Findings Of Fact Port Largo Airport, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida has been operated as a public airport under DOT license (p-1) and a zoning variance (R-2) since 1973. A recent rezoning of the R-2U (residential two-family) area of the airport to private airport (P-10) has not been finalized. The most recent lease of the property was executed July, 1977 for a period of five years (P-4) The Port Largo Airport has one asphalt runway oriented nearly north/south that is more than 65 feet wide and 2,100 feet long (P-1 and 3). Between the west side of the runway edge and an airplane parking area there is 30 feet of unpaved area; on the east side at least 20 feet of unpaved area exists between the runway and the ocean. The full length of the paved and unpaved area appears to he on a long, narrow breakwater or strip of land 150 feet wide and 2,400 feet long with the Atlantic Ocean on the east and a wide canal on the west (P-9) The south end of the runway is approached over the water, while the north end has a clump of mangroves 15 feet high a distance of 360 feet from Runway 19's displaced threshold. The height and location of the mangroves from the displaced threshold is such that there is an elevation angle of 2 degrees 17 feet 19 inches and an offset angle of 5 degrees 42 feet 28 inches (P-1).
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the renewal license application of Port Largo Aero and Marine, Inc. for the Port Largo Airport be granted and License No. 3778 continued in effect to its termination date of January 31, 1981. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HAROLD E. SMITHERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph B. Allen, III, Esquire 604 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Joe L. Sharit, Jr., Esquire 255 Magnolia Avenue Post Office Box 2295 Winter Haven, Florida 33880
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Conditional Site Approval Order No. 82-49 was issued in accordance with Section 330.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code, and that it is affirmed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 17th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary M. Callaway, Esquire Post Office Box 3697 Pensacola, Florida 32516 T. Sol Johnson, Esquire Johnson, Green & Westmoreland, P.A. P. O. Box 605 Milton, Florida 32570 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
Findings Of Fact Documentary evidence was received that Hangar Two, Inc. was chartered on April 4, 1980, and had "Hangar Two, Inc." and its unique logo registered as a service mark on June 18, 1980. See Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 6. Documentary evidence was received that Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. was incorporated on November 25, 1980. See Exhibits 4 and 5. Wallace I. Garrick testified on behalf of Hangar Two, Inc. Garrick has been the attorney for Carl Knight for a number of years and handled the incorporation of Hangar Two, Inc. for Knight. For several years, Knight has been engaged in the business of repairing, rebuilding and maintaining aircraft. Garrick has been to Knight's place of business many times. The business was located at North Perry Airport for a number of years and did business as Hangar Knight was forced to move his business and incorporated his business as Hangar Two, Inc. The business of the corporation is the repair and maintenance of aircraft. Knight moved his business to a building on the southeast corner of the same airport, which he caused to be identified and marked with his service mark "Hangar 2." See Exhibit 6. Located in this building when Knight moved there was an aircraft repair and maintenance business operated by George Ritch. Thereafter, Ritch retained a one-room office and leased a small portion of the floor space for his business use. Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. was incorporated by Milton Margulies, a local attorney. Its primary Director and agent for service of process is Jean S. Morse, an employee of Margulies. Garrick was advised by Margulies that he had incorporated Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. for George Ritch, and that he had no further relationship with the corporation or with Ritch. Incorporation of Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. was sought after the date that Knight's business moved into the same building occupied by Ritch and after the date Knight's business was incorporated in the name Hangar Two, Inc. Incorporation of Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. was not in good faith. Both corporations are engaged in the same business, aircraft repair and maintenance, and their principal places of business are located in the same building at the same airport. Garrick has seen bills and other mail intended for Ritch's business delivered to Knight's business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of State revoke the reservation for the corporate name Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Wallace I. Garrick, Esquire Concord Building, Suite 1000 66 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Jean S. Morse, Registered Agent Hanger Two Aviation, Inc. 2020 NE 