86-002947 Department Of Transportation vs. E And S Construction Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, December 29, 1986.

Summary: Traffic held up in moving a house in Hillsborough County. Petitioner failed to prove mover violated rules.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 86-2947

)

E & S CONSTRUCTION , )

)

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings,

by its duly designated Hearing officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public

hearing in the above-styled case on November 5, 1986, in Bartow,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner : Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent : C. Michael Fischer, Esquire

170 South Broadway

Bartow, Florida 33830

By letter dated January 10, 1986, the Department of

Transportation (DOT), Petitioner, advised Eyal Sade/E & S

Construction, Respondent, that his authority to be issued permits

to move houses over state highways was being suspended for 60 days

from the day of his last move until January 26, 1986. As grounds

therefor, it is alleged that during a house movement on November

19, 1985, the building became wedged on the bridge over the

Hillsborough River, was parked so as to encroach on the pavement

of the state road, and on November 27, 1985, the building had

inadequate clearance to pass over the Blackwater Creek bridge on

SR 39 and kept the highway blocked for over one hour and "these

actions demonstrate your company's disregard for the laws and

regulations governing movements of buildings on state highways."

This was alleged to be the second violation of regulations by

Respondent, the first being in November 1984. Respondent

stipulated to the November 1984 violation. By letter dated June

20, 1986, E & S Construction Company, by and through its attorney,

requested an administrative hearing to contest the alleged

violation of regulations. This request was forwarded to the

Division of Administrative Hearings on August 5, 1986, and this

hearing was scheduled. At the hearing, Petitioner called four

witnesses, Respondent called four witnesses, and five exhibits

were admitted into evidence.

Proposed findings have been submitted by the parties.

Treatment accorded those proposed findings is contained in the

Appendix attached hereto and made a part hereof.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. By Application for Permit to Move Building over State

Roads dated November 1, 1985, Eyal Sade, on behalf of Sade

Housemovers applied for a permit to move a dwelling over state

roads some 32 miles in Tampa and vicinity. Although this

application showed the width of the building to be 32.2 feet,

including eaves, E & S Construction/Sade Housemovers, was issued

regular Permit No. B17531 on November 6, 1985 (Exhibit 1). Width,

excluding eaves, was left blank on this application.

2. This permit provided the building would be moved over

state roads between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 A.M. and

be escorted by local police.

3. The application showed utility companies TECO, GTE and

WRec [sic] had been notified of the move and the move had been

cleared by the Florida Highway Patrol without comment regarding

the need for escort. Also Seaboard railroad system had been

notified (Exhibit 1).

4. This move commenced shortly after midnight, November 19,

1985, with escorts from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's

Department. The building had to be jacked up on the platform on

which it rode and required a 90 degree turn to commence its trip

south on Nebraska Avenue (U.S. 41). This delayed the start of the

movement down Nebraska Avenue approximately 30 minutes.

5. Shortly after the trip started, the portable generator

that provided lighting on the building stopped functioning and the

escorts told Mr. Sade he had to get the lights on the building.

Sade attempted to have the generator repaired as the move

progressed.

6. When the movers stopped for approximately five minutes to

repair the generator, the police escorts testified that the crew

moving the building stopped working to eat. This was denied by

Sade and the members of his crew who all testified that the

sandwiches that Sade procured were eaten as the move progressed.

7. The two deputies from the Sheriff's Office who escorted

the move considered the move to be progressing slowly and told

Sade several times that he should be ready to park the building

before 6:00 A.M.

8. Sade had spent three days surveying the route before

November 19, and had taken measurements of all bridges and the

elevation of lights. Mrs. Sade had contacted by telephone the

City of Tampa Utilities Department to advise them of the move as

well as Pasco County officials for the portion of the route in

Pasco County.

9. There was a conflict in the testimony of the deputies and

Sade regarding the presence of a man on top of the building to

clear traffic lights as the building passed under these lights.

