STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
C. LINDSEY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-1784
) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on September 28, 1995, in Stuart, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: R. C. Lindsey, pro se
6368 Southeast Held Court Stuart, Florida 34997
For Respondent: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire
Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Petitioner's request for an administrative hearing on the Department of Transportations's planned closure of the median opening on State Road 5 (hereinafter referred to as "U.S. 1") at Held Court in Stuart, Florida, should be dismissed on the ground that Petitioner lacks standing to challenge such planned action?
If not, whether Petitioner's challenge should be sustained?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In a letter dated February 28, 1994, the Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") advised Petitioner that, based on "comments [Petitioner had] made at [a] Public Hearing held on December 8, 1993," it had "reevaluated the proposed median modifications" which were a part of State Project No. 89010-1500/1501 and that, after such a reevaluation, had determined to keep "the closing of the break [on U.S. 1] at Held Court" in its "plan." In response to the Department's letter, Petitioner sent the Department a letter, dated March 26, 1994, which read as follows:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 28, 1994 and post-marked March 21, 1994 pertaining to the above project [State Project No. 89010-1500/1501].
I am very much opposed to your intended plans of closing off the intersection of Held Court and U.S. [Number]1.
Please accept this as my request for an administrative hearing to air my objections. I use this intersection too much as part of my daily life to permit its closing. My ordinary commerce and very life itself will be jeopardized with the closing of the inter- section of U.S. [Number]1 and Held Court.
On September 19, 1994, the Department issued an order directing Petitioner to show cause in writing within 14 days why his request for an administrative hearing should not be dismissed on the ground that he had "failed to allege facts in his request for hearing to demonstrate standing to challenge the Department's construction plans." On October 3, 1994, Petitioner filed an Answer to Show Cause Order and Amended Petition (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner's "Amended Petition"). Appended to the Amended Petition were the affidavits of six of Petitioner's neighbors who, according to their affidavits, also "opposed [for economic and safety reasons] the Department of Transportation['s] plan to close the media[n] opening at Held Court and U.S. [Number]1. 1/
On April 11, 1995, the Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the "Division"). The Department's referral letter to the Division read as follows:
Please arrange for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, in accordance with the enclosed petition and associated documents.
Issues:
Whether Petitioner has standing to request a hearing on the Department's plans to close a median opening at the intersection of State Road 5 and Held Court in Stuart.
Whether the Department's action would deprive Petitioner of the right of reasonable access
to State Road 5.
Whether the Department's proposed action of closing the median opening in State Road 5 is without authority and an abuse of discretion.
The administrative hearing that the Department asked the Division to conduct was originally scheduled for August 17, 1995. At the Department's request, the hearing was rescheduled for September 28, 1995.
On September 21, 1995, seven days before the administrative hearing was scheduled to commence, the Department filed a Motion for Recommended Order of Dismissal in which it argued that a "recommended order of dismissal should be issued in this case because Petitioner, R.C. Lindsey, lacks standing to request
a hearing under section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in that Petitioner's property does not abut the State Highway System." On the following day, September 22, 1995, the Hearing Officer issued an order notifying the parties that he would "defer ruling on the Motion until after the conclusion of the final hearing in the instant case," that the parties would have the opportunity at hearing to present evidence and argument on the issues raised in the Motion and that they would have an additional chance to present argument on these issues in their post-hearing submittals.
The final hearing in this case was held on September 28, 1995, as scheduled. At hearing, a total of four witnesses testified: Norman Bryant, the Florida regional manager of the engineering firm retained by the Department to design the road project at issue in the instant case; 2/ Jonathan Overton, the Department's District 4 Access Management Engineer; 3/ Milton Quall, a resident of Held Court; and Petitioner. In addition to the testimony of these four witnesses, a total of 15 exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 13 and Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2) were offered and received into evidence.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the hearing on September 28, 1995, the Hearing Officer, on the record, advised the parties of their right to file proposed recommended orders and established a deadline (30 days from the date of the Hearing Officer's receipt of the transcript of the hearing) for the filing of proposed recommended orders. The deadline was subsequently extended, at the Department's request (and without objection by Petitioner), to January 19, 1996. 4/
On November 20, 1995, Petitioner filed with the Hearing Officer what he represented to be the results of a survey he had conducted on October 12, 1995, "of the roads and drives that intersect with the U.S. [Number]1 from Cove Road South to Morningside Drive." Accompanying the survey was a pleading in which Petitioner stated the following:
The attached survey affidavit is presented to the Hearing Officer as additional documents in this case.