163rd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Stephen Nall, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Firestone, Secretary Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly issued Site Approval Order No. 3-99-01 for Ochlockonee Bay Seaplane Base pursuant to Chapter 330, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On July 8, 1997, Walt Dickson, the applicant, filed an Airport Site Approval and License Application with Respondent for a seaplane base located two (2) miles south of Panacea, Florida, in Ochlockonee Bay, Wakulla County, Florida, at Latitude N29 degrees, 59'35" N, Longitude W 84 degrees, 23'73" W. The application gives the following legal description of the proposed facility: Lot lying between Williams Brothers Lumber Co. lot and Troy Fain lot on river in SW 1/4 of Section 1. A map of the proposed seaplane base was attached to the application. The map shows a sea lane 1/ toward the middle of Ochlockonee Bay. The sea lane has an east/west heading. It is three (3) miles long with a primary width of one (1) mile and a usable width of one-half (1/2) mile. The application does not indicate the exact position of the sea lane. The application's map indicates that a bridge for U.S. Highway 98 is located east of the proposed sea lane and shoreline facilities. The bridge crosses the bay, connecting the bay's northern and southern shores. The bridge has an approximate height of 42 feet above sea level. East of the bridge, the mouth of the Ochlockonee Bay opens into the Apalachee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The application's map indicates that the shoreline facilities of the proposed seaplane base are located on the northern shore of the Ochlockonee Bay, west of the bridge and east of Bayside Marina. A plot of the proposed shoreline facility shows a dock or pier, of undetermined length and width extending into the bay. Ms. Ann Tiller, Respondent's aviation licensing specialist for district three, performed the initial review of the subject application. She considered Chapter 330, Florida Statutes, Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code, and FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5395 in conducting her review of the application. First, Ms. Tiller reviewed the application to ensure that it was complete. She determined that the application contained, among other things, the following information: FAA air space determination, zoning approval from the appropriate governmental agency, copy of the deed, lease or easement, legal description that indicates section, township, range and geographical coordinates, general location maps showing nearby roads, towns and landmarks, U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps . . . [o]r equivalent with facility plotted. Ms. Tiller testified that the application "in itself probably would not show that [the site] is adequate." She stated that "[w]hen [the applicant] sends me the application, he is telling me that he thinks it is adequate." The application did not address the following factors outlined in FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5395: performance characteristics of the proposed seaplane, water currents or wave action, shifting channels, ship or boating activity on the water, prevailing winds, wind data during daylight hours, adequacy of the water depth for a seaplane, or information about the taxi channel dimensions for the take-out and launch ramp. On May 8, 1998, Ms. Tiller conducted a site inspection to determine the adequacy of the site. She did not go out into the bay on a boat. During the inspection, Ms. Tiller advised the applicant's representative that the required approach ratio for the takeoff and landing area was 20 to 1 and that the applicant would need to install a windsock before receiving a license. She made a general observation of the proposed site, finding no obvious reason to deny site approval. After making the inspection, Ms. Tiller completed an Airport Site Inspection report. The report states that the site "is feasible for the proposed use and can meet the requirements set forth in Airport Licensing and Zoning Rule Chapter 14-60." Ms. Tiller did not consider the factors listed in the FAA Advisory Circular in making this determination. According to Ms. Tiller, the standards in the FAA Advisory Circular apply after the applicant receives site approval. She considers them as guidelines during the licensing phase of the application review, showing "what possibly could be done." By letter dated May 22, 1998, the FAA informed the applicant as follows: . . . it has been determined that the subject seaplane base will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft provided the following requirements are complied with: All operations are conducted in VFR weather conditions. The landing area is limited to private use. You execute and maintain an operational letter of agreement with the Wakulla County Airport that would insure operation at this proposed seaplane base will not disrupt or conflict with operations at the existing public use airport. We recommend you reference FAR [Federal Aviation Regulations] 91.69, Right of Way Rules; Water Operations and comply with FAA Advisory Circular, AC 150/5395-1, Seaplane Bases. On April 19, 1999, the Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners executed an Operational Letter of Agreement between the Ochlockonee Bay Seaplane Base and the Wakulla County Airport. Prior to the hearing, Bobby Grice, Respondent's Public Transportation Manager, made a site inspection. He did not go out into the bay on a boat. Mr. Grice determined that the proposed takeoff and landing area met the required approach ratio of 20 to 1. He also concluded that the proposed sea lane, which is west of the bridge with a heading of 927, did not require a pilot to takeoff and land in close proximity to the bridge. Mr. Grice reached this conclusion without knowing the precise location of the takeoff and landing area. Mr. Grice's observation of the site did not reveal anything that "[p]rohibited [him] from saying that . . . somewhere in the bay that's 3 miles long and a mile wide, that somewhere in there we cannot find an area that is at least 1800 feet long, that's at least deep enough for a plane, and without obstruction." Mr. Grice testified as follows when questioned regarding the possible placement of crab traps in the area that serves as the proposed takeoff and landing area: I would not know if someone had gone in there and put [a crab trap] out, no more than I would know if one was out there with a motorboat running over it. But with the low tide, not the lowest, that's when we would go out and look with the applicant. And at that time if we saw some areas [where crab traps could not be seen] at low tide, then we would certainly assume that . . . at higher tide that [the crab traps] would not be in the way. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that crab traps, twelve (12) to eighteen (18) inches in height, are exposed in the proposed seaplane runway during tides which are low but not the lowest. When the tide is higher, the crab traps are submerged, leaving no indication as to how deep they are in the water. In addition to crab traps, other debris such as picnic tables and pieces of destroyed docks are submerged or floating at unknown locations in the bay. Mr. Grice saw channel markers in the bay. He did not know whether there were any markers in the area of the proposed sea lane. He assumed that the proposed sea lane area was large enough for the applicant to find at least some place where channel markers would not interfere with the required minimum length and approaches. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that channel markers are located directly in the proposed flight path of the seaplane. However, there is no persuasive evidence that these channel markers create a hazard in the approach and departure path of the proposed sea lane. The evidence also shows that the largest concentration of channel markers is located near the seaplane base's taxi and launch areas along the north shore of the bay. The seaplane will have to taxi across the channel and over the mudflats, areas of the bay with soft bottoms, to reach the proposed sea lane. Mr. Grice did not consider the depth of the water in the proposed launch area, taxi area, and sea lane. Therefore, he did not know whether the water depth was adequate for a seaplane. He did not know what type of seaplane(s) would use the seaplane base. According to Mr. Grice, Respondent can place restrictions on the site before licensing to prohibit the use of the seaplane base when the water is at a depth that Respondent determines is unsafe. The depth of the water at mean lower low water levels ranges between one (1) and four (4) feet in the proposed sea lane area. The four (4) foot soundings are located at the eastern tip of the proposed sea lane area, closet to the bridge. The depth of the water at mean lower low water levels ranges between one-half (1/2) foot and three (3) feet along the bay's northern shore in the vicinity of the seaplane base's launch area. Respondent asserts that its primary concern is safety. Therefore, Respondent makes a judgement call about boats and people swimming in the landing area. There is no evidence that Respondent considered the effect of boat traffic before approving the site at issue here. The channel of the bay is within 100 feet of the place where the proposed seaplane will be taken in and out of the water. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that many grouper boats and sport fishing boats use the channel on weekday mornings. On the weekends, boat and jet ski traffic in the channel increases substantially. The weekend boat traffic in the channel is fairly constant. The prevailing wind on the bay is out of the southeast or southwest during most of the day. The prevailing wind runs perpendicular to the proposed sea lane area. A crosswind takeoff and landing is dangerous, especially over a certain speed. The proposed seaplane base is located 80 feet from a dock referred to as the Williams dock. A channel marker is only a few feet from the end of the dock. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that taking a seaplane in and out of the water at the proposed seaplane base launch area is dangerous due to the following conditions: (a) swift channel current of six to ten knots that runs horizontal to the bay's northern shore and perpendicular to the dock; (b) heavy boat traffic in the channel; (c) the concentration of channel markers near the launch area; (d) prevailing winds which run almost perpendicular to the proposed launch area; and (e) the close proximity of the Williams dock. Respondent considers site approval as permission to build the proposed airport. According to Mr. Grice, "[i]t gives the applicant[s] some kind of assurance that they don't go out and spend a lot of money and then DOT comes back and goes through this hearing process after they have spent a lot." Respondent uses the FAA Advisory Circular as a guideline primarily during the licensing phase of application review. Respondent acknowledges that the language in each provision of the circular determines whether a provision is advisory or mandatory. Respondent admits that provisions of the circular containing the words "should" or "shall" relate to mandatory safety issues. Approximately two weeks before the hearing, the FAA requested clarification concerning the coordinates of the seaplane base because its proposed latitude and longitude as provided by the applicant may be incorrect. If the FAA does not issue an approval after receiving clarification, Respondent will deny the application due to the lack of an FAA air space determination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue There are two issues presented by Petitioner, as follows: Was the bid of Intervenor, BDC Deland Ltd., responsive? Was the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), decision to award the bid in this case arbitrary and capricious?
Findings Of Fact HRS issued an invitation to bid (ITB) competitively for Lease No. 590:2438 for approximately 17,568 square feet of office space in Deland, Florida. A three percent variance in the amount of space offered was permitted. The ITB required that all bidders attend a pre-proposal conference because valuable information and explanations would be provided to interest bidders at the conference which were to be complied with by the bidder. Paris and Procacci attended. The requirements included providing 140 assigned (reserved) parking spaces by the bidder for the office's use. See Bid Submittal Form, Page 9 of 25. The requirements contained two provisions directly relating to parking requirements, Paragraphs 11d and 21, and one which is tangentially related concerning compliance with zoning, Paragraph 6. Paragraph 11d provides as follows: Section 11: As part of the bid submittal, bidder are to provide: * * * (d) A scaled site layout showing present location of building(s), location, config- urations and number of parking spaces assigned to the Department, access and egress routes and proposed changes. This is to be drawn to scale. Final site layout will be a joint effort between the Department an lessor to meet the needs of the Department. (Emphasis supplied.) Paragraph 21 provides as follows: Section 21: Parking: For this facility the Department has determined that a minimum of 140 parking spaces are required to meet its needs. This parking is to be under the control of the bidder, off street, suitably paved and lined. This parking is to be provided as part of the lease cost to the Department. Lessor will grant to the lessee an exclusive right to use 140 parking spaces. Lessor shall submit with this bid submittal a letter certifying that the lessor agrees to the requested number of parking spaces on site, states the number of parking spaces per square foot of space as required by the local zoning jurisdiction and provides a site plan of the parking lot identifying the number of parking spaces assigned to specific other tenants. The purpose of this submittal is to assure parking spaces conform to local jurisdiction requirements of number and size, and that the number of parking spaces requested in this invitation can be achieved without infringing on or combining with the parking requirement of other tenants. (Emphasis supplied.) * * * Bidder Response: Parking Being Bid Exclusive spaces available on site. See attached site plan. Non-exclusive spaces available on site. Exclusive spaces off site located from the proposed facility (Distance) Bidder must provide recent evidence of control of all parking spaces being proposed. Permis- sion to park is not control. The provisions of Section 21 were included in the lease because HRS had previously had bad experiences with parking availability. Parking, as evidenced by the requirement for a site plan and certificate to be submitted with the proposal, was an important and material provision of the lease. Both Paris and Procacci submitted bid proposals, including site plans, which were deemed responsive by HRS. HRS considered the proposals of both Paris and Procacci, and performed site visits to both properties. In addition, the evaluators were familiar with both properties. Paris's bid was evaluated to be the lowest and best bid, and HRS noticed the bidders of its intent to award the bid to Paris. At that point, Procacci asserted to HRS that Paris' proposal was deficient because it did not meet the parking requirements in terms of the quantity of parking spaces Paris could provide based upon its submittal because of the zoning requirements and impact of the "out parcels" indicated on the site plan which had been submitted. After being contacted by Procacci, HRS inquired of Paris, pursuant to the terms of the RFP, if it was sure it could provide the parking as required and comply with local zoning. HRS also inquired about the status of the out parcels. Paris advised that, although it had intended to try and develop the areas marked as out parcels, it did not have contracts to develop these areas, and that Paris understood that it could provide the number of parking spaces required to HRS and current and future tenants within the local zoning provisions. HRS, through its counsel, checked with the local zoning official, and was advised that Paris had enough space on site to provide parking spaces complying with local codes for HRS, current tenants, and future tenants. The zoning official's estimates were based upon general assumptions about the nature of the future tenants which affected the space required for parking; however, these assumptions were generally consistent with Paris' development plan. HRS was also advised that in developing the out parcels, Paris would have to comply with existing codes including the provisions for parking. Paris was the owner in fee simple of the site upon which the proposed leasehold and parking lot were located. At the time the bid was submitted, the property contained 168,000 gross square feet of leasable space, of which, 66,000 gross square feet were leased to Belk Lindsey, Dollar General, Community Dialysis, a coin laundry, the DeMarsh Theatre, and the Department of Labor. The property had vacant 101,000 gross square feet of which 18,005 gross square feet were being offered to HRS. The existing leases included governmental uses, commercial uses, medical uses, and a theater. The total area of medical uses is limited to medical clinic and the Dialysis Center which had 5,184 square feet. (Only the portion of the Health Department which is clinic is treated as medical office space, and the remainder is treated as governmental use. See Volume IV, Page 568, line 4. The larger figure (5,184) for the clinic's area stated in Petitioner's Exhibit 9 is utilized for the volume of the clinic instead of Paris' figure of 4,200 square feet.) The total area of governmental uses is 71,336 square feet and includes the Department of Labor (5,000), HRS (18,000), Volusia County Environmental Health (22,277), and Volusia County Health Department (26,059). The total area of commercial uses is 49,016 square feet including Belks (41,490) and Dollar General (7,526). There was a total of 31,624 square feet vacant which Paris planned to lease for government offices. Under city code, the net square area was divided by a factor to arrive at the required parking for each type of use. The factor for the various uses are as follows: Governmental-200 square feet; Commercial-250 square feet; and Medical-100 square feet. The theater would require one space for every two seats and 5 for staff. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Utilizing the areas given above and the code's parking factors given above, the governmental offices less HRS would require 267 parking spaces. HRS would require 140 parking spaces. The clinic/dialysis center would require 52 parking spaces. The commercial uses would require 196 parking spaces, and the 232 seat theater would require 166 parking places. It is inferred that the vacant space was to be rented to governmental activities pursuant to the landlord's plan, and would require 188 parking spaces. A total of approximately 1,010 parking spaces would be required for the entire facility computed on gross areas assuming no future changes in the existing leaseholds and the lease of all the vacant space for government offices. The city code utilizes net area to compute parking excluding rest rooms, halls, etc. However, the estimation using gross figures results in a maximum estimate. Paris certified that the parking spaces were controlled by the bidder, that the parking spaces were on site and in the area indicated on the site plan submitted with the bid, and that 980 parking spaces could be accommodated. Paris' site plan also indicated the area in which the 140 parking spaces for HRS would be located. Other tenant parking was not indicated on the site plan; however, none of the other tenants had assigned parking. Paris calculated that a total of 840 spaces were required using the known data for current leases, 140 spaces for HRS, and a factor of one parking space for every 200 square feet of remaining vacant space. The building official opined that the completely leased facility would require between 750 and 1050 parking spaces, and that there was enough space on site to accommodate the required parking. Other competent evidence was received that between 880 and 1,077 parking spaces meeting code requirements could be placed on the site. Estimates by qualified, knowledgeable people varied based upon assumptions about occupancy and use, whether the lot could be "grandfathered in" and how the parking lot was laid out. There were enough spaces to provide parking for the HRS lease and all of the existing tenants at the time of submission of the bid proposal. However, under the existing code provisions, 140 parking spaces could not be accommodated in the rectangle indicated on Paris' site plan. This is not considered to be a material deviation from specifications because Paris had agreed to provide 140 spaces, the final arrangement and placement of the parking for HRS was subject to further negotiation, and the entire parking lot was subject to being relined. If spaces meeting code requirements would not have fit in the rectangle, Paris would have been required to adjust the size of the rectangle or design of the parking until they did fit. This was relatively easy because the other tenants did not have assigned parking. The RFP provided that the successful bidder would have time to remodel the property and to bring it into compliance with existing codes. This would include the parking facilities as well as the building. The HRS staff made a site visit, and were familiar with the property. They concluded that there was sufficient parking, and that Paris had made a valid, supportable offer. Their conclusion was reasonable given the opinion of the local building official and their personal knowledge of the property. The RFP calls for a performance bond, and permits HRS to cancel the contract if the successful bidder cannot perform under the terms of the bid. Minor deficiencies in the proposals of Procacci and Paris, which are not at issue in this case, were waived. The RFP contained no "fatal" deficiency provisions. The ITB stated that HRS reserved the right to waive minor informalities or technicalities, and seek clarification of bids received.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's Petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX All of the parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 Irrelevant. Paragraph 3 Paragraph 5,6. Paragraph 4 Argument and conclusions. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7. Paragraph 6 First sentence is contrary to best evidence. Second sentence subsumed in other findings. Third sentence is contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 7,8 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 Irrelevant. Paragraph 10 Subsumed in Paragraph 6, and Conclusions of Law. Paragraph 11 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 12 No confusion exists. The terms of the RFP are clear. Paragraph 13 Rejected. There is no requirement to indicate on the site plan "existing" parking, unless it is assigned to an existing tenant. There was no assigned parking for existing tenants. Paragraph 14 Rejected. Paris' letter is based upon assumptions regarding future occupancy and uses; however, the site plan is not based upon those assumptions. Paragraph 15 Irrelevant. Paragraph 16 See comments to Paragraph 14. Paragraph 17 It was confusion for Paris to include parking spaces in areas marked "Future out parcels" on his site plan; however, this was clarified by HRS in its discussions with Paris, which indicated that there were no planned uses for those areas. Paragraph 18 The figure of 937 spaces is not mentioned on either of the two pages referenced. See discussion in Paragraph 19, Findings of Fact. Paragraph 19 Paris did not certify 980 "existing" spaces. He certified that the parking lot could accommodate 980 parking spaces. Paragraph 20 Contrary to facts. The 813 figure was not "identified" by HRS. Further, it is unclear from the reference to what the figure referred. Paragraph 21 Subsumed in Paragraph 9 et seq. Paragraph 22 See discussion of Paragraph 17, above. Paragraph 23 Subsumed in Paragraph 9 et seq., and Paragraph 13-18. Paragraph 24 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 25 Rejected as argument. Use of gross figures increases the number of required spaces; therefore, is not misleading in making estimates of future needs. Paragraph 26 Rejected as argument, and contrary to facts which indicates that HRS did conduct site visits, was familiar with the facilities, and checked challenged information with city building officials. Paragraph 27-29 Irrelevant, and subsumed in Paragraph 8. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2,3,4 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraph 4. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 8. Paragraph 7 Irrelevant. Paragraph 8 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,13,19. Paragraph 9 Subsumed in Paragraphs 4,5. Paragraph 10 Subsumed in Paragraph 7. Paragraphs 11,12 Subsumed in Paragraphs 5,19. Paragraphs 13,14 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 15,16 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 17 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 18-21 Irrelevant. Paragraphs 22-24 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,23. Paragraph 25 Subsumed 22,24. Paragraphs 26-28 Subsumed in Paragraph 6. Paragraph 29 Subsumed in Paragraph 2. Paragraphs 30,31 Subsumed in Paragraphs 8,19. Paragraph 32-34 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraph 34 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 35 Irrelevant. Paragraph 36,37 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraph 38 Subsumed in Paragraph 15. Paragraph 39 Subsumed in Paragraph 11. Paragraphs 40-42 Subsumed in Paragraph 13 et seq. Paragraphs 43,44 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraphs 45,46 Subsumed in Paragraphs 23-24. Paragraph 47 Paragraph 18. Paragraphs 48,49 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 50,51 Under the terms of the RFP, Paris had the opportunity to bring the facilities into code compliance. Failure to do so was a basis for terminating the contract. See Paragraph 20. Paragraph 52 Subsumed in Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 53-60 Subsumed in Paragraphs 10-12. Paragraph 61 Paragraph 19. Paragraph 62 Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 63,64 Conclusions of Law. Intervenor's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-4 Paragraphs 1-4 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 2 6,7 Not necessary to determination of issues. Paragraphs 8i-vii Subsumed in Paragraphs 5,6,8,10,19,21. Paragraph 9 Paragraph 13. Paragraphs 10i-viii, 11i-iv,12i-vi Paragraphs 13-17,21 Paragraph 13 Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 13i-ii Ir-relevant. Paragraph 13iii Paragraph 8. Paragraphs 13iv,v Irrelevant. Paragraphs 15-15iii Paragraphs 8,23. Paragraphs 16i-ii,17 Paragraph 8. Paragraph 18 Paragraph 9. Paragraphs 19,20 Paragraphs 10-12. Paragraphs 21i-v Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 22i-vii Conclusions of Law. Paragraphs 23i-iv Paragraph 19. Paragraph 24 Irrelevant. Paragraph 25 Conclusions of Law. Paragraph 26i-viii Paragraph 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker, and Varkas 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, FL 33432 Ellen Phillips, Esquire HRS District 12 Legal Office 210 North Palmetto Avenue, Suite 412 Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Robert W. Morrison, Esquire Wells, Allen, Lang and Morrison 340 North Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted a license for a private airport some four miles east of Dundee, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Frank J. Drewniany, Petitioner, is the owner of 153 acres of undeveloped land some 4 miles east of Dundee, Florida, which he proposes to develop and on which he proposes to operate a private airport. On October 28, 1988, Petitioner applied for a site permit and license for a private airport (Exhibit 1). The application provided the information required by statute and the rules of the Department of Transportation (DOT), Respondent. This information included evidence of Applicant's right to so use the property, a list of airports within 15 miles of the proposed facility, mailing addresses of all landowners within 1000 feet of the proposed facility, FAA airspace approval and the prescribed fees. The proposed site was inspected by John Roeller, the Florida DOT airport program administrator in the district office having jurisdiction over the area. This inspection revealed the site to be adequate for the proposed airport; the airport, if constructed, would conform to minimum standards of safety; the local zoning was appropriate for the airport; the Applicant had provided a list of all airports and municipalities within 15 miles of the proposed airport and all property owners within 1000 feet of the proposed airport; and that safe air traffic patterns can be worked out for the proposed airport. Following this inspection Roeller, on October 31, 1988, executed the prescribed certification that the site is feasible for the proposed use and can meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code (Exhibit 5). By letter dated August 22, 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration (Exhibit 6) determined the proposed airport would not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft if operations are conducted in VFR weather conditions and the landing area is limited to private use. By Notice of Intent to issue site approval dated March 22, 1989 (Exhibit 7), the DOT published the intent to issue the requested permit and advised protestors would be allowed to air their views at a public meeting on May 10, 1989. Following this public meeting, Site Approval Order 89-13 (Exhibit 8) was issued, a hearing was requested to contest the issuance of the requested license and these proceedings followed. Intervenors presented evidence of a general concern for the safety of residents living in the vicinity of the airport and hearsay evidence regarding crashes of private planes in various areas of the United States. No evidence was presented by Intervenors to rebut the evidence that the Applicant had complied with the requirements for site approval and licensure contained in Chapter 14-60, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered granting Frank J. Drewniany a license to operate a private airport at Latitude 28 -00'-40" North and Longitude 81 -31'40" West, subject to restrictions established by the FAA and DOT to insure safe air patterns are established for the proposed private airport. ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger W. Sims, Esquire Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas J. Patka, Esquire Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33601 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas J. Hirt 1 Cypress Run Sun Air Country Club Haines City, Florida 33844 Ben G. Watts Interim Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