Sade testified he had a man on the building during the time the

building was in the City of Tampa. The deputies testified they

told Sade he needed someone on the top of the building.

10. The bridge over the Hillsborough River on SR 39 was some

twenty miles from the commencement of the trip and the building

arrived at this bridge around 5:30 A.M. The escorts had told Sade

several times that he should not be on the road after 6:00 A.M.

and that hour was approaching. Sade was aware of a large lot on

which the building could be parked off the highway located about

one mile south of Hillsborough River bridge and decided to cross

the bridge to get to that location.

11. While crossing the Hillsborough River bridge, the

building got stuck on the guardrail and had to be backed off.

Sade's winch broke down but they were able to obtain a bulldozer

from a business adjacent to the bridge which helped get the

building off the pavement and along the right of way as demanded

by the escorting officers. While this was going on, the traffic

was totally blocked for about 20 minutes and delayed with one way

traffic having to proceed past the building until the building was

finally moved completely off the roadway. Even then the overhang

of the building extended offer the road to the white line along

the edge of the pavement. Sade's testimony that this eave was 17

feet above the pavement was not disputed; however, William Ledden

opined that a semi-trailer would hit the roof of the building if

it attempted to pass under this eave. By the time the building

was parked along the right-of-way, it was approximately 8:40 A.M.

and traffic had been stopped and delayed for almost three hours.

12. The problem of getting the building stuck on the bridge,

the resulting delay past 6:00 A.M. and that the building was

still on the road was reported to Petitioner, and William Ledden,

a certified officer employed by DOT as a weights and safety

inspector, was dispatched to the scene. Ledden looked at the

permit issued Sade for the move, saw it was a regular permit, saw

that it expired at 6:00 A.M. and directed Sade not to move the

building until a proper permit was issued. Ledden was present

during the time the wrecker relocated the building alongside the

paved road on the shoulder.

13. For a building exceeding 30'6" in width a Special Permit

is required (Rule 14-63.03, Florida Administrative Code). Ledden

testified he made it clear to Sade that the building was not to be

moved without a valid permit.

14. On the morning of November 20, 1985, after midnight, the

building was moved without incident across Hillsborough River

bridge to the large lot south of the bridge that Sade had hoped to

make the night before.

15. Sade reapplied to DOT for a permit to move the building

to its intended destination and on November 25, 1985, Special

Permit No. B17546 (Exhibit 2) was issued to Respondent. This

permit indicated all necessary parties were notified of the move.

16. Shortly after midnight, November 27, 1985, the movement

of this building recommenced pursuant to the Special Permit. The

move progressed satisfactorily until the bridge on SR 39 over

Blackwater Creek was reached. Petitioner's witness testified the

building hit the rub rails on both sides of the bridge.

Photograph admitted on Exhibit 4 shows one side of the building

rubbing on the guardrail. Respondent acknowledged that the

clearance was close and that to clear the guardrail on one side,

the building had to be raised on that side. The driver of the

towing truck acknowledged that he initially got off line and one

side of the building touched the guardrail and it was necessary to

back off the bridge to get realigned. To raise one side of the

building to enable it to clear the guardrail on the right side, 2

x 12 planks were placed on the roadway for the right wheels of the

carriage to ride on. These planks had to be moved continuously as

the building progressed across the bridge. This materially slowed

the progress across the bridge. Other than the initial rubbing of

the guardrail, the only complaint of Petitioner regarding this

part of the move is that the bridge was blocked to traffic for one

and one-half hours while the building crossed the bridge. Sade

testified the building was on the bridge for only 30 to 45

minutes; however, the longer period is deemed more reliable.

17. After clearing the bridge, the building struck some tree

limbs alongside the road and a railroad stop sign over the road

which had to be realigned. This realignment was done by the

moving crew and no safety hazard resulted.

18. The carriage for the building had been raised as much as

possible to clear the bridge guardrails and still be low enough to

clear the overhanging traffic signals, hence the need to raise one

side of the carriage to clear the guardrail at the Blackwater

Creek bridge.

