Findings Of Fact The road segments in question are located totally within the City of Palm Bay in Brevard County and the Urbanized Area designated by Petitioner as "Cocoa-Melbourne." The segments are: Malabar Road between Minton Road on the west and Interstate 95 on the east; Palm Bay Road between Babcock Street on the west and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard on the east; and Robert J, Conlan Boulevard in its entirety from Palm Bay Road on the southwest to U.S. Route 1 on the northeast. At all material times, the above-described road segments ("Road Segments") have been classified as Urban Collector Roads and have been under the jurisdiction of Brevard County. The Palm Bay Road segment in question ("Palm Bay Segment") runs in an east-west direction a distance of approximately 1 1/2 miles. Palm Bay Road lies entirely inside the City of Palm Bay except for a portion of the road running between Minton Road on the west and about one-eighth of a mile west of Babcock Road on the east. This part of Palm Bay Road, which is west of the Palm Bay Segment, marks the boundary between the City of Palm Bay and the unincorporated area of Brevard County. The parties stipulated that the center line of this part of Palm Bay Road constitutes the boundary. Palm Bay Road west of the Palm Bay Segment is classified as an Urban Collector Road and is assigned to Brevard County. Petitioner does not propose changing this assignment. Babcock Street, which marks the westerly end of the Palm Bay Segment, is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial Road. Palm Bay Road east of the Palm Bay Segment is classified as an Urban Collector Road entirely within the limits of the City of Palm Bay and assigned to Respondent. Petitioner does not propose changing this assignment and Respondent does not challenge it. Palm Bay Road west of Robert J. Conlan Boulevard is designated by Petitioner as County Road 516. In 1981, Petitioner, in an effort to reflect traffic patterns, re- designated the east end of County Road 516 so that it no longer followed Palm Bay Road (with a couple of turns) to U.S. 1, but instead turned north and followed Robert J. Conlan Boulevard to its termination at U.S. 1. At the same time, Petitioner designated Palm Bay Road east of Robert J. Conlan Boulevard plus short sections of Main Street and Hickory Avenue as County Road 5070. Robert J. Conlan Boulevard runs north off Palm Bay Road and then in a northeasterly direction to U.S. 1 for a total distance of 1.7 miles. The Malabar Road segment in question ("Malabar Segment") runs in an east-west direction a distance of 2.443 miles. The Malabar Segment is part of Malabar Road, which runs east into unincorporated Brevard County. The east end of the Malabar Segment is marked by an interchange at Interstate 95. East of the interchange, Petitioner has classified Malabar Road as an Urban Minor Arterial Road and assigned it to the State of Florida. Malabar Road runs west of Minton Road, but remains within the city limits and terminates at the boundary between the city and the unincorporated area of the county. Petitioner introduced an Urbanized Area Characteristic Evaluation Points scoresheet for each of the three Road Segments, although the point sheet for the Palm Bay Segment included County Road 5070. Petitioner's expert witnesses, although lacking any detailed knowledge of the roads and road segments in the subject Urbanized Area, opined that the Road Segments were properly classified as Urban Collector Roads. Respondent's expert witness was its City Engineer, Harry Lampe. He testified that Palm Bay Road is one of only two east-west arteries serving downtown Palm Bay, which is an extremely fast-growing area whose population center has dramatically shifted westward in the past eight years to a point in the vicinity of Interstate 95. Mr. Lampe testified that specific characteristics of all three Road Segments were undervalued by Petitioner and opined that the Road Segments should be classified as Urban Minor Arterial Roads. No evidence was presented, however, as to the relative value of the points that either Petitioner or Respondent assigned to any of the Road Segments. According to Respondent's map, the traffic volume on the greater part of the Palm Bay Segment significantly exceeds the traffic count for the portion of Malabar Road that Petitioner has classified as an Urban Minor Arterial Road. Petitioner offered no traffic count for the Palm Bay Segment. Petitioner's traffic count covered a road segment consisting of the Palm Bay Segment plus the less-traveled County Road 5070. It was never clear if Petitioner's traffic count even reflected traffic conditions on the Palm Bay Segment. The segment of Palm Bay Road between Minton Road and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard and the segment of Malabar Road between U.S. 1 and Interstate 95 are comparable in length, service as the only east-west arteries in the Palm Bay area, and interstate access by way of an interchange. The interchange is under construction at Palm Bay Road--a fact that Petitioner admittedly did not take under consideration. Although there was no evidence as to the number of lanes, divided-or-undivided status, or speed limit of Malabar Road east of Interstate 95, the Palm Bay Segment received the maximum points for lanes and divided status and was in the second highest category as to speed limit. The five characteristic evaluation points it conceivably could lack if the above- described segment of Malabar Road had a higher speed limit were offset by the heavier traffic on the above- described segment of Palm Bay Road.