This shows that the approximately 1.2 mile section of U.S. [Number]1, (SR [Number]5) from Cove Road south to Morningside Drive is intersected 26 times and that 103 stores or commercial establishments are [a]ffected by these intersections together with about 2000 residential units.
The Department of Transportation has design- ated the improvements to this section of U.S. [Number]1, (SR [Number]5) as "High Speed Rural Highway."
The Hearing Officer will treat this pleading (which the Department has moved to strike) as a motion requesting that the evidentiary record in this case be reopened for the purpose of allowing Petitioner the opportunity to offer the survey into evidence. Inasmuch as the information contained in the survey, even if deemed to be true and accurate and taken into consideration by the Hearing Officer, would not alter the outcome of the instant case, the motion is hereby DENIED. 5/
Petitioner and the Department filed proposed recommended orders on November 30, 1995, and January 16, 1996, respectively. These proposed recommended orders
have been carefully considered by the Hearing Officer. The "findings of fact" set forth in these proposed recommended orders are specifically addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made:
For approximately the past 35 years, Petitioner has owned property on Held Court 6/ in the Vista Salerno subdivision in unincorporated Martin County, Florida. On the west, the property extends to Dixie Ross Road, an unpaved, private street in the Vista Salerno subdivision. Dixie Ross Road runs parallel to U.S. 1, a north-south roadway that is part of the State Highway System. On the east, the property approaches, but does not directly abut, U.S. 1.
Petitioner's residence is located on the property.
Petitioner also operates his commercial plumbing business, R.C. Lindsey Plumbing, Inc., from a structure (approximately 200 feet from his residence) located on the property.
Large trucks make daily deliveries to Petitioner's business.
There are no other commercial establishments located on Held Court or elsewhere in the Vista Salerno subdivision.
Petitioner owns other lots in the Vista Salerno subdivision. None of these other lots directly abuts U.S. 1.
The Vista Salerno subdivision lies west of U.S. 1. It was created in 1954. There are approximately 100 homes in the subdivision.
The subdivision has three paved roads: Held Court; Parkwood Drive; and Lillian Court. Each runs east-west and connects with U.S. 1. Parkwood Drive is 898 feet south of Held Court. Lillian Court is 993 feet north of Held Court.
Held Court is a Martin County-maintained roadway. Unlike U.S. 1, Held Court is not part of the State Highway System. Approximately 600 feet west of
U.S. 1, Held Court turns into Robert Loop Road, an unpaved, private roadway.
Since approximately 1970, there has been a full median opening (with a left hand storage lane) on U.S. 1 at Held Court. As a result, northbound, as well as southbound, motorists on U.S. 1 are able to turn directly from U.S. 1 onto Held Court. Likewise, motorists exiting the Vista Salerno subdivision via Held Court are able to turn right and head south on U.S. 1 or turn left and go north on U.S. 1.
The Department proposes to close the median opening that now exists on
U.S. 1 at Held Court as part of a proposed road improvement/widening project (State Project No. 89010-1500/1501, hereinafter referred to as the "proposed project.") The proposed project involves the widening of U.S. 1 (from an existing four-lane divided roadway to a six-lane divided roadway) in unincorporated Martin County (south of the City of Stuart city limits) from
south of County Road 708 to north of Salerno Road. (Held Court is between County Road 708 and Salerno Road).
This segment of U.S. 1 has been classified as a Class 3 roadway under the Department's access management classification system. It has an existing traffic volume of 27,000 vehicles a day. In 20 years it is projected to have a traffic volume of 45,000 vehicles a day. The proposed project will enable this roadway segment to handle the projected increase in traffic volume at a design speed of 55 miles an hour.
The plans for the proposed project are in the preliminary design phase and are approximately 30 percent complete. Traffic studies (of U.S. 1 and the major intersecting roadways feeding traffic onto U.S. 1 in the area of the proposed project) have been done. Held Court is not one of these major intersecting roadways and therefore has not been the subject of any traffic study done in conjunction with the proposed project.