19. The November 27 move was completed prior to 6:00 A.M.

in accordance with the permit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

20. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction

over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

21. Section 316.550, Florida Statutes (1985) authorizes the

DOT to issue Special Permits for the movement of vehicles

exceeding the maximum size provided in Chapter 316 upon such terms

and conditions as it deems necessary. Pursuant to this authority,

Chapter 14-63, Florida Administrative Code, was promulgated to

enumerate the guidelines governing the issuance of building moving

permits. Pertinent provisions of this chapter are:

14-63.03 Size Limitations. Building

structures to be moved must conform to

the dimensions listed below.

(1) Maximum overall building width

should not exceed (30) feet six (6) inches

(excluding eaves) except as approved by

Special Permit.

14-63.04 Movement Restrictions. Movement

will not be permitted during the following

times.

(1) Movement will not be permitted at

nighttime, except (1) in local municipalities

or counties which require, by ordinance, that

moves be made at night; and (2) in specific

areas, designated by the District Office, in

which the proper local governmental agencies

have otherwise authorized nighttime moves.

For purpose of this rule, "night" is defined

as that period of time which begins one (1)

hour before sunset and ends one (1) hour after

sunrise.

In all cases the mover shall assume responsibility

for providing adequate traffic control and for

defraying any expenses which result from the

fulfillment of that obligation.

(2) Movements shall be prohibited from crossing

any "bascule" or "lift type" bridge structure,

except as provided under Special Permit.

(3) Movements shall be prohibited on any

portion of the limited or controlled access

facilities. (Approved by the Director of

Road operations). Buildings may be permitted

on any road passing over or under the

Interstate and at interchange overpasses

or underpasses, when it has been determined

that satisfactory vertical and lateral

clearances exist.

(4) Permits shall not be issued for the

movement of any building which has not been

completed and occupied in one location for

a period of one year or more, except as

provided under Special Permit Item A.

(5) Inter-Department of Transportation

District Movement will be approved in the

district of trip origin, with concurrence

of other affected districts.

14-63.05 Special Permits. Special Permits may

be granted by the District Engineer for the

following structures: (1) buildings wider than

thirty (30) feet six (6) inches; (2) buildings

longer than sixty-five (65) feet; (3) frame

houses over movable bridges; and (4) government-

owned buildings when application is made by

appropriate governmental unit, or privately-

owned buildings on public property.

(1) Applicants for Special Permits must furnish

a written request outlining exceptions to

standard policy. Prior to granting of Special

Permits, it must be determined that reasonable

effort to minimize the hazard has been exhausted;

that the move will be well planned and escorted;

and that proper and safe equipment will be

utilized. Past violations of any part of these

regulations will be deemed adequate reason

to deny issuance of Special Permits.

22. Rule 14-63.08 headed Traffic Control provides generally

for escort vehicles in front of and behind the building, for the

movement unit to pull off the road at a maximum of one mile

intervals to let traffic pass, for a minimum of three moving

personnel and be in attendance at all times with any structure

restriction [sic] from moving due to breakdown, accident, or

unforeseen delay.

23. Rule 14-61.09 provides the mover shall cooperate with

all utility companies having lines crossing over the proposed

route, make satisfactory arrangements with utility escorts, and

cooperate with any railroad company with at-grade crossings on the

proposed route by notifying the respective company and making

satisfactory arrangements.

24. Rule 14-63.10 entitled Application Procedures outlines

the various steps an applicant for permit to move buildings over

state roads must follow. The evidence submitted indicates

Respondent complied with all of those requirements.

