the Respondent to constitute testimony sufficiently substantial and credible to refute the contrary testimony and evidence adduced by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed against Vivian Lide be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore J. Silver, Esquire 9445 S.W. Bird Road, 2nd Floor Miami, Florida 33165 Harold Barkas, Esquire 600 Concord Building Miami, Florida 33130 William M. Furlow, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are (1) whether a driveway connection on Respondent's property in Auburndale, Florida, is subject to closure because it poses safety concerns, and (2) whether a second driveway connection on Respondent's property should be modified because it fails to meet current access management standards.
Findings Of Fact A. Background The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating access between state roads and private property abutting those roads. See §§ 335.18 through 335.188, Fla. Stat. State Road 544 is a part of the state highway system. Since 1998, Respondent has owned a small, irregularly shaped parcel of property located at 502 Havendale Boulevard (State Road 544), Auburndale. The 0.46-acre parcel lies on the southeast corner of the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street Northwest. Commercial establishments are located on the other three corners. In December 1998, Respondent leased the property to a tenant who operates Townsend Motors, a used car lot. The business has operated continuously at that location since that time. Aerial photographs reflect the lot has a capacity of around 30 or so vehicles. Most vehicles are displayed where the triangle-shaped lot comes to a point at the intersection and along the side of the lot facing State Road 544. Other vehicles are parked throughout the middle or rear of the lot. They are rearranged from time to time to enhance sales. To replace cars that are sold, the tenant typically buys a few cars at a time, which are delivered by a tow truck. Auto carriers and large trucks with trailers are not used to deliver vehicles. On the "rare" occasion in the past when a "big transport" made deliveries, the truck used the parking lot in a nearby Publix store to the east. State Road 544 is classified as a class 7 road. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-97.003(1), Table 2. That classification is assigned to roads where adjacent land is developed to the maximum feasible intensity and roadway widening is limited. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-97.003(2). The regulation provides that a driveway connection on a class 7 road must be at least 125 feet from an intersection and at least the same distance from other connections. This amount of spacing reduces driver confusion and the potential for rear-end collisions. Respondent's parcel has two driveway connections, less than 125 feet apart, facing State Road 544. The first connection is approximately 60 feet east of the intersection and is known as the western connection. The second connection lies further east and is known as the eastern connection. A third driveway connection is located on the western side of the parcel facing 42nd Street Northwest. Driveway connections on state roads must be permitted or grandfathered. See § 335.1825, Fla. Stat.; Fla Admin. Code 14-96.011(3)(a). Neither connection on State Road 544 is permitted. A driveway is grandfathered if it was in existence prior to July 1, 1988, when access permits were first required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.011(3)(a). Because the driveway connections were in place before 1988, they qualify for that status. To retain that status, however, a driveway must be consistently used by the owner. If use is discontinued for a period of one year or more, the use is considered abandoned. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.005(2)(c). If a driveway loses its grandfathered status through abandonment, the owner must apply for an access permit; otherwise, the driveway is subject to closure. A connection that retains its grandfathered status may still be modified if safety or operational issues exist. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14- 96.011(4)(b)(the Department may modify a grandfathered connection "if such modification is determined to be necessary because the connection would jeopardize the safety of the public or have a negative impact on the operational characteristics of the state highway"). The parties agree the eastern driveway is grandfathered and has been consistently used by the tenant since 1998. There is a dispute over the status of the western driveway. The Department must allow owners of private properties adjoining a state road to have "reasonable access" to and from their property. See § 335.18(2)(a), Fla. Stat. As a general rule, limiting the number of driveway connections promotes better traffic movement and an increased level of safety and mobility for the system as a whole. To determine the number of connections necessary to establish reasonable access, the Department considers the projected connection and roadway traffic volumes, the type and intensity of the land use, the access management classification of the state road, and the standards for that classification. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.002(25). The Intersection Project The genesis of this dispute is a safety project (Project) at the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street Northwest adjacent to Respondent's property. The Project was initiated after the Department received pedestrian complaints concerning safe travel across the intersection to access retail and food stores and a lack of crosswalks that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Project is only 0.038 miles in length and is limited to improvements at the intersection and the installation of sidewalks adjacent to Respondent's parcel and the three other corner commercial properties. There will be minimal impact to current vehicular patterns, and no increase in capacity is expected. Part of the design effort for the Project included an evaluation of existing driveway connections for potential modifications that will improve traffic safety or traffic operations on the roadway. This evaluation was limited to driveways on State Road 544, as the Department has no jurisdiction over driveways on 42nd Street Northwest, a local road. During the planning process, the Department noted that the western driveway is less than 125 feet from the intersection, violates spacing requirements, and raises safety concerns. Accordingly, the Department proposes to remove it, "saw it over," and install type F curb and gutter along the roadway. To comply with access management standards for class 7 roads, the Department also proposes to narrow the width of the eastern driveway from around 60 feet to 36 feet and "widen the wings somewhat" to allow larger vehicles to swing into and out of the car lot. (Wings are the sides of the driveway that slope down from the top of the curb to the street level.) No changes to the driveway facing 42nd Street Northwest are proposed, and no other driveways on State Road 544 near the intersection will be modified. The Department determined that no other practical alternatives to this action exist. Based on its evaluation of the property, the Department concluded that one direct connection on State Road 544 and an indirect connection on 42nd Street Northwest, a local road, provide reasonable access to the property. The Department intends to install new pedestrian signal poles and increase access to a nearby bus stop. The Project includes connected sidewalks for the four commercial properties on the corners of the intersection and enhanced special emphasis crosswalks that are designed to comply with the ADA and connect to the existing Publix sidewalk to the east. The high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian signalization improvements, and removal of the western driveway will improve traffic movement through the intersection and enhance motorist, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. A Department Safety Office Benefit Cost Analysis revealed there were a total of 60 rear-end or angle crashes at the intersection during the five-year period 2010 through 2014 and that some could have been prevented with better signage and signals. The study projects 11 crashes will be avoided over the upcoming five-year period once the Project is completed. Besides reducing angle and rear-end crashes at the intersection, the proposed modifications will improve safety and operational conditions for pedestrians and motorists who will have greater connectivity to adjacent commercial properties. Respondent's Objections Respondent raises a number of objections to the Department's proposed action. She contends the western driveway is not abandoned, and even though it fails to meet current spacing requirements, it should not be closed; the proposed modification to the eastern driveway is not warranted by safety or operational concerns; the Department violated a number of statutory provisions during the process leading up to the issuance of the Notice; the proposed action will deny her and the tenant reasonable access to the property; and the changes will reduce the value of the property. The Western Connection To comply with insurance requirements, in 1998 the tenant erected bollards (short vertical posts embedded in the driveway) around most of the parcel to restrict access to the premises. Among other locations, bollards were placed along the entire back side of the western connection, blocking off vehicle access through that driveway. Bollards were also placed on roughly half of the back side of the eastern connection, leaving less than 30 feet open to allow vehicles to enter and exit the premises. Even though the bollards remained in place for almost 20 years, Respondent considers them nothing more than temporary fixtures, as they could be removed at any time by sawing them off at ground level or pulling them out of the concrete. The bollards remained in place until shortly after the Notice was received by Respondent in early January 2017. They were then removed by the tenant from the western driveway (and other areas). The tenant denies the Notice triggered their removal and maintains they were removed to provide "extra room for the FedEx and stuff like that to get in." He added that his current insurance company no longer requires bollards for security purposes. The Department contends the western driveway connection was abandoned because bollards blocked vehicle access through the driveway from December 1998 until January 2017. The tenant's testimony confirms this assertion. The tenant admits he has "not frequently [been] using the westernmost driveway," but maintains the connection was never abandoned, as Fedex trucks and the mail carrier regularly parked on the driveway apron, which lies between the roadway and the bollards. Emergency responders also use the apron when responding to accidents at the intersection, and disabled vehicles traveling