STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JOHN MAJKA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF HARRY E. MILLER, Petitioners, and JPM VENTURES, INC., Intervenor, vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. / | Case No. 19-1398 |
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The final hearing in this matter was conducted before Andrew D. Manko, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”), pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2020),1 on July 21 through 23, 2020, by video teleconference between sites in Tallahassee and Ft. Myers, Florida, and on August 6 and 7, 2020, by Zoom.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: John Majka, pro se
18700 Old Bayshore Road Ft. Myers, Florida 33917
For Intervenor: John Majka, pro se
18700 Old Bayshore Road Ft. Myers, Florida 33917
1 All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2020 version, unless otherwise noted.
For Respondent: David Tropin, Assistant General Counsel
Austin M. Hensel, Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether the Second Amended Notice of Driveway Modification, in which Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation (“FDOT”), seeks to modify the driveway used by Petitioners, John Majka, individually and on behalf of Harry E. Miller, and Intervenor, JPM Ventures, Inc. (“JPM”), is consistent with sections 335.181, 335.182, and 335.1825, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 14-96.011 and 14-96.015; and
whether FDOT engaged in conduct in violation of section 120.569(2)(e).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
FDOT issued its Amended Notice of Driveway Modification (“Amended Notice”) on January 7, 2019, in which it sought to modify Petitioners’ driveway as part of a construction project along State Road 80 (“SR 80”). Petitioners timely requested a hearing on January 30, 2019. FDOT dismissed the request because it purportedly failed to contain requisite information, but transmitted the case to DOAH after Petitioners responded to the dismissal order. Petitioners moved for a default on grounds that FDOT failed to timely rule on their hearing request, which the undersigned denied on April 3, 2020.
The undersigned set the final hearing to be heard live in Ft. Myers on May 23 and 24, 2019. On April 18, 2019, Petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Declaring Driveway Connection Grandfathered, to which FDOT responded in opposition on April 22, 2020. After holding a telephonic hearing, the undersigned denied the motion without prejudice to raising the issue at the final hearing where disputed facts could be resolved.
On May 8, 2019, the undersigned granted the parties’ request for a continuance so they could discuss settlement and rescheduled the final hearing in Ft. Myers for July 23 and 24, 2019. However, on May 31, 2019, the undersigned granted Petitioners’ unopposed request to hold the case in abeyance pending their representative’s recovery from surgery for a serious medical condition. The parties agreed to extend the stay for several months.
On August 30, 2019, FDOT filed a Second Amended Notice of Project Update to Driveway Connection (“Second Amended Notice”), seeking to revise its intended modifications to the driveway after additional discussions with Petitioners. In an Order dated September 16, 2019, the undersigned noted that FDOT would have to seek leave if it intended to proceed on the Second Amended Notice once the case was out of abeyance.
On March 20, 2020, after holding the case in abeyance for ten months, the undersigned held a teleconference at which the parties agreed to continue the abeyance for 30 days to further discuss settlement and to allow Petitioners’ representative time to recover. On March 24, 2020, the undersigned ordered the parties to file status reports and directed Petitioners to support any request to continue the stay with medical documentation.
FDOT’s Status Report, filed April 29, 2020, noted that the parties had conferred but were unable to reach a settlement. FDOT also incorporated two motions in its Status Report: (1) to take judicial notice of Petitioners’ public records requests for transcripts of teleconferences and a complete set of plans for the construction project; and (2) to recommence discovery and reschedule the final hearing. Petitioners’ Status Report, filed April 30, 2020, argued that their representative remained medically unable to conduct discovery or proceed to a final hearing; it attached a letter from his primary care physician, which noted that he was being treated for an infection and that his
work restrictions shall remain in place until released from his surgeon. The letter said nothing about an inability to participate in discovery or the final hearing. Petitioners also re-raised their argument that their driveway should be declared grandfathered and argued that FDOT violated several provisions of the Florida Administrative Code by failing to both provide notice of its intended agency action to all occupants of the property and meet on site with Petitioners regarding the Amended Notice.
On May 8, 2020, the undersigned held a pre-hearing teleconference on the Status Reports and incorporated motions. In an Order dated May 13, 2020, the undersigned detailed the lengthy procedural history of FDOT’s efforts to modify Petitioners’ driveway, which began in December 2017. The Order explained why Petitioners failed to substantiate their representative’s inability to participate in a final hearing given the insufficiency of the documentation provided, the fact that he had been actively engaged in motion practice in this case and in local government meetings about the project, and his concession at the teleconference about his ability to proceed. The Order
authorized Petitioners to file a written response to FDOT’s request to proceed on the Second Amended Notice and to file a motion as to the alleged failure to provide notice to all occupants of the property; the Order noted that FDOT withdrew its request for judicial notice.
The Order also set a discovery deadline of June 30, 2020, and rescheduled the final hearing by video conference with sites in Tallahassee and Ft. Myers for July 21 and 22, 2020. As a result of COVID-19 travel restrictions, the undersigned had given the parties the option of conducting the hearing by Zoom. Although Petitioners opted for a video conference, the undersigned made clear orally and in various Orders that Petitioners’ representative could attend the hearing at the Tallahassee site. The Order re-affirmed the provisions of the Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions
issued on March 29, 2019, including the applicable deadlines for serving and filing witness lists, exhibit lists, and proposed exhibits.
The parties timely filed the pleadings authorized in the May 13th Order.
Petitioners also moved to reschedule the hearing because their engineer needed 45 days to prepare a report based on the Second Amended Notice. On May 22, 2020, the undersigned issued two Orders that: (1) granted FDOT leave to amend and rejected Petitioners’ request to reschedule the final hearing because their engineer had the 45 days he requested to complete his report; and (2) denied Petitioners’ request to dismiss the case for failure to serve all occupants of the property. But, the Order required FDOT to provide a copy of the Second Amended Notice to Superior Sheds, Inc., another business operating on the property, and gave Superior Sheds seven days to intervene after receipt thereof. FDOT timely provided the Second Amended Notice to Superior Sheds, which did not move to intervene.