25. The above provisions of Chapter 14-63 are quoted because

Respondent was charged, in the letter dated January 10, 1986,

which imposed a suspension of issuance of future permits for sixty

(60) days, with violating Rule 14-63.11, Florida Administrative

Code, which provides:

Failure to comply with these regulations shall

be adequate reason to deny issuance of future

permits for up to any twelve-month period as

follows:

Period Non-Issuance

Violation Future permit

1st 30 days

2nd 60 days

3rd 12 months

26. It is noted that the charging letter (Exhibit 3) did not

provide Respondent with a time frame within which to petition for

hearing to contest the 60 days suspension which expired January

26, 1986. Accordingly, Petitioner did not contest the timeliness

of Respondent's Request for a Formal Administrative Hearing.

27. It is not clear exactly which of the provisions of

Chapter 14-63, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent is alleged

to have violated. The evidence will support a finding that, due

to getting stuck on the Hillsborough River bridge and having to be

extricated therefrom, Respondent had the building on the road

after 6:00 A.M. on November 17, 1985, which was subsequent to the

time for which the permit was issued. The charging letter alleges

the building was on the road one-half hour after the permit

allowed movement.

28. The initial permit issued to Respondent was for a

building 32 feet 2 inches wide. Rule 14-63.03(1) above quoted

requires a Special Permit for a building this size. This Permit

was issued by Petitioner upon accurate information provided by

Respondent and it cannot be said Respondent violated this

provision.

29. Rule 14-63.04 quoted above, requires the mover to assume

responsibility for providing adequate traffic control. Both moves

here involved were conducted with police escorts.

30. No evidence was presented regarding the nature of

Hillsborough Bridge which, if a bascule bridge, would require the

issuance of a Special Permit. Since a Special Permit was required

due solely to the width of the building being moved, this fault,

if one existed, cannot be attributed to Respondent. Rule 14-63.06

applies to fees and no evidence was presented that Respondent

failed to pay the appropriate fee for the permit issue. Also no

evidence was submitted that Respondent was not properly bonded as

required by Rule 14-63.07. Nor was evidence presented that

Respondent failed to provide the traffic control as required by

Rule 14-63.08.

31. Both applications for permits submitted by Respondent

indicate notification was given to utility companies TECO, GTE and

WRec, to the Seaboard System Railroad, and clearance was obtained

from the Florida Highway Patrol. Respondent's witness, Mrs. Sade,

testified that she notified the City of Tampa utility office and

Pasco County utility office of the moves. This is competent and

admissible testimony. The testimony of Petitioner's witness that

he was told by the City of Tampa Utility Department that they were

unaware of the move was objected to as hearsay testimony, which it

is. This is not competent evidence, it does not supplement

competent evidence, and no finding can be based on such evidence.

Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

32. Finally, no evidence was presented that Respondent

failed to submit a proper application as required by Rule 14-

63.10.

33. Petitioner has the burden to prove, by a preponderance

of the evidence, the infractions alleged. Balino vs. Dept. of

HRS, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). This burden Petitioner

has failed to sustain. Nowhere in Chapter 14-63 is it provided

that sanctions are authorized because a mover exceeded the time

limits of the permit due to circumstances over which he had

control or over which he had no control. Since the building

crossed the Hillsborough River bridge without apparent problem

during the early morning hours of November 18, 1985, it is clear

that Respondent's attempt to move the building across this bridge

at 5:30 A.M., November 17, 1985, was not a gross miscalculation

especially in view of the obviously good layover place on the

south side of this bridge.

34. Finally, no evidence was submitted that Respondent

violated Chapter 14-67, Florida Administrative Code, when he moved

the building from the right-of-way along the road north of the

Hillsborough River bridge to a much better site south of this

bridge on November 18, 1985, under the initially issued but

incorrect permit. In fact, no direct evidence was submitted

regarding this move.

35. The clearance on the bridge across Blackwater Creek was

obviously very slight and this fact was known to the DOT Permit

Engineer, who issues building moving permits. Before any Special

Permit was issued to Sade, the Permit Engineer discussed with Sade

the clearances problem he would face on the Blackwater Creek

bridge. Although no one testified to the substance of this

discussion it would be expected that Sade explained that he would

clear the guardrail by lifting one side of the carriage and, on

the basis of this explanation, the Special Permit was issued. In

any event, the building traversed the bridge with one side of the

carriage wheels riding on 2 x 12 planks. The fact that this move

was very slow and blocked traffic is not a ground noted in Chapter

14-63, Florida Administrative Code, for which a suspension of

issuance of future permits may be founded.