eastbound on State Road 544 are pushed onto the apron. The bottom line is that even though the apron may have been used, the driveway itself was not, and the connection was basically used as a "pull-off." In fact, the tenant acknowledged that until January 2017, except for customers who used the parking lots of adjacent businesses located south of the parcel, all other customers used the eastern connection to access the property. The evidence supports a finding that, even if the car lot has remained in business continuously, and Respondent did not intend to abandon the driveway, for the reasons stated above, it was effectively abandoned for more than one year. Because the western driveway is only 60 feet from the intersection and violates spacing standards, it is subject to closure based on safety concerns. Without closure, additional traffic will enter and exit the car lot, there will be less driver reaction time for vehicles to stop, and it will increase the potential for more pedestrian injuries and vehicle crashes. The Eastern Connection The eastern driveway is 58 feet wide when measured at the back of the property line. Until January 2017, less than 30 feet were usable because bollards blocked the remainder of the connection. The maximum width for a class 7 driveway connection is determined by the number of vehicle trips per day that enter a property and whether the connection is in a rural or urban location. Under current design standards for urban locations, a 24-foot driveway connection is typically allowed. See Dep't Ex. 15. Assuming a large volume of traffic entering or exiting the driveway, a maximum of 36 feet may be permitted. Id. Although there is no evidence that a large volume of traffic enters or exits the premises, after speaking with the owner's representative, Mr. Combee, the Department agreed to increase the width from 24 feet to 36 feet and widen the sides (wings) to make the driveway more accessible by customers and vehicles making deliveries. By comparison, the nearby Publix store has a 24-foot connection to State Road 544, although it also has several indirect connections on the local streets. The modified connection is of sufficient length and size for vehicles to enter and exit the premises. Other Objections Notice Respondent contends the Department did not comply with section 335.199(1), Florida Statutes, before issuing the Notice. That subsection provides as follows: Whenever the Department of Transportation proposes any project on the State Highway System which will divide a state highway, erect median barriers modifying currently available vehicle turning movements, or have the effect of closing or modifying an existing access to an abutting property owner, the department shall notify all affected property owners, municipalities, and counties at least 180 days before the design of the project is finalized. The department's notice shall provide a written explanation regarding the need for the project and indicate that all affected parties will be given an opportunity to provide comments to the department regarding potential impacts of the change. Subsection (3) of the statute also requires at least one public hearing in the jurisdiction where the project is located. The Department has always construed this provision as applying only to large projects that involve an expenditure of "upward of a million dollars" and take out or block medians, remove turn lanes, or reconfigure intersections in conjunction with a modification or closure of a driveway connection. Because the Project entails the expenditure of $119,936.00, and only new curbs, sidewalks, striping, and pedestrian signals are contemplated, the Department considers it a "very limited scope" project and one that does not implicate the statute. For small projects such as this, the Department provides preliminary notification to the property owner and tenant, if any; a written notice setting forth the proposed agency action and the reason for the changes; an opportunity for the owner to meet with Department representatives to express concerns; notice to the affected local governments; and ultimately an administrative hearing, if one is requested. This process complies with section 335.1825(3), which only requires "reasonable notice" to the owner before closing an unpermitted connection. Before the Notice was issued, oral notice regarding the Project was given to the tenant by a Department representative. During the meeting, the tenant told the representative that he "didn't mind" if the western driveway was removed. Also, a Department representative spoke by telephone with Mr. Combee before the Notice was issued, but Mr. Combee says he was under the impression the Department was only seeking to close the connection on 42nd Street Northwest. An on-site meeting with Mr. Combee and his counsel was conducted in February 2017. Based on concerns expressed by Mr. Combee, the Department agreed to increase the width of the eastern driveway from 24 to 36 feet and widen the wings to provide greater accessibility into and out of the lot. Besides meeting with the tenant and Mr. Combee, the Department informed the City of Auburndale and Polk County about the intersection project and asked them whether any comments had been received from the public regarding the intersection. Assuming arguendo that section 335.199 applies to every project involving the closure or modification of a driveway connection, regardless of its size, there was no showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's failure to comply with all requirements of the statute. Lack of an Engineering Study Respondent contends the Department violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-96.011(4)(b) by failing to conduct a formal engineering study to substantiate the safety and operational concerns for closing and modifying the connections. In lieu of a signed and sealed engineering study, the Department performed a Safety Cost Benefit Analysis documenting the five-year crash history at the intersection. The study also includes an engineer's estimate of the type and cost of specific improvements planned to improve the safety of motorists and pedestrians at the intersection. See Resp. Ex. 5. Nothing in rule 14-96.011(4) or (5) requires that a formal engineering study be conducted before closing an unpermitted connection or modifying a grandfathered connection. In fact, the rule cited by Respondent provides the "problem may be substantiated by an engineering study signed, sealed, and dated by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida." (emphasis added). Therefore, both driveways are subject to removal or modification without any type of formal study being conducted. Here, the Department relied on a study of the crash history at the intersection, access management standards for connections on class 7 roadways, and safety concerns expressed by members of the public. These measures are adequate to support the Department's proposed action. Reasonable Access Respondent contends the Department's proposed action leaves her without "reasonable access" to the property. To support this contention, her engineering expert opined that both driveways on State Road 544 are necessary in order for large trucks making deliveries to enter and exit the lot. The engineer assumed incorrectly, however, that semi-trucks and trailers now access the property to make deliveries, and a 36-foot driveway will be too small to accommodate that type of vehicle. He also opined that large trucks cannot access the property through the 42nd Street Northwest connection because a building is located in the middle of the parcel and prevents them from being driven across the lot and exiting through the eastern connection. The expert agrees a 36-foot driveway provides reasonable access for automobiles and small trucks. The evidence shows that replacement vehicles are normally delivered by a tow truck hauling no more than one or two at a time and large semi-trucks and trailers do not make deliveries at the property. Assuming that the mail carrier or FedEx wish to continue parking where the apron now sits while they deliver the mail or a package, they can do so by pulling over the six-inch curb and parking on the grass. The evidence supports a finding that one direct access point on State Road 544 and one indirect access point on 42nd Street Northwest provide reasonable access to the property and result in safer and more efficient access to the state highway system. Economic Concerns Respondent contends the value of her property will be diminished as a result of the closure of the western connection. However, economic injury is not a statutory consideration for closing or modifying connections, and redress for that type of injury, if any, lies in another forum. Management of Project The Department routinely allows construction project administrators who are not professional engineers to manage the day-to-day work on intersection projects such as this. While the project plans were signed and sealed by a professional engineer, who is the project engineer of record, a construction project administrator, Mr. Freeman, will take the plans and "make it a reality in the field." Respondent contends Mr. Freeman is violating section 471.003(1) by performing certain investigative, evaluating, planning, and designing activities without an engineering license. Assuming arguendo this is true, jurisdiction over that issue lies with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers and not the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the closure of Respondent's western driveway and modification of the eastern driveway, as part of the Department's State Road 544 Safety Project. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of June, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) David W. Holloway, Esquire David W. Holloway, P.A. 13100 Park Boulevard, Suite B Seminole, Florida 33776-3539 (eServed)
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing Files and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Jessica E. Varn an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the Respondent’s withdrawal of intent to relocate Ocean Cadillac, Inc., copies of which are attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, —— Cobo Filed in the official records of the Division of Julie r, Chie Motorist Services this | f | day of June, Bureau of Issuance Oversight Florida. 2014. Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and OD: le Motor Vehicles Vatn Vi Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Nalini Vinayak, Dealer License Administrator Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed June 19, 2014 7:37 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Copies furnished to: R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Brandes, LLP 105 West 5th Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 cspickard@kb-attorneys.com Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section C. Gregory Feil Ocean Cadillac, Inc. 1000 Kane Concourse Miami, Florida 33154 Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the John Martin General Motors, LLC Mail Code 482-A82-A16-C66 100 GM Renaissance Center Detroit, Michigan 48265 Jessica E. Varn Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing Files in this Proceeding, A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A.