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order assigning Malabar Road between Minton Road and Interstate 95 to the City of Palm Bay. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben Watt, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Leonard A. Carson John D.C. Newton, II Lu Ann Snider Carson & Linn, P.A. Mahan Station 1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Vernon L. Whittier Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the general partner of Marstof, Ltd., which owns certain property located at Section 24, Township 28, Range 17, Hillsborough County, Florida, and consisting of approximately thirty acres. Its specific location is on the west side of Twelve Oaks Boulevard, and 400 feet north of Heatherfield Drive. Respondent is an expressway authority created under Chapter 348, Florida Statutes, with eminent domain authority pursuant to Chapter 74, Florida Statutes. The property in question is surrounded on the north by a railroad, vacant land, and a strip of commercial property. To the east and west is vacant land, while to the south are single family residences, with some environmentally sensitive areas. There are some trees on the site, but there is no significant vegetation. Petitioner signed a contract to purchase the subject property for $953,000 on September 27, 1985. The property was zoned "Agricultural" at that time, and since Petitioner intended to develop this property for residential uses, he immediately began preliminary lot layout for marketing, and preliminary layout of a proposed waste water treatment facility. These preliminary layouts were submitted to the Hillsborough County Department of Development Coordination in December, 1985. In early 1986, surveys were ordered, a well as soils and environmental studies, and final subdivision design began. By mid-1986, side and environmental plans, as well as plans for a temporary waste water treatment plant were submitted to state and local permitting agencies. In the fall of 1986, revised plans were prepared and submitted, as required. Petitioner began discussions in December, 1986, with General Homes Corporation for their purchase of all residential lots on the subject property. On December 22, 1986, Petitioner received a letter of intent from General Homes, and on March 4, 1987, General Homes executed a contract to purchase all lots in Petitioner's proposed subdivision for a total of approximately $2.5 million. On March 9, 1987, Petitioner filed an application for rezoning of the subject property from "Agricultural" to "Planned Development, Housing" This rezoning was approved on June 23, 1987. However, General Homes had canceled their contract with Petitioner on or about March 25, 1987. Other developers did express an interest in purchasing Petitioner's lots, but no subsequent purchase contract was executed. As part of the rezoning approval, Petitioner conveyed a portion of the subject property, without monetary consideration, to the County for an extension of Twelve Oaks Boulevard, as well as an additional portion used for environmental mitigation. Following approval of his rezoning application, Petitioner filed his revised site plan and request to use an interim waste water treatment plant, to which there was no objection. By October 10, 1987, Petitioner had obtained all necessary approvals and permits, as well as the rezoning of the subject property, to begin pulling permits for development of this residential subdivision consisting of 128 approved lots with a wholesale value of approximately $2.68 million, or $21,000 per lot. He did not begin development, however, because of concerns about the possible impact of the Northwest Expressway on his development. Although no map reservation had been filed, it appeared to Petitioner that it was likely that the proposed route of the Expressway would be through his property. He did not proceed because he was concerned about the marketability of homes next to, or near, the eventual site of the Expressway, the possibility of default on any development loan he would have to obtain if the Expressway was located through his property, and he also wanted to avoid inflating the eventual cost of the property if it had to be taken through eminent domain. The map of reservation filed on July 8, 1988 by Respondent shows that the Expressway right of way crosses directly through the subject property in an east-west direction. The right of way varies from approximately 250 to 290 feet in width. To the south of the Expressway right of way is a portion of the subject property owned by Petitioner of approximately 10 acres on which 34 residential lots could be located. To the north of the right of way is an area that the parties agree is not developable because the Expressway will cut off all access to this northern parcel. The developable southern parcel of approximately 10 acres cannot be profitably developed with only 34 lots. Petitioner testified that