36. From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioner has

failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

Respondent violated any provisions of Chapter 415, Florida

Administrative Code, during the morning of November 17, 1985, or

November 27, 1985. It is

RECOMMENDED that the charges against Eyal Sade and E & S

Construction involving the movement of a building on November 17,

1985, and November 27, 1985, be dismissed.

ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee,

Florida.

_____________________________

K. N. AYERS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 29th day of December, 1986.

APPENDIX

Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings

1. Accepted insofar as included in HO #1, 2 and 3.

2. Accepted insofar as included in HO #4, 7.

3. Accepted insofar as included in HO #10, 11.

4. Included in HO #5, 16 and 17.

Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings

1. Included in HO #1 and 15.

2. Rejected insofar as the November 19 move is concerned.

3. Included in HO #3 and 8.

4. Accepted but irrelevant.

5. Accepted but irrelevant.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

C. Michael Fischer, Esquire

170 S. Broadway

Bartow, Florida 33830

Thomas Drawdy, Secretary

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATE OF FLORIDA,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 86-2947

E & S CONSTRUCTION,

Respondent.

________________________________/

FINAL ORDER

The Record in this proceeding has been reviewed along with

the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer, copy attached.

Petitioner, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Department) has

filed Exceptions to Recommended Order which are considered and

addressed in this order.

The Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order are adopted.

The Conclusions of Law in the Recommended Order are accepted

insofar as the Hearing Officer concluded that the Department would

have the authority to suspend issuance of permits to Respondent

upon proof of violation of Chapter 14-63, Florida Administrative

Code. Contrary to the conclusions of the Hearing Officer, the

Department considers the actions of Petitioner to be sufficient to

constitute violations of Chapter 14-63 regulating building

movement over state highways. However, the Department will apply

this interpretation prospectively. An agency, such as the

Department, may interpret its own administrative rules.

S.120.57(1)(b)9, Florida Statutes. The Department accepts the

legal conclusion of the Hearing Officer that Petitioner did not

prove that Respondent violated Chapter 14-63, F.A.C. References

to the transcript will be made by the use of abbreviation "Tr"

followed by the appropriate page number.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Section 316.550, Fla. Stat. (1985) authorizes the

Department to issue special permits for house moving, in its

discretion, upon application, for good cause, if not contrary to

the public interest. By the statutory authority of S.316.550,

F.S., as condition for issuance of the permit, the Department may

limit or prescribe the conditions of operation of such oversized

loads.

2. Pursuant to the authority of S.316.550, F.S., Chapter 14-

63, Florida Administrative Code was promulgated to further govern

operations of building moving. The following standard applies to

the entire Chapter.

These permits are issued only under certain

limiting regulations which are intended to

reduce minimum any inconvenience to the

highway user. ( emphasis added)

Rule 14-63.002 F.A.C.

3. Further pertinent provisions of the Chapter include Rule

14-63.005, Florida Administrative Code which provides:

(1 ) Applicants for Special Permits must furnish

a written request outlining exceptions to

standard policy. Prior to granting of Special

Permits, it must be determined that reasonable

effort to minimize the hazard has been

exhausted; that the move will be well planned

and escorted; and that proper and safe equipment

will be utilized. Past violations of any part

of these regulations will be deemed adequate

reason to deny issuance of Special Permits.