The parties engaged in discovery over the next two months. On June 3, 2020, Petitioners filed a Motion to Correct Case Style, which the undersigned treated as a motion by JPM Ventures, Inc.—a business owned by Petitioners’ representative that operates on the property—to intervene in this proceeding. On June 13, 2020, the undersigned granted that motion.
On June 29, 2020, FDOT sought leave to file a corrected Second Amended Notice, which would attach complete diagrams inadvertently cropped from the version initially filed, correct a typographical error in the table as to the driveway’s width, and remove a reference to a joint use agreement that had been inadvertently left in from a version used solely for purposes of settlement. On July 6, 2020, Petitioners moved for a continuance, a stay of their discovery deadline, and an emergency teleconference. Petitioners argued that their representative had suffered a heart attack on June 2, 2020,
that they could not prepare for the hearing given FDOT’s request to correct the Second Amended Notice, and that their engineer was unavailable on the dates of the final hearing.
The undersigned held a teleconference on July 10, 2020, and issued a detailed Order on the pending motions on July 13, 2020. The Order granted FDOT’s request to correct its Second Amended Notice because the changes were immaterial and would not prejudice Petitioners who had the complete exhibits for almost a year. The Order denied Petitioners’ requests for a stay and a continuance because they were: (1) untimely made on the eve of the hearing and over a month after the heart attack, three weeks after their engineer informed them that he would be unavailable on the dates of the hearing, and ten days after receiving the medical documentation;
(2) inconsistent with the actions of Petitioners’ representative who actively litigated both this case and another one pending before the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SFWMD”) in the month since his heart attack; and (3) unsubstantiated by documentation from his treating cardiologist. However, in an effort to accommodate Petitioners, the Order extended the deadline to serve witness lists, exhibit lists, and responses to outstanding discovery until July 16, 2020.
FDOT timely filed its witness list, served responses to Petitioners’ discovery requests, and filed its amended exhibit list. Petitioners timely filed their proposed witness list (naming 42 witnesses, including the FDOT district secretary, several Lee County commissioners and their staff, and numerous FDOT employees, among others) and filed what appeared to be several proposed exhibits but without an exhibit list.
On July 16, 2020, the undersigned held another teleconference to address the exhibits. Petitioners conceded that they had not yet identified all of their
exhibits or disclosed them to FDOT; the undersigned found their reasons for not doing so by the extended deadline to lack merit. But, in an Order dated July 17, 2020, the undersigned extended the deadline for Petitioners to e- mail their exhibit list, exhibits, and responses to discovery requests to FDOT until July 20, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.—the date Petitioners believed they could finish these tasks. The Order warned that failing to do so may result in Petitioners being precluded from introducing undisclosed exhibits. The Order required Petitioners to deliver their exhibit list and exhibits to the undersigned’s office by July 21, 2020. On the same day, the undersigned also granted Petitioners’ requests to allow two witnesses to testify by Zoom.
On July 20, 2020, FDOT timely filed an amended exhibit list to include Petitioners’ responses to its discovery requests. Petitioners filed several additional proposed exhibits that day, but failed to serve their exhibit list, proposed exhibits, or discovery responses on FDOT. Instead, about 30 minutes before the 9:00 a.m., extended discovery deadline, Petitioners filed a Motion to Compel Key Witness Testimony seeking to require FDOT to make its district secretary and two employees available to testify the next day.
These individuals were included on Petitioners’ witness list, but they had not been served with subpoenas. Petitioners failed to do so despite understanding the process, as they had (belatedly) served subpoenas that day on several Lee County Commissioners and their staff.
The two-day final hearing was set for July 21, 2020. Around 8:00 a.m., Petitioners filed an untimely exhibit list and also moved to compel FDOT to provide their exhibits and discovery in PDF format. Lee County also moved to quash the subpoenas served the day before.
Though scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m., the final hearing did not start until after 10:45 a.m., because Petitioners’ representative arrived late.
Because Petitioners failed to subpoena the FDOT employees, waited until the day of the hearing to argue for the first time—despite teleconferences being held in the prior two weeks—that they could not access some of FDOT’s proposed exhibits, and had difficulty identifying which exhibits were problematic, the undersigned denied the motions to compel as untimely and without merit. Because Petitioners waited until the day before the hearing to subpoena the County commissioners and staff and had not attempted to obtain discovery from them previously, the undersigned granted the County’s motion. The rest of the first day focused on the parties’ exhibits.2 Though Petitioners initially indicated that they wanted to appear live in Tallahassee the next day, they chose to stay in Ft. Myers to have more time to prepare.
Despite the undersigned’s warning that the second day would convene at 8:30 a.m., Petitioners’ representative e-mailed the parties a new exhibit around that time and called the undersigned’s office to say he would be late. The undersigned delayed the hearing for ten minutes and Petitioners’ representative arrived during FDOT’s opening statement. As the party bearing the burden of proof, FDOT began its case-in-chief and presented the testimony of one witness. As an accommodation, the undersigned allowed Petitioners’ engineer to testify during FDOT’s case-in-chief. Because the
parties had not yet presented the entirety of their cases-in-chief, they agreed to return the next morning and extend the hearing to a third day.
On the third day of the hearing, Petitioners’ representative informed the security guard inside the Ft. Myers office that he had COVID-19 symptoms. He called into the hearing to discuss his symptoms, which he said he had the day before but did not inform anyone. He rejected the undersigned’s offer to
2 Although Petitioners had not complied with the extended discovery deadline and belatedly raised the issue concerning FDOT’s exhibits, the undersigned permitted them to seek to introduce their proposed exhibits and also spent substantial time ensuring they had access to FDOT’s exhibits. FDOT also offered to hand-deliver copies of its exhibits the next day.
finish the hearing by Zoom and requested that it be continued because he was confused and having trouble hearing. FDOT objected and presented testimony from its representative as to the prejudice FDOT would suffer if the hearing were continued. Petitioners’ representative effectively cross- examined FDOT’s representative and had sent detailed e-mails that morning, which seemed to belie a physical or mental inability to finish the hearing that day. But, in an abundance of caution, the undersigned continued the hearing for two weeks to allow Petitioners’ representative to recover.