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT=S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. 2/83/2616 15:17 B589222679 DCA LEGAL Feb 3 2010 14:37 PAGE 4/11 Final Order No. DCA09-GM-301 MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE THEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has heen filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and corre copies have been furnished to the persons listed below in-the manner described, on this /[? ay of Augutt 2009. Paula Ford Agency Clerk Florida Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 U.S. MAIL: Elaine A. Humphreys, Esq. Kathleen McGiveron Assistant City Attorney 7 North Dixie Highway Lake Worth, Florida 33460 chumphreys@lakeworth.org Donald Bicknell, Esq. Lawrence W. Smith, Esq, Gary, Dytrych & Ryan, P.A. 701 U.S. Highway One, Suite 402 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Lesley Blackner, Esq. Blackner, Stone & Associates 123 Australian Avenue Palm Beach, Florida 33480 LBlackner@aol.com HAND DELIVERY: 2121 Collier Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Kkss21@bellsouth net Lynn Anderson 2204 Lake Osbome Drive #21 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Lynnt 13 @att.net Tripp Cioci 2217 Collier Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33460-5684 Feb 3 2010 14:38 DCA LEGAL PAGE 5/11 2/83/2616 15:17 B589222679 Final Order No. DCA09-GM-301 Richard Shine, Esq. L. Mary Thomas, Esq. Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing Files and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by f. Scott Boyd, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the Petitioner’s Notice of Dismissal, copies of which are attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 3\ day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, e Florida. Chbur Julie Baker, Chief Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this O )__ day of January, 2014. Re i Vinayak. Oeste: License 67 Filed February 7, 2014 3:56 PM Division of Administrative Hearings NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: R. Craig Spickard, Esuire Kurkin Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 cspickard@kb-attorneys.com jhelms@kb-attorneys.com Don Hoogenraad American Custom Golf Cars, Inc. 15740 El Prado Road Chino, California 91710 F. Scott Boyd Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing Files and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Linzie F. Bogan an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the parties’ Agreement, copies of which are attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this Ma day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, : © Florida. Caberr Filed in the official records of the Division of Julie Baker, Chief Motorist Services this day of June, Bureau of Issuance Oversight 2014. Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Mobs Ds: le Motor Vehicles DMlabn Viragh Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Nalini Vinayak, Dealer License Administrator Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed June 19, 2014 7:40 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Copies furnished to: Ronald Larkin Larkin Motorworks, LLC 3029 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. St. North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section Brett Moorer Parallel Intelligent Transportation, Inc. 6950 Central Highway Pennsauken, New Jersey 08109 Michele R. Stanley Tropical Scooters, LLC 11610 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 33778 Linzie F. Bogan Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing Files and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Mary Li Creasy an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the Petitioner’s Notice of Dismissal of Protest with Prejudice, copies of which are attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this IL day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Filed in the official records of the Division of Motorist Services this day of June, —_ Bureau of Issuance Oversight 2014. Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and D- Motor Vehicles Vahn: U: Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Nalini Vinayak, Dealer License Administrator Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed June 19, 2014 7:40 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Copies furnished to: John W. Forehand, Esquire South Motors Automotive Group 16165 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33157 John.forehand@southmotors.net Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Section Edward Quinton, Esquire Quinton and Paretti, P.A. Brickell Bayview Center 80 Southwest 8" Street, Suite 2150 Miami, Florida 33130 equinton@quintonparetti.com Mary Li Creasy Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Rick Barraza Miami Automotive Retail, Inc. 665 Southwest 8th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Mario Murgado Miami Automotive Retail, Inc. 665 Southwest 8th Street Miami, Florida 33130 J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough 3600 Maclay Bouelvard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Andy.bertron@nelsonmullins.com Melissa.allaman@nelsonmullins.com NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure.