(emphasis added)

4. Rule 14-63.004, Florida Administrative Code provides in

pertinent part:

Movement will not be permitted during the

following times: (1) on Saturdays, Sundays and

legal holidays; (2) between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00

a.m.; nor (3) between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

(1) Movement will not be permitted at

nighttime, except (1) in local municipalities

or counties which require, by ordinance, that

moves be made at night; and (2) in specific areas,

designated by the District Office, in which

the proper local governmental agencies have

otherwise authorized nighttime moves. For

purposes of this rule, "night" is defined as

that period of time which begins one (1) hour

before sunset and ends one (1) hour after

sunrise. ( emphasis added)

5. Rule 14-63.011, Florida Administrative Code provides:

Failure to comply with these regulations shall

be adequate reason to deny issuance of future

permits for up to any twelve month period as

follows:

PERIOD

NON-ISSUANCE

VIOLATION FUTURE PERMIT

1st 30 days

2nd 60 days

3rd 12 months

6. The Department disagrees with the Hearing Officer's legal

conclusion that Chapter 14-63, F.A.C. is not violated when a mover

exceeds time limits of a permit. On November 19, 1985, Respondent

did not complete the building moving operation within the time

period of 12:00 A.M. to 6:00 A.M., which was prescribed by the

Department. Therefore, it shall be considered a violation of Rule

14-63.004, F.A.C. as well as S.316.550, F.S. to continue movement

of a structure on the roadway between 7:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M.

7. Respondent violated Rule 14-63.005 F.A.C. November 27,

1985, by blocking Blackwater Creek Bridge to users of SR 39 for 1_

hours. Respondent did not use reasonable efforts to minimize

hazard to the public when Respondent did not elevate the structure

on the carriage. The move was not well planned as shown improper

equipment and abuse to public property including signs, traffic

signals, trees, and bridges. This shall be considered a violation

of these regulations and shall be adequate reason to deny issuance

of subsequent Special Permits.

8. Respondent repeatedly breached the intent of Rule Chapter

14-63 as expressed in the standard "to reduce to a minimum any

inconvenience to the highway user." Examples of this violation

are as follows:

(a ) Respondent failed to clear Hillsborough

River Bridge and blocked traffic for 2-3 hours

during the morning rush hours after the permit

time limitation had expired.

(b) The building remained an obstacle to

traffic when parked on the right of way

on November 19, 1985.

(c) Respondent did not elevate the house on the

carriage in order to clear Blackwater Creek

Bridge with reasonable speed thereby, blocked

the bridge for highway users, including possible

emergency vehicles, for 1_ hours. As found by

the Hearing Officer, Respondent materially

slowed the progress across the bridge.

(d) Inadequate planning and inadequate

equipment continually slowed the progress of the

subject move. The problems included a rented

generator that did not function properly, an

inoperable winch truck, dragging traffic, lights,

lack of elevation of the building on the

carriage, striking tree limbs, and striking a

railroad stop sign.

Actions of this type shall be considered violations of Rule 14-63.

9. In the future actions as shown by the Respondent in this

case shall be considered as violations of Rule 14-63 and Section

316.550, Fla. Stat. The Department accepts the Hearing Officer's

conclusion that Petitioner failed to prove, by a preponderance of

the evidence that Respondent violated Chapter 14-63, F.A.C.,

during November 19, 1985 or November 27, 1985.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the charges against Eyal Sade and E&S

Construction involving the subject movement of a building be

dismissed.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of March, 1987.

____________________________

KAYE N. HENDERSON

Secretary

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

K. N. AYERS, HEARING OFFICER

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

THE OAKLAND BUILDING

2009 APALACHEE PARKWAY

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301

VERNON L. WHITTIER, ESQUIRE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, MS-58

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399

C. MICHAEL FISCHER, ESQUIRE

170 SOUTH BROADWAY

BARTOW, FLORIDA 33830

Judicial review of agency final order may be pursued in accordance

with Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of

Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(c) and 9.110. To initiate an

appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Department's

Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee

Street, MS 58, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064, and with the

appropriate District Court of Appeal within 30 days of the filing

of this Final Order with the Department's Clerk of Agency

Proceedings. The Notice of Appeal filed with the District Court

of Appeal should be accompanied by the filing fee specified in

Section 35.22(3), Florida Statutes.