The Department's District 4 Access Management Engineer has made recommendations regarding the location of median openings which have been incorporated in the plans that have been developed for the proposed project.
Martin County (which has jurisdiction over side streets that intersect with U.S. 1 in the area of the proposed project) was asked to provide its input regarding the location of median openings. All but one of its recommendations (that relating to Parkwood Drive) have been adopted in the plans for the proposed project.
These plans, which were formulated in accordance with generally accepted principles of traffic engineering and safety design, provide for the following median openings on U.S. 1 in the vicinity of Held Court: a full median opening (with a left turn storage lane) at Lillian Court, 993 feet north of Held Court; a full median opening (with a left turn storage lane) at Morningside Drive, south of Held Court; a directional median opening (with a left turn storage lane for southbound traffic) at Village Road,7 between Morningside Drive and Held Court, approximately 350 to 400 feet south of the latter; and a directional median opening (with a left turn storage lane for northbound traffic) at Parkwood Drive, between Village Road and Morningside Drive, 898 feet south of Held Court. 8/
The Department does not propose to entirely eliminate direct access between U.S. 1 and Held Court. Motorists will still have direct access to the southbound lanes of U.S. 1 from Held Court. Likewise, southbound motorists on
U.S. 1 will still be able to turn directly onto Held Court.
Access between U.S. 1 and Held Court, however, will be more limited than it is presently. Northbound motorists on U.S. 1 will no longer be able to turn left and directly access Held Court from U.S. 1, nor will motorists on Held Court any longer be able to turn left onto U.S. 1 and head north.
Reasonable and safe, although somewhat more inconvenient, alternatives will remain for these motorists, however.
Northbound motorists on U.S. 1 will be able to access Held Court by making a U-turn 993 feet north of Held Court at the full median opening at Lillian Court 9/ and then going south on U.S. 1 and turning right onto Held Court. Alternatively, they will be able to turn left at either the directional median opening at Parkwood Drive (before Held Court) or at the full median
opening at Lillian Court (after Held Court), travel west one block, turn onto Dixie Ross Road and then take Dixie Ross Road (north if coming from Parkwood Drive or south if coming from Lillian Court) to Held Court.
Motorists on Held Court desiring to travel north on U.S. 1 will be able to turn right on U.S. 1 and travel south until the directional median opening at Village Road, where they will be able make a U-turn onto the northbound lanes of U.S. 1. 10/ Another option they will have will be to take Dixie Ross Road to Lillian Court, travel east one block, and then turn left (north) onto U.S. 1.
Although some of the travelling public (including Petitioner, his neighbors, his employees and those making deliveries to his business) may be slightly inconvenienced as a result of the closure of the median opening on U.S.
1 at Held Court, it is prudent, from a traffic engineering and safety perspective, to close this median opening as part of the proposed project.
In order to meet generally accepted roadway and traffic design standards, the storage lane for southbound traffic on U.S. 1 turning left onto Village Road will need to extend north beyond Held Court. Motorists using a median opening at Held Court would have to cut across this storage lane. Traffic safety therefore would be seriously compromised if, in addition to a directional median opening at Village Road (with a left turn storage lane that extended past Held Court), there was also a median opening at Held Court (only
350 to 400 feet to the north of Village Road).
The elimination of the median opening at Held Court is, on balance, a feature of the proposed project that will promote, rather than, as Petitioner argues, jeopardize, the safety of motorists. 11/
Several years ago, (it is unclear precisely how many), the Department completed another road improvement/widening project on U.S. 1. This previous project involved a roadway segment between Stuart and Port St. Lucie (north of the roadway segment which is the subject of the proposed project in the instant case). No median openings were closed as a part of this previous project and a full median opening was provided for a Florida Power and Light transformer vault.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Sections 335.18 through 335.188, Florida Statutes, constitute the "State Highway System Access Management Act" (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
The Act defines the scope of the Department's authority to regulate access to the State Highway System and prescribes the manner in which that authority must be exercised.
Section 335.181(2), Florida Statutes, addresses the extent to which the Department may exercise its regulatory authority where there is an abutting property owner. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
It is the policy of the Legislature that:
Every owner of property which abuts a road on the State Highway System has a right to reasonable access to the abutting state highway but does not have the right of
unregulated access to such highway. The operational capabilities of an access connec- tion 12/ may be restricted by the department. However, a means of reasonable access to an abutting state highway may not be denied by the department, except on the basis of safety or operational concerns as provided in s. 335.184.
The access rights of an owner of property abutting the State Highway System are subject to reasonable regulation to ensure the public's right and interest in a safe and efficient highway system. This paragraph does not auth- orize the department to deny a means of reason- able access to an abutting state highway,
except on the basis of safety or operational concerns as provided in s. 335.184.
Section 335.184, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(3) A property owner shall be granted a permit for an access connection to the abutting state highway, unless the permitting of such access would jeopardize the safety of the public or have a negative impact on the operational characteristics of the highway. Such access connection and permitted turning movements shall be based upon standards and criteria adopted, by rule, by the department.
These "standards and criteria adopted, by rule, by the department" are found in Chapter 14-97, Florida Administrative Code.
They provide, in pertinent part, that on a Class 3 roadway, like the segment of U.S. 1 at issue in the instant case, the "minimum median opening spacing" is 0.5 miles for a "full median opening" and 1320 feet for a "directional median opening." Rule 14-97.003, Fla. Admin. Code. 13/
"Minimum median opening spacing," as that term is used in Chapter 14- 97, Florida Administrative Code, is defined in Rule 14-97.002(20), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
[T]he minimum allowable distance between open- ings in a restrictive median 14/ to allow for crossing the opposing traffic lanes to access property or for crossing the median to travel in the opposite direction (U-turn). The mini-
mum spacing or distance is measured from center- line to centerline of the openings along the traveled way.
A "full median opening," as that term is used in Chapter 14-97, Florida Administrative Code, is defined in Rule 14-97.002(15), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
[A]n opening in a restrictive median designed to allow all turning movements to take place
from both the state highway and the adjacent connection.
A "directional median opening," as that term is used in Chapter 14-97, Florida Administrative Code, is defined in Rule 14-97.002(11), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
[A]n opening in a restrictive median which provides for U-turn only, and/or left-turn in movements. Directional median openings for two opposing left or "U-turn" movements along one segment of road are considered one directional median opening. 15/
The Department, in the instant case, has proposed a change in the design of a segment of U.S. 1 in unincorporated Martin County, which includes the closure of the full median opening that now exists at Held Court.
Petitioner has requested a Section 120.57 formal hearing on the proposed closure of this median opening. The Department has referred the matter to the Division, with the request that the Division hearing officer assigned to hear the case initially address the issue of Petitioner's standing to challenge (through the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes) the Department's proposed action.
"To establish entitlement to a [S]ection 120.57 formal hearing, one must show that its 'substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action.' This, in turn, requires a showing that (1) the proposed action will result in injury-in-fact which is of sufficient immediacy to justify a hearing; and (2) the injury is of the type that the statute pursuant to which the agency has acted is designed to protect." Fairbanks, Inc., v. Department of Transportation, 635 So.2d 58, 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Friends of the Everglades, Inc., v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund,
595 So.2d 186, 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). No such showing has been made by Petitioner in the instant case.
Petitioner is not an "owner of property which abuts a road on the State Highway System" entitled to "reasonable access" under the Act. Rather, he owns property abutting a Martin County roadway (Held Court) that connects with (and thereby provides Petitioner access to) a road on the State Highway System (U.S. 1). Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the Act granted Petitioner a right of "reasonable access" from Held Court to U.S. 1, Petitioner would not be deprived of such "reasonable access" if the Department closed the median opening on U.S. 1 at Held Court and otherwise carried out its present plans for the proposed project inasmuch as the connection between Held Court and the southbound lanes of U.S. 1 would remain open under such circumstances. See Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation v. Capital Plaza, Inc., 397 So.2d 682, 683 (Fla. 1981)(construction of "a raised four-foot-wide median" on roadway preventing northbound drivers from "turn[ing] across traffic directly into Capital's service station" did not constitute a "deprivation of access" inasmuch as there was "still free, unimpeded access to Capital's service station albeit only by southbound traffic"); Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation v. Palm Beach West, Inc., 409 So.2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)(construction of a "median strip" did not amount to denial of access). Although Petitioner (and those who have occasion to travel to and from his home or business) may suffer some slight inconvenience as a result of the closure of the median opening on U.S. 1 at Held Court, such inconvenience is insufficient to give Petitioner standing to challenge the Department's proposed action to close this median opening. 16/
In any event, Petitioner's challenge to such proposed action is without merit. Determining to close the median opening as part of the proposed project has not been shown to be anything other than the sound exercise of the Department's discretion to plan and design state roadways. See Department of Transportation v. Lopez-Torres, 526 So.2d 674, 676 (Fla. 1988)(Department has "plenary power to plan and construct state roads and bridges;" the Department's power, however, "is not absolute and is limited to the lawful exercise of its discretion"). The greater weight of the record evidence establishes that, on balance, the closure of the median opening will promote and protect, rather than endanger, the public health, safety and welfare and that it is therefore desirable, from an operational and safety perspective, to close the median opening as part of the proposed project. Furthermore, to include a median opening at Held Court as part of the proposed project would violate the spacing requirements of Chapter 14-97, Florida Administrative Code. 17/ See Section 335.184(3), Fla. Stat.("Such access connection and permitted turning movements shall be based upon standards and criteria adopted, by rule, by the Department"); Gadsen State Bank v. Lewis, 348 So.2d 343, 345 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)("[A]gencies must honor their own substantive rules until . . . they are amended or abrogated").
In view of the foregoing, the Department should reject Petitioner's challenge to the proposed closure of the median opening on U.S. 1 at Held Court.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order
rejecting Respondent's challenge to the Department's proposed closure of the
median opening on U.S. 1 at Held Court.
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of January, 1996.
STUART M. LERNER, 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 30th day of January, 1996.
ENDNOTES
1/ The affidavits of three additional opponents of the planned median closing were offered and received into evidence at hearing (as Petitioner's Exhibit 3).
2/ Bryant testified, without objection, as an expert in the field of transportation engineering.
3/ Overton testified, without objection, as an expert in the fields of traffic engineering and access management.
4/ The Hearing Officer received the hearing transcript on November 13, 1995. Accordingly, the original deadline for the filing of proposed recommended orders was December 13, 1995.
5/ This case does not involve a request made in accordance with Rule 14-97.005, Florida Administrative Code, to review the access classification of the segment of U.S. 1 that is the subject of the survey.
6/ The property directly abuts Held Court.
7/ Village Road serves a large residential area to the east of U.S. 1. It serves many more homes, and consequently carries substantially more traffic, than does Held Court.
8/ The proposed directional median openings at Village Road and Parkwood Drive will form, what is referred to as, a "U-turn pair." At present, there are full median openings (with left turn storage lanes) at both Village Road and Parkwood Drive. Martin County recommended that a full median opening remain at Parkwood Drive.
9/ Studies conducted by the Department have shown that, on a six-lane divided roadway, a U-turn (unaided by a traffic signal or sign) is a safer maneuver than a left-hand turn onto the divided roadway (unaided by a traffic signal or sign).
10/ The trucks that make deliveries to Petitioner's plumbing business and the other vehicles that now use the median opening at Held Court will be able to make this U-turn, as well as the previously discussed U-turn at the directional median opening at Village Road, safely.
11/ In making this finding, the Hearing Officer has relied upon the expert testimony presented by the Department. (Petitioner did not present any expert testimony in support of his position.)
12/ A "connection," as that term is used in the Act, "means driveways, streets, turnouts, or other means of providing for the right of reasonable access to or from the State Highway System."
13/ Rule 14-97.003(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which became effective on February 13, 1991, provides that "existing median openings . . are not required to meet . . . the standards of the assigned classification" of the roadway, but they "shall be brought into reasonable conformance with the standards of the assigned classification . . . where new connection permits are granted for significant changes in property use or as changes to the roadway design allow."
14/ A "restrictive median," as that term is used in Rule 14-97.002(20), Florida Administrative Code, is "the portion of a divided highway or divided driveway physically separating vehicular traffic traveling in opposite directions." The term includes "physical barriers that prohibit movement of traffic across the median such as a concrete barrier, a raised concrete curb and/or island, and a grassed or swaled median." Rule 14-97.002(26), Fla. Admin. Code. A "non-
restrictive median," on the other hand, is "a median or painted centerline which does not provide a physical barrier between center traffic turning lanes or traffic lanes traveling in opposite directions." Rule 14-97.002(23), Fla.
Admin. Code.
15/ It is apparent from a reading of the language of Rule 14-97.002(11), Florida Administrative Code, that an opening need not allow for opposing left turn movements in order to be a "directional median opening" subject to the spacing requirements of Chapter 14-97, Florida Administrative Code.
16/ Contrary to the assertion made by Petitioner, he will not be substantially affected in any adverse way "safety wise economically, and socially by this proposed closure of the median opening."
17/ Although Petitioner has suggested that the Department would be engaging in unfavorable, disparate treatment toward him and the other property owners on Held Court were it to close the median opening on U.S. 1 at Held Court, the record evidence is insufficient to establish that, during the time the spacing requirements of Chapter 14-97, Florida Administrative Code, have been in effect, the Department, as part of a change in the design of a state roadway, has failed to close any median opening that did not meet these spacing requirements and that was otherwise comparable in all material respects to the median opening at Held Court.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-1784
The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the "findings of fact" set forth in the parties' proposed recommended orders:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
1-3. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order.
Rejected because, even if it had sufficient evidentiary/record support and was accepted as true, it would not alter the outcome of the instant case.
Rejected because it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Rejected because it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 8-11. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact
1-6. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second sentence: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; Second and third sentences: Rejected as findings of fact because they are more in the nature of conclusions/statements of law.
To the extent that this proposed finding states that the proposed location, design and spacing of the median openings on the segment of U.S. 1 at issue in the instant case meet the requirements set forth in the Department's rules, it has been rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the
nature of a conclusion of law. Otherwise, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance.
11-15. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
16-18. To the extent that these proposed findings make reference to the requirements set forth in the Department's rules, they have been rejected as findings of fact because they are more in the nature of conclusions/statements of law. Otherwise, they have been accepted and incorporated in substance.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
First sentence: Not incorporated in this Recommended Order because it would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer; Second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance.
Rejected as a finding of fact because it is more in the nature of a statement of law.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
COPIES FURNISHED:
R. C. Lindsey
6369 Southeast Held Court Stuart, Florida 34997
Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Diedre Grubbs
Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation
562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period of time within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 03, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1996 | (Petitioner) Response to Motion to Strike filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Petitioner) Exceptions to Recommended Order filed. |
| Jan. 30, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 09/28/95. |
| Jan. 16, 1996 | Letter to hearing officer from Francine M. Ffolkes Re: Exhibits filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1996 | Department of Transportation`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Dec. 04, 1995 | Order sent out. (motion granted) |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | (Petitioner) Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 21, 1995 | Petitioner`s Submittal of Additional Document After Hearing filed. |
| Nov. 20, 1995 | Petitioner`s Submittal of Additional Document After Hearing filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | Transcript of Proceedings filed. |
| Sep. 28, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Sep. 22, 1995 | Order sent out. (hearing set for 9/28/95; 9:30am; Stuart; ruling on motion to be given after hearing) |
| Sep. 21, 1995 | Respondent`s Motion for Recommended Order of Dismissal filed. |
| Aug. 10, 1995 | Order sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 9/28/95; 9:30am; Stuart) |
| Aug. 09, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance to Date Certain filed. |
| May 08, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 8/17/95; 9:00am; Stuart) |
| May 01, 1995 | FDOT`s Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Apr. 28, 1995 | Petitioner`s response to initial order filed. |
| Apr. 21, 1995 | Letter to S. Smith from R. C. Lindsey Re: Petitioner`s response to Initial Order; Letter to S. Smith from Paul Sexton Re: Request for an administrative hearing filed. |
| Apr. 18, 1995 | Notice of Appearance of Co-Counsel for Department of Transportation filed. |
| Apr. 18, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Apr. 11, 1995 | Agency referral letter; Request For Administrative Hearing, Letter Form; Agency Action Letter; Order To Show Cause; Answer To Order To Show Cause and Amended Petition; Affidavit (6); Supportive Documents filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 02, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 30, 1996 | Recommended Order | Petitioner without standing to challenge proposed closure of median opening on state road where he did not own property abutting state road. |