no more than 34 lots can be developed on this parcel, and this testimony is supported by a revised site prepared by his consulting engineer and land surveyor. There is no evidence to the contrary. It is not economically feasible to develop this southern parcel due to the original land cost, and the deflating impact which the location of the Expressway next to this parcel will have. Petitioner has invested a total of approximately $1.15 million in the acquisition of the subject property, including its rezoning, site plans, and obtaining all necessary permits and approvals to commence development. He estimates that he could reasonably receive $2.75 million through the bulk sell- out of 128 finished lots at current market conditions, if it were not for the proposed location of the Expressway through his property. Due to the filing of the map of reservation by Respondent for the Northwest Expressway, Petitioner cannot proceed with any portion of the development of residential lots on the subject property. The only evidence in the record is that Petitioner has been deprived of a substantial portion of the beneficial use of the subject property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioner the relief sought, and within 180 days either acquire Petitioner's property, amend the map, withdraw the map, or file appropriate proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of December, 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: A. Broaddus Livingston, Esquire One Harbour Place Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 William C. McLean, Esquire 707 Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Ray Speer, Executive Director Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority 412 East Madison, Suite 802 Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact The Respondent. The Respondent, Gerald S. Rehm, served as Mayor of the City of Dunedin, Florida, from 1965 to 1972. The Respondent served in the Florida Senate from 1980 to 1984. Among other duties, the Respondent served on the Senate Transportation Committee. The Respondent served as a Florida state representative from November 4, 1986, through November 6, 1990. (Stipulated Fact). At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent served as a public official. During the time that the Respondent served as a Florida state representative, he served on the House Transportation Committee and House Appropriations Committees. At some time during his service as a Florida state representative the Respondent asked to be removed from the House Transportation Committee. This request was granted. The Top of The Bay Road Improvement Task Force. The Top of the Bay Road Improvement Task Force (hereinafter referred to as the "Task Force"), was a private, not-for-profit organization incorporated on June 14, 1985. It was dissolved in late 1990. (Stipulated Fact). The original and primary purpose of the Task Force was to expedite the widening of State Road 580/584 (hereinafter referred to as the "580/584 Project"). The Task Force endeavored to obtain donations of right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor to accomplish its goal. Over time, the purpose of the Task Force expanded to include the tracking of road development in northern Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, to the extent that other roads and projects impacted on the 580/584 Project. (Stipulated Fact). The 580/584 Project included roads of Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and the State of Florida. Therefore, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties and the State were involved in the 580/584 Project. The Task Force hoped to insure that all three government bodies were communicating about the 580/584 Project. The Task Force believed that the 580/584 Project would not be completed until as late as the year 2010. By providing coordination and obtaining donations of right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor, the Task Force hoped to facilitate the completion of the 580/584 Project sooner. The Task Force was aware that if needed right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor was donated, it could take only a day to complete the donation instead of taking as long as two years to acquire the same right-of-way by eminent domain. Acquiring right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor by eminent domain was inconsistent with the purpose of the Task Force. The poor condition of highways 580 and 584 was adversely affecting business interests along these highways. The Task Force was formed to correct this problem as soon as possible. The completion of the 580/584 Project was also necessary for some land owners along the 580/584 Project corridor to be able to obtain DRI (Development of Regional Impact) permits necessary to develop their property. When first conceived, it was believed that the Task Force would be needed only for a short period of time. The Task Force was continued beyond the period of time originally contemplated because it was believed that the government agencies involved would believe that they were being "watched" if the Task Force remained active. The Task Force received most of its funding from large land owners and developers. (Stipulated Fact). About 12 to 15 major landowners, businesses and developers provided most of the Task Force's funding. The goals of the Task Force were the goals of those who contributed the Task Force's funds. The Respondent's Involvement with the Task Force. The Respondent served as the executive director of the Task Force from its inception in 1985 until November 13, 1989. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent's involvement with the Task Force began before, and continued after, he became a Florida state representative. The Respondent's duties as executive director of the Task Force included working with the Florida Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") to ensure that donations of right-of-way adjacent to State Road 580/584 met the Department's legal and technical requirements. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent's duties as executive director of the Task Force also included gathering information about the Department's progress and decisions pertaining to the 580/584 Project, so that the proper right-of-way donations could be obtained. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent characterized his relationship with the Task Force as that of a "consultant." The Respondent spoke with the Task Force's general counsel prior to becoming a Florida state representative. Based upon his discussion with the general counsel, the Respondent concluded that he had not been doing anything on behalf of the Task Force that would cause a conflict of interest if he continued his involvement after becoming a Florida state representative. The nature of the Respondent's activities on behalf of the Task Force did not materially change after he became a Florida state representative. He continued to perform his duties in an effort to assist the Task Force to achieve its goals of seeing a quick conclusion of the 580/584 Project which was in the interest of the Task Force and those who had created it, and the other goals of the Task Force. The Respondent's duties as executive director of the Task Force also included production of what were known as "Task Force Monitor Maps." A man by the name of Dick Vaugier, however, also was involved in the preparation of the Task Force Monitor Maps and may have actually performed the physical creation of the maps. The maps tracked the status of all road projects and provided projected completion dates and other information of interest to the Task Force. (Stipulated Facts). Some of the information required to produce the Task Force Monitor Maps was obtained by the Respondent from the Department. (Stipulated Fact). Task Force Monitor Maps underwent several revisions as road projects progressed. (Stipulated Fact). The Respondent provided copies of the completed Task Force Monitor Maps to the Department. (Stipulated Fact). Copies of the maps were also kept at an office of the Respondent where interested persons could review them. The Respondent's Contacts with the Department of Transportation. During the period of time that the Respondent served in the Florida House of Representatives, he had numerous contacts by telephone and in person with employees of the Department concerning the 580/584 Project. The Respondent had three contacts with Gene Dorzback, Department Assistant Project Development and Environmental Administrator, concerning the 580/584 Project. Ms. Dorzback worked in the Department's District 7. Ms. Dorzback worked for the Department from May, 1988, to October, 1990. All of her contacts with the Respondent were during the period of time that he was a Florida state representative. The Respondent discussed the 580/584 Project with Ms. Dorzback on June 15, 1989, during a public hearing on the 580/584 Project. During this conversation, the Respondent expressed his disapproval and frustration over the alignment of the 580/584 Project which the Department had established prior to the public meeting and which the Department had discussed with the public during the public hearing. The Respondent also questioned Ms. Dorzback about why the Department had decided on the alignment presented. Alignment of a road project involves the decision of which side(s) of the road additional right-of-way necessary to complete a road-widening project will be taken from and the amount of right-of-way necessary. Alignment of the 580/584 Project was determinative of the right-of-way which would have to be donated in order to achieve the Task Force's goals. The Respondent's concern over the alignment for the 580/584 Project was over the fact that the alignment would require obtaining right-of-way from property owners that had not agreed to donate right-of-way, and ignored some property owners that were willing to donate right-of-way. Although the Respondent did not specifically suggest that a particular alignment be used by the Department, he did suggest that the Department consider using the right-of- way which property owners were willing to donate. In order for the Department to accept this suggestion the Department would have been required a change the alignment of the 580/584 Project. At some time after the June 15, 1989, public hearing, the Respondent also telephoned Ms. Dorzback and inquired whether she had been provided with certain survey information concerning the 580/584 Project from