On July 23, 2020, the undersigned issued an Order scheduling the continuation of the final hearing via video conference for August 6, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. The Order made clear that no new exhibits could be filed and only the three remaining witnesses, i.e., an FDOT employee, FDOT’s engineer, and Petitioners’ representative, would be testifying. The Order also required Petitioners to file a status report by July 30, 2020, with details as to their representative’s COVID-19 status and to provide a negative COVID-19 test result if he intended to appear at the Tallahassee or Ft. Myers locations.
Otherwise, the Order confirmed that Petitioners’ representative could appear by Zoom to ensure everyone’s safety.
Petitioners filed a Status Report on July 30, 2020, and an Addendum to Status Report on July 31, 2020. Petitioners did not request a continuance, but attached a letter from their representative’s primary care doctor noting that he had unspecified COVID-19 symptoms and was unable to proceed at that time. An Order dated July 31, 2020, confirmed that the letter was insufficient to justify a continuance given the circumstances, if Petitioners had intended to ask for a continuance. The Order required Petitioners to make a physician available to testify on August 6, 2020, if they intended to
request a continuance on medical grounds, and be ready to appear by Zoom if they could not prove that their representative was negative for COVID-19.
On August 3 and 4, 2020, Petitioners moved to compel FDOT to provide answers to discovery requests and to immediately provide free copies of transcripts of a pre-hearing teleconference and the first three days of the final hearing. On August 5, 2020, the undersigned issued an Order denying the requests as untimely and without merit.
On August 5 and 6, 2020, prior to the start of the fourth day of the final hearing, Petitioners filed several motions to: (1) declare them the prevailing party; (2) recognize their engineer as an expert and allow him to testify on rebuttal; (3) consolidate this case with one pending before SFWMD; and
(4) declare that FDOT violated section 335.199, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G-15. In two detailed Orders dated August 6, 2020, the undersigned denied the first three requests as either untimely or without merit. As to the request regarding expert testimony, the undersigned explained at the final hearing and in the Order that neither party’s engineer would be treated as an expert because they did not timely seek to present expert testimony. However, both engineers discussed their qualifications and offered opinions, and the undersigned evaluated their testimony and gave it the weight he deemed appropriate. The undersigned treated the fourth
request as one relating to Petitioners’ argument that FDOT engaged in an
improper purpose in this proceeding, which is resolved herein.
The continuation of the final hearing was held on August 6 and 7, 2020. Although Petitioners’ representative could have appeared in Tallahassee or at the Ft. Myers location because he had tested negative for COVID-19, he chose to appear via Zoom. After making argument on the motions discussed above, the parties finished presenting their witness testimony.
Over the five hearing days, the parties presented the following evidence.
FDOT presented the testimony of three witnesses: (1) Gina Bonyani, an
FDOT transportation engineering specialist; (2) Dawn Ratican, an engineer of record for the construction project; and (3) Ryan Weeks, the FDOT project manager. Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 25 were admitted in evidence.
Petitioners presented the testimony of their engineer, Norman Trebilcock, and their representative, John Majka. Petitioners’ Exhibits 1, 2, 4, and 6 through 10 were admitted in evidence. Petitioners’ proposed exhibit 3 was excluded; Petitioners’ proposed exhibit 5 was combined with Petitioners’ Exhibit 4.
The filing of the nine-volume Transcript was completed on September 15, 2020. On September 18, 2020, Petitioners moved to extend the deadline to file proposed recommended orders (“PROs”) based on purported errors in the Transcript and to compel the court reporters to produce their audio files. The undersigned held a post-hearing teleconference on September 25, 2020, and, over FDOT’s objection, gave Petitioners until September 28, 2020, to file an errata sheet listing any material errors. Petitioners filed an incomplete errata sheet on September 28, 2020, but failed to timely file a completed errata sheet even after the undersigned extended the deadline twice.
Notwithstanding, the undersigned issued an Order on September 30, 2020, giving the parties until October 2, 2020, to file complete errata sheets, requiring the court reporter to review same and file an amended transcript if any corrections needed to be made, and extending the deadline to file PROs until ten days after the filing of the amended transcript.
As a result of this process, the court reporter corrected volumes 6, 7, and
The court reporter filed corrected volume 8 on October 7, 2020, and corrected volumes 6 and 7 on October 9, 2020. Thus, the PROs were due by October 19, 2020.
FDOT timely filed its PRO on October 19, 2020, which was duly considered in preparing this Recommended Order. Petitioners did not file a PRO, even after receiving extensions to do so until November 2, 2020.3
In making the findings below, the undersigned only considered hearsay evidence that either supplemented or explained other admissible evidence or would be admissible over objection in civil actions. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Existing Driveway
FDOT is the state agency responsible for regulating access to the state highway system, which includes SR 80. § 335.182, Fla. Stat.
Based on a request by Lee County’s Metropolitan Planning
Organization (“MPO”), FDOT began designing plans to build a four to five mile shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists along SR 80 (“Project”). In that area, SR 80 is a class three road with a 45 mph speed limit.
Petitioners’ property is within the Project and uses a 98-foot wide, unpermitted driveway to access SR 80. The Estate of Harry Miller owns the easternmost parcel on which the entire driveway and an office building are located. Mr. Majka’s business, JPM Ventures, is a licensed motor vehicle dealer and uses the Miller parcel as both an office (the right half of the building) and to store recreational vehicles, such as motor homes, campers, and trailers. Mr. Majka owns the three adjacent parcels to the west and leases those parcels to Superior Sheds, which sells sheds that are delivered to and picked up from the property on large trucks. Superior Sheds uses the
3 As detailed in Orders dated October 21, 2020, and November 10 and 30, 2020, the undersigned made extraordinary efforts to accommodate Petitioners throughout this case, including granting several extensions to file their PRO. But, instead of doing so, Petitioners’ representative spent that time filing numerous motions raising untimely and already- rejected issues while arguing that he was too sick to file the PRO. The Orders denied
Petitioners’ motions and explained that the undersigned could no longer acquiesce to these improper efforts to delay the resolution of this case.
Miller parcel as an office (the left half of the building) and to access SR 80 via the driveway, and uses the Majka parcels to store its sheds. The following photo taken in January 2018 depicts the driveway and the two business’s operations, which are delineated by the two dotted-lined boxes:
Petitioners’ driveway has been in existence since at least the 1960s and remains unchanged today. Aerial photographs from 1986 and 1990 confirm the presence of a building on the Miller parcel, the driveway in its current form, and the Majka parcels being used for what appears to be parking or storage. Mr. Majka purchased his parcels in 1998 and has been using the driveway continuously since. JPM Ventures has operated on the Miller parcel and Superior Sheds has operated on the Miller and Majka parcels since as early as 2015. Superior Sheds uses a paved pathway so its trucks can travel between the Majka parcels, where the sheds are stored, and the driveway.
Based on the weight of the credible evidence, Petitioners’ driveway has existed and been continuously used since 1988. Though the vehicles and/or storage containers located on the Majka parcels may vary and a pathway was paved on the Majka parcels to allow for easier access to the driveway, the evidence did not establish significant changes to the buildings, facilities, or overall use of the property that “caus[ed] an increase in the trip generation of the property exceeding 25 percent more trip generation (either peak hour or daily) and exceeding 100 vehicles per day more than the existing use,” as required by section 335.182(3)(b).
The Project and Proposed Modifications to Petitioners’ Driveway
Based on the MPO’s request, FDOT began planning for the Project in 2014. FDOT retained AIM Engineering to design the Project. Ms. Ratican, an AIM employee, is one of the engineers of record on the Project. FDOT identified 24 driveways along the Project that required modification.
In late 2017, FDOT’s project manager, Mr. Weeks, went door-to-door along SR 80 to try to meet with as many property owners as possible and discuss the Project. FDOT thereafter sent certified letters to all property owners to notify them about any proposed modifications to their driveway.
On December 7, 2017, FDOT issued its Notice advising Petitioners of its plans to modify the driveway to improve safety and operations along SR 80. FDOT sought to reduce the driveway width from 98 feet to a design standard of 24 feet.
Upon receipt, Mr. Weeks met on site with Mr. Majka. At the time of the 2017 meeting and as depicted in the following photograph, there was a covered parking spot in front of the left half of the building (Superior Sheds’ office), but there were neither defined parking spots with painted lines along the front of the right half of the building (JPM Ventures’ office) nor a fence next to the covered parking spot that separated the two business operations:
Mr. Majka objected to the smaller driveway and requested a hearing.
FDOT transmitted the Notice to DOAH and it was assigned Case No. 18-4433. While that case was pending at DOAH, the parties engaged in numerous discussions to try to reach an amicable resolution.
In July 2018, Mr. Weeks, several FDOT employees, and a state
Senator’s aides met Mr. Majka on site to discuss the proposed modifications. Mr. Majka presented a PowerPoint and argued that the driveway could not be modified because it was grandfathered. At that time, there were no parking spots with painted lines or a fence perpendicular to the front of the building; vehicles simply parked diagonally or parallel to SR 80 in that area.
Over the next few months, FDOT proposed several options for driveway widths between 30 and 53 feet, relocating the driveway to the east side of the Miller parcel, creating a second driveway on the Majka parcels, and others. Petitioners rejected each of them.
In January 2019, after jurisdiction in the prior case was relinquished for failing to properly serve the Miller Estate, FDOT served its Amended Notice. FDOT now sought to modify the driveway to improve safety and operations on SR 80 as part of a sidewalk project. FDOT proposed a non- standard driveway width of 53 feet. Petitioners objected and requested a hearing, which began the instant case.
At some point between July 2018 and April 2019, and while on notice of FDOT’s intent to modify the driveway, Petitioners made changes to the paved lot in front of the building. They added lined parking spaces perpendicular to the front of the building and a fence extending beyond the new parking spots that divided the two business operations. The following photograph taken in April 2019 depicts these changes:
Petitioners apparently had not obtained a permit to add the parking spaces, which may not have even been possible because the spaces are so close to the
property line that vehicles would have to use FDOT’s right-of-way—i.e., a large portion of the paved lot between the bottom of the parking spaces and the top of the shared use path, as shown in the diagram in paragraph 17 below—in order to back out of the parking spaces and exit the property.
Notwithstanding, FDOT attempted to design subsequent proposals with minimal impacts to those parking spaces to appease Petitioners and their existing business operations.
In May 2019, FDOT Southwest District Secretary L.K. Nandam met with Mr. Majka and his professional engineer, Mr. Trebilcock, to discuss Petitioners’ concerns with the Amended Notice, which were outlined in an Access Connection Report (“ACR”) prepared by Mr. Trebilcock in April 2019. The ACR focused on the two business operations and on site circulation problems that allegedly would exist due to the size of the trucks using the driveway. To alleviate those problems, the ACR proposed retaining the existing 98 feet of pavement, but utilizing a 45-foot-wide, double-yellow-lined area to limit the operational width of the driveway to 53 feet. The meeting resulted in additional proposals by FDOT and another phone call between Secretary Nandam, Mr. Majka, and Mr. Trebilcock.
FDOT created another proposal that sought to address Petitioners’ concerns and use information they provided as to the size of the trucks. Based on Petitioners’ request for all of the engineers to meet, FDOT facilitated a meeting at its Southwest District office with Mr. Majka, Mr. Trebilcock, several FDOT employees, Ms. Ratican, and her supervisor. Because the latest proposal did not address all of their concerns, Petitioners rejected it.
In August 2019, FDOT served a Second Amended Notice, on which the final hearing proceeded. As corrected, it proposes the following design:
FDOT seeks to modify the driveway to improve safety and operations on SR 80 as part of a 10-foot-wide shared use path project. The decision to revert back to a shared use path was made by the MPO at a public meeting.
FDOT proposes a non-standard driveway width of 53 feet, which is about 15 to 20 feet wider than a standard design for this portion of SR 80 and larger than any other modified driveway within the Project. A mountable, five-inch-tall type E curb outlines a triangular concrete island on the right side of the driveway, which larger trucks can slowly drive over to maneuver on site. A non-mountable, six-inch-tall type F curb extends from the concrete island to the property line, discouraging vehicles from driving over it and crossing the shared use path. FDOT also moved the shared use path closer to SR 80 in this proposal to accommodate the trucks that Petitioners claimed visited the property frequently and granted Petitioners an 11-foot area to circulate vehicles within FDOT’s right-of-way, which minimizes interference with Petitioners’ newly-created, lined parking spaces.
Based on the weight of the credible evidence, FDOT’s proposed modifications are necessary to improve the safety and operational characteristics of SR 80. The existing driveway is hazardous to pedestrians and bicyclists using the shared use path. It is as wide as an eight-lane
highway and contains no barrier to protect those crossing it. Vehicles can enter and exit the driveway at high speeds and at multiple angles, which creates numerous conflict points and confusion for pedestrians and bicyclists who have little time to react.
By reducing the driveway width to 53 feet and utilizing mountable and non-mountable curbs, FDOT has reduced the speed with which vehicles can enter and exit the property, prevented vehicles from driving through the shared use path beyond the driveway, limited conflict points, and lessened the risk of confusion for pedestrians and bicyclists. A safety report prepared by AIM, which was signed and sealed by Ms. Ratican, conducted a crash assessment along the Project corridor for the prior five years. It revealed 750 crashes, seven of which involved pedestrians and bicyclists. Although no
crashes occurred at this driveway, the report found FDOT’s design would reduce the risk of crashes by 70 percent, decrease the time it takes pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the driveway by 38 percent, and improve their awareness of vehicles using the driveway. And, though FDOT is allowing a driveway that is wider than standard, the design will reduce the risk associated therewith and enhance pedestrian safety through the use of curbs.
Petitioners presented no credible evidence to suggest that FDOT’s proposed design would not improve safety or the operational characteristics of SR 80. Indeed, Mr. Trebilcock offered no specific testimony on this subject.
Petitioners instead focused on how FDOT’s proposal purportedly failed to provide them with reasonable access. But, they conceded in pleadings that FDOT’s design arguably constituted reasonable access and they presented no credible evidence disputing the reasonableness of FDOT’s proposed reduction in the width of the driveway to 53 feet. Petitioners will maintain the same number of access connections and the evidence showed that the trucks that Petitioners claim frequent the site can safely enter and exit the property from either direction on SR 80. The modifications simply will neither impact the
ability of vehicles to enter and exit the property safely nor affect roadway traffic patterns.
Nevertheless, Mr. Trebilcock opined that reasonable access will be lacking because FDOT’s design will cause multiple problems on site. Specifically, trucks must drive over mountable curbs, through existing parking spaces and fences, and over pervious surfaces, which could create permitting issues. The weight of the evidence established otherwise.
It is true that FDOT’s design may cause trucks to have to maneuver on site differently than before. But, that is expected given the reduction in the width of the driveway. The potential issues identified by Mr. Trebilcock do not prevent access, but rather create reasonable limitations that would only arise (if at all) once the vehicles are on site.
FDOT also took into account information provided by Petitioners as to the types of trucks that regularly visit the property. FDOT used auto-turn software to demonstrate how the trucks could safely enter and exit the property and maneuver on site. FDOT’s witnesses explained that the auto- turn exhibits illustrate one way that the vehicles could maneuver on site and that additional maneuvering could be performed to avoid the parking spots, fences, and pervious surfaces.
The weight of the credible evidence also undermined testimony as to the purported problems that FDOT’s design will cause on site. As to interference with the lined parking spaces, Petitioners created the very problems about which they are complaining because they installed them with knowledge of the Project, including FDOT’s intent to reduce the width of the driveway. Additionally, photographs introduced by Petitioners into evidence show that JPM Ventures already uses the pervious surface along the right side of the Miller parcel to park vehicles it has for sale—the same pervious surface that Mr. Trebilcock testified could create permitting issues if vehicles had to traverse over it to maneuver on site.
Mr. Trebilcock also testified extensively as to two alternative designs that he believed were equally safe, but avoided any issues on site. First, he proposed the following design that retained the original 98 feet of pavement, but utilized a double-yellow-lined area to reduce the operational width of the driveway to 53 feet:
Second, Mr. Trebilcock proposed the following design that essentially retained the original 98 feet of pavement, but used a truck apron with a three-inch tall, RA mountable curb to reduce the operational width of the driveway to 53 feet:
Mr. Trebilcock testified that this design aligned with the recommendation in the AIM safety report to use a truck apron.
Mr. Trebilcock acknowledged that vehicles could drive over either the double-yellow-lined paved area or the truck apron and RA curb. But, he opined that both were just as safe as FDOT’s design because they created
separation between the driveway and the shared use path and forced vehicles
to reduce their speed. Because the vehicles could make similar movements to enter and exit the property as they could with the existing driveway, the alleged on-site problems he identified would be avoided.
However, Ms. Ratican credibly explained why these two designs were not as safe. She believed the first design provided less protection because there was no physical separation between the driveway and the shared use path except for the painted lines, which could be driven over without slowing down. She believed the second design was safer than the first, but still provided less protection because vehicles could drive over the three-inch RA curb more easily and at a faster speed than the five-inch type E curb in
FDOT’s design. Further, despite the fact that the conclusion section of
FDOT’s safety assessment report recommended a truck apron, she confirmed that the design exhibits included within the report and attached to the Second Amended Notice clearly use a type E curb. She confirmed that FDOT never proposed a truck apron for this driveway.
In sum, the weight of the credible evidence showed that Petitioners’ existing driveway is unsafe and poses a safety risk for pedestrians and bicyclists using the shared use path. FDOT’s proposal is a safe design that substantially reduces that risk consistent with the operational characteristics of SR 80, and continues to provide Petitioners with reasonable access. Although Petitioners prefer their alternative designs, they pose a greater safety risk to users of the shared use path.
Petitioners also challenge the proposed modifications based on alleged procedural failures.4 However, the evidence was to the contrary.
4 Petitioners also have repeatedly argued that the Project as a whole should not occur, that this case was prematurely brought because the Project lacks federal approval and/or funding, that FDOT failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and that FDOT submitted a different driveway design to the SFWMD to obtain an environmental resource permit for the Project, among other arguments. Because jurisdiction in this case is
limited to determining if FDOT’s proposed driveway modifications are consistent with the design and safety standards under Florida law and provide Petitioners with reasonable access, arguments as to why the Project is ill-advised and whether it will ever be funded or approved by federal or other governmental agencies are not addressed herein.
Petitioners questioned the validity of the exhibits attached to the Second Amended Notice because they were not signed and sealed by a professional engineer. Ms. Ratican and her design team at AIM prepared the exhibits on FDOT’s behalf. Ms. Ratican acknowledged that they were not signed and sealed by her or another engineer of record, but that was because they were preliminary in nature. She confirmed that the final plans would be signed and sealed once this case was resolved.
Petitioners also argued that FDOT failed to hold a public hearing in violation of section 335.199. Throughout the Project’s development, the MPO and FDOT worked together. The MPO and other local government entities have held numerous public meetings, at which FDOT employees attended. Mr. Majka has attended many of them, too. In fact, he has made over 30 presentations to the various entities about both the Project and the proposed modifications to Petitioners’ driveway. The MPO also received substantial public input and approved revisions to the Project based thereon. FDOT has conferred with Petitioners multiple times and adjusted its proposed modifications based on the input received. The weight of the credible evidence established that FDOT received substantial input about the Project generally from the public’s involvement at the MPO and about Petitioners’ driveway specifically from the multiple meetings with Mr. Majka and his engineer.
Lastly, Petitioners have repeatedly argued that FDOT acted in bad faith in seeking to modify their driveway and, as such, should be sanctioned.
Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, there is no credible evidence to find that FDOT’s pleadings, positions, or other actions in this case were made in bad faith or for an improper purpose, as required by section 120.569(2)(e). Mr. Trebilcock testified that he did not believe FDOT acted in bad faith or for an improper purpose with any of its proposals. Although he believed FDOT initially failed to understand the business operations on site and the process could have gone better, he testified that FDOT’s proposals improved after it received more information and further input from him and Mr. Majka.
The weight of the credible evidence established that FDOT made extraordinary efforts to take Petitioners’ concerns into account and revised its proposed modifications numerous times in a good faith effort to accommodate their individual needs. FDOT employees met on site with Mr. Majka twice and at FDOT’s office once. FDOT employees engaged in multiple conversations with Mr. Majka by telephone and e-mail. The district secretary had two meetings with Mr. Majka and his engineer, in person and over the phone. FDOT’s proposed modifications provide for a driveway that is significantly wider than any other within the Project corridor and provides for an 11-foot area within FDOT’s right-of-way to assist Petitioners with circulation on their property—an accommodation only one other owner received because he agreed to two driveways on his property, which Petitioners rejected when offered. FDOT not only treated Petitioners fairly, but accommodated them more than the other property owners.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this cause. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 335.182, Fla. Stat.
FDOT, as the party asserting the affirmative of the issue, has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the driveway may be modified as proposed in the Second Amended Notice. Young v. Dep’t of Cmty. Aff., 625 So. 2d 831, 833-34 (Fla. 1993); Dep’t of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
FDOT is the state agency with the power “[t]o establish, control, and prohibit points of ingress to, and egress from, the State Highway System … as necessary to ensure the safe, efficient, and effective maintenance and operation of such facilities.” § 334.044(14), Fla. Stat.
Section 335.181(2) provides that 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 connection 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 authorize the department to deny a means of reasonable access to an abutting state highway, except on the basis of safety or operational concerns as provided in s. 335.184. Property owners are encouraged to implement the use of joint access where legally available.
“‘Reasonable Access’ means the minimum number of connections, direct or indirect, necessary to provide safe and efficient ingress and egress to the State Highway System based on Section 335.18, F.S., the Access Management Classification, projected connection and roadway traffic volumes, and the type and intensity of the land use.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 14- 96.002(25). “‘Connection’ means driveways, streets, turnouts, or other means of providing for the right of reasonable access to or from the State Highway System.” § 335.182(3)(a), Fla. Stat.
Driveways on state roads must be permitted or grandfathered, or they are subject to closure. Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.011(3). An unpermitted driveway is grandfathered if it was in existence prior to July 1, 1988, and has not been discontinued for a period of one year or more. Id. at 14-96.011(3)(a). A use is discontinued “when there has been a cessation of trips to the property, except for trips to maintain or market the property associated with
that use” or “where the business located on the property has been out of service for a period of one year or more.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.005(c)3.
FDOT has adopted rules governing the modification of unpermitted driveways. Rule 14-96.015 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
When existing connections are modified by a Department project, access will be provided to abutting properties, subject to reasonable regulation as referred to in Section 335.181(2)(b),
F.S. To the maximum extent feasible, this new access will be consistent with adopted Department connection standards.
Corridors will be examined during the preliminary engineering and design phases to determine if existing connections, median openings, and signals spacing and design standards are in conformance, or can be brought into conformance, with adopted Department standards.
When a permitted or grandfathered connection is modified as part of a Department construction project, and not due to a significant change, no additional permit shall be required.
Where connections are to be modified as part of a Department contruction[ ] [sic] project, and the Department is not planning to acquire any portion of the property for the project, the Department will provide notice and opportunity for an administrative proceeding pursuant to Rule 14- 96.0011, F.A.C., and Chapter 120, F.S. For purposes of paragraph 14-96.011(1)(d), F.A.C., construction plans for a Department project signed, sealed, and dated by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida shall substantiate a connection's non-conformance with Department standards or potential safety or operational problem, and a separate engineering study shall not be required.
(Emphasis added.) The emphasized language makes clear that, contrary to Petitioners’ argument, the fact that a driveway is grandfathered does not mean that it cannot be modified by the Project.
Pursuant to rule 14-96.011(4)(c), if FDOT acts to modify a driveway, it “shall offer an opportunity to meet on site with the property owner or designated representative … [and] take into consideration the following:
Documents, reports, or studies obtained by the property owner or lessee and provided to the Department.
Alternative solutions proposed by the property owner.
FDOT may modify grandfathered driveways pursuant to the following standards set forth in rule 14-96.011(4)(b):
The Department will modify a 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 problem may be substantiated by an engineering study signed, sealed, and dated by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. Such engineering study shall consider the following:
Analysis of accidents or operational analysis directly involving the connection or similar connections, or a traffic conflicts analysis of the site.
Analysis of the impact modification of the connection will have on maintenance or safety on the public road system.
Analysis of the impact modification of the connection will have on traffic patterns and circulation on the public road system.
The principles of transportation engineering as determined by generally accepted professional practice.
On the other hand, if significant changes have occurred on the property, FDOT requires the owner of a grandfathered driveway to obtain a permit. Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.011(4)(a). A significant change “means a change in the use of the property, including land, structures or facilities, or an expansion of the size of the structures or facilities causing an increase in the trip generation of the property exceeding 25 percent more trip generation (either peak hour or daily) and exceeding 100 vehicles per day more than the existing use.” § 335.182(3)(b), Fla. Stat.
Rule 14-96.011(5) provides the following notification process for modifying a grandfathered connection:
The Department shall give written notice to the property owner, with a copy to the occupant, for a grandfathered connection if significant changes have occurred or if the connection is found to cause a safety or operational problem (as specified in this rule chapter). The notice will identify the specific information regarding the safety or operational problem and request that the problem be corrected or that a written agreement on a schedule for the correction be approved by the Department within 30 days of receipt of the notice.
If the reason for the modification is due to significant change the notice will state the basis of the Department’s determination and require the filing of a permit application by a specified date. Where the Department’s requirement to file an application has become final and no timely application has been filed, the Department will take immediate action to modify the connection in accordance with the notice at the owner’s expense.
If the reason for the modification is a safety or operational problem, the notice will state the basis
of the Department’s determination and describe the changes necessary to reduce the hazard or correct the situation.
Here, FDOT seeks to modify Petitioners’ unpermitted, 98-foot-wide driveway for safety and operational reasons due to the Project along SR 80.
Based on the Findings of Fact, Petitioners’ driveway is grandfathered. There is no dispute that the driveway existed on July 1, 1988, and the weight of the credible evidence confirmed that the driveway remains unchanged and has been used continuously since at least 1988.
FDOT argues that the driveway lost its grandfather status because the property underwent significant changes when Superior Sheds began using the Majka parcels to store their sheds and a paved pathway connecting the Majka parcels to the driveway on the Miller parcel was added. However, rules 14-96.011 and 14-96.005(2) provide that the grandfather status of a driveway is lost if the property is abandoned or if use is discontinued for a year or more. If significant changes occur, FDOT is directed to require the owner to apply for a permit to modify the grandfathered connection.
§ 335.187(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.011(4)(a), (5)(a)1.
Here, the Second Amended Notice sought to modify the driveway based on safety concerns resulting from the Project; FDOT did not direct Petitioners to apply for a permit, as required if significant changes have occurred. Even if significant changes were an appropriate consideration here, the weight of the credible evidence did not establish a change in the use of the property or an expansion that “caus[ed] an increase in the trip generation of the property … exceeding 100 vehicles per day more than the existing use.”
§ 335.182(3)(b), Fla. Stat.
Based on the Findings of Fact, FDOT proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the modification of Petitioners’ driveway will improve
safety and the operational characteristics on SR 80, and will provide Petitioners with reasonable access.
Petitioners do not actually dispute that determination. They have conceded that the Second Amended Notice at least arguably constitutes reasonable access. Instead, they challenge FDOT’s ability to modify the driveway because: (1) FDOT failed to attach plans signed and sealed by an engineer to the Second Amended Notice; (2) FDOT failed to meet on site with Petitioners, as required by rule 14-96.011(4)(c); (3) FDOT failed to hold a
public hearing, as required by section 335.199; and (4) FDOT’s proposed modifications will create problems on site, which constitute a regulatory taking that could be avoided by approving one of their engineer’s two alternative proposals.
Petitioners have not cited, and the undersigned has not identified, any provision in chapter 335 or the Florida Administrative Code that required FDOT to attach plans to its Second Amended Notice that were signed and sealed by an engineer. Rules 14-96.011(4) and 14-96.015(3) allow FDOT to substantiate the safety problem justifying the modification with a study signed and sealed by a professional engineer, which FDOT did in this case, but they do not require that the plans attached to the notice be signed and sealed. And, though Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-23.001(1) requires engineers to sign and seal final plans and precludes them from signing and sealing preliminary plans without so indicating, the rule does not require engineers to sign and seal preliminary plans like those attached to the Second Amended Notice.
Based on the Findings of Fact, FDOT complied with the requirement in rule 14-96.011(4)(c) to meet on site with Petitioners. FDOT representatives met twice on site with Mr. Majka after issuing the Notice in December 2017, and numerous other times at the FDOT office, via telephone, and by e-mail after issuing both the Amended Notice and the Second Amended Notice. The district secretary met in person and via telephone with Mr. Majka and
Mr. Trebilcock to discuss the Amended Notice and, based on those discussions, FDOT served the Second Amended Notice. All of these meetings included discussions of FDOT’s proposals and Petitioners’ site-specific needs. Though the efforts to reach an agreed settlement were unsuccessful, they demonstrate that FDOT complied with the requirement to meet on site and to consider Petitioners’ input. And, even if FDOT had been required to meet on site again after serving the Amended Notice and the Second Amended Notice, the evidence clearly established that Petitioners suffered no prejudice given the extraordinary efforts FDOT made to accommodate their individual needs.
Based on the Findings of Fact, FDOT did not violate section 335.199 and, even if it did, no prejudice resulted to Petitioners.
Section 335.199, entitled “Transportation projects modifying access to adjacent property,” applies “[w]henever [FDOT] proposes any project on the State Highway System which will … have the effect of closing or modifying an existing access to an abutting property owner.” Id. at § 335.199(1). If applicable, FDOT “shall hold at least one public hearing in the jurisdiction where the project is located and receive public input to determine how the project will affect access to businesses and the potential economic impact of the Project on the local business community.” Id. at § 335.199(3).
Based on the text of the statute, it applies if FDOT “proposes any project” that will “have the effect of closing or modifying an existing access to an abutting property owner.” Id. at § 335.199(1).5 Here, however, the MPO proposed the project and is working with FDOT to make it a reality, which alone calls the provision’s applicability into question.
5 FDOT argues that this section only applies to projects involving medians. However, the statutory language confirms that it applies to FDOT-proposed projects that “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.” § 335.199(1), Fla. Stat. (emphases added).
Moreover, the undisputed evidence confirmed that the MPO has held multiple public meetings on the Project (at which Mr. Majka often has been in attendance), sought and received public input on the Project (including multiple presentations by Mr. Majka), and has worked in tandem with FDOT on the Project. Petitioners also have met with FDOT employees numerous times to voice their concerns about the Project and to offer their alternatives to the proposed modifications, just as required by rule 14-96.011(4)(c). Thus, even assuming section 335.199 applied to this County-proposed Project, Petitioners failed to establish any prejudice resulting from FDOT’s failure to strictly follow all of the procedures set forth in the statute.
Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, “reasonable access” does not require FDOT to consider any and all on-site circulation problems or other on-site issues, unless they adversely impact the ability of vehicles to safely enter and exit the property. Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.002(25). Based on the Findings of Fact, FDOT’s proposed modifications safely accommodate the vehicles that use Petitioners’ driveway. Although Petitioners prefer their designs, the weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioners’ designs were not as safe as FDOT’s design for users of the shared use path. Even if the evidence supported Petitioners’ argument that they may have to cure issues on site or, worse yet, be put out of business (a determination unsupported by the evidence, as explained in the Findings of Fact), the potential redress for that type of economic injury, if any, lies in another forum.
In sum, FDOT met the dictates of the law by identifying a safety and operational concern with Petitioners’ driveway. FDOT considered their site- specific needs and alternative designs, and ultimately proceeded with its design because it alleviated the safety concerns consistent with the operational characteristics of SR 80, while maintaining reasonable access for Petitioners.
Lastly, Petitioners have argued throughout this proceeding that FDOT has engaged in an improper purpose and acted in bad faith. Petitioners’ primary arguments are that FDOT brought this litigation prematurely and in bad faith, refused to resolve the case amicably without the need for a hearing, and purportedly cost Petitioners thousands of dollars in engineering and other fees in having to defend against the initial Notice, Amended Notice, Second Amended Notice, and the numerous informal proposals that FDOT offered during the pendency of this case in an effort to amicably resolve it.
Section 120.569(2)(e) provides as follows:
(e) All pleadings, motions, or other papers filed in the proceeding must be signed by the party, the party’s attorney, or the party’s qualified representative. The signature constitutes a certificate that the person has read the pleading, motion, or other paper and that, based upon reasonable inquiry, it is not interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion, or other paper is signed in violation of these requirements, the presiding officer shall impose upon the person who signed it, the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Based on the Findings of Fact, FDOT has not filed any pleading, motion, or other paper in this case for an improper or frivolous purpose that would support the imposition of sanctions against it. Petitioners’ engineer testified that he did not believe FDOT engaged in an improper purpose or acted in bad faith. Petitioners’ allegations about FDOT’s actions in other cases, even if true, are insufficient under section 120.569(2)(e) because they do not involve a pleading filed in this case. Petitioners’ allegations that FDOT
prematurely pushed Petitioners to an administrative hearing are belied by the record and the evidence. Petitioners’ allegations that FDOT’s numerous proposals cost them thousands of dollars in engineering fees ignores that those proposals were made in an effort to accommodate Petitioners’ needs to try to reach an amicable resolution, aside from lacking any supporting evidence. Simply put, FDOT engaged in no sanctionable misconduct in this case and Petitioners’ attempt to prove otherwise failed.
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 proposed modifications to Petitioners’ driveway connection as outlined in the Second Amended Notice.
DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
ANDREW D. MANKO
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 15th day of January, 2021.
COPIES FURNISHED:
John Majka
18700 Old Bayshore Road Fort Myers, Florida 33917 (eServed)
David Tropin, Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Austin M. Hensel, Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Amber Greene, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
Kevin J. Thibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
Sean Gellis, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of 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 | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 09, 2021 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 15, 2021 | Recommended Order | Resp. proved its modifications to Pet's driveway were necessary for safety and operational reasons under chapter 335, and Rules 14-96.011 and 14-96.015, F.A.C; Petitioners failed to prove Resp. engaged in improper purpose under section 120.569(2)(e). |