the District 7 Survey Administrator, Larry Jones. The information involved property of owners who were willing to donate right-of-way. Although the Respondent did not specifically suggest any particular alignment, it was evident from the Respondent's comments to Ms. Dorzback that he believed that accepting donated right-of-way would speed up completion of the 580/584 Project. Ms. Dorzback explained to the Respondent why she did not believe that completion of the project would necessarily be speeded up by accepting donated right-of-way. The third conversation Ms. Dorzback had with the Respondent involved an inquiry from the Respondent concerning whether she had received the survey information he had previously inquired about. At the time of the Respondent's contacts with Ms. Dorzback, she was aware that he was a Florida state representative. Ms. Dorzback was consequently intimidated by the Respondent's criticisms. She was not initially aware of his connection with the Task Force. The Respondent also had contacts with Teresa Estes. Ms. Estes was a Project Manager in the Department's District 7 Project Development and Environmental Section. The Respondent's contacts with Ms. Estes occurred approximately once every three or four months over a two-year period of time when the Respondent was a Florida state representative. Some of the contacts Ms. Estes had with the Respondent involved the 580/584 Project. The contacts took place in the Department's offices. During the Respondent's contacts with Ms. Estes, he inquired about, and they discussed, the progress on an environmental study required for the 580/584 Project. The Respondent requested information from Ms. Estes concerning the 580/584 Project, which she provided to him. The approximately $210,000.00 cost of the environmental study for the 580/584 Project was paid for by two corporations, the Millford Corporation and the Hollywood Corporation. The weight of the evidence failed to prove if these corporations were involved with the Task Force. Ms. Estes knew that the Respondent was a Florida state representative when some of the contacts she had with him occurred. The Respondent informed Ms. Estes that he was a Florida state representative, that he was interested in the 580/584 Project and that he worked with the Task Force. The evidence, however, failed to prove when the Respondent told Ms. Estes that he worked with the Task Force. The Respondent also had at least three or four contacts with James Edwards. Mr. Edwards was the District 7 Public Transportation Manager for the Department from February, 1987, through the present. The Respondent contacted Mr. Edwards by telephone or in person to inquire about the status of the 580/584 Project, right-of-way donations, and other issues or aspects germane to specific projects in the area of the 580/584 Project. Mr. Edwards had at least one other meeting with the Respondent which did not involve the 580/584 Project. Mr. Edwards had to gather information concerning the 580/584 Project prior to his meetings with the Respondent and he provided that information to the Respondent. The Respondent also met three or four times with Ronald G. Pscion, the Department's District 7 Director of Planning and Programs. During one of the Respondent's contacts with Mr. Pscion, the Respondent inquired about the status of the 580/584 Project's work program and how the work on the 580/584 Project was scheduled. Mr. Pscion knew that the Respondent was working with property owners that wanted to donate right-of-way for the 580/584 Project and that one donation was dependent on a particular construction job on the 580/584 Project being completed by fiscal year '91-92. During another contact with Mr. Pscion, the Respondent wanted to insure that the Department was aware of other developments in the area of the 580/584 Project which could impact the project. The Respondent wanted to be sure that traffic in the area could be handled by the 580/584 Project. During a third conversation with Mr. Pscion, the Respondent inquired about the status of the 580/584 Project. The Respondent requested that Mr. Pscion let him know if there was any change in the work program for the 580/584 Project. The Respondent provided a copy of the Task Force Monitor Map prepared for the Task Force to Mr. Pscion. The Respondent also had contacts with Mr. Pscion concerning other road projects of the Department. Mr. Pscion was aware that the Respondent was a Florida state representative but was not aware of his relationship with the Task Force. The Respondent also had more than ten contacts with John H. DeWinkler, the Department's District 1 Director of Production. Mr. DeWinkler worked with the Respondent to achieve the Task Force's objective of trying to speed up the 580/584 Project without having to go through a lengthy process to complete the project. The property owners that were willing to donate right-of-way were entitled to certain rights. Mr. DeWinkler wanted to insure that those rights were not violated. Contacts concerning the 580/584 Project were made by the Respondent with Mr. DeWinkler at or near the time that what is now the Department's District 7 was separated from the Department's District 1. That split occurred in approximately October, 1988, after the Respondent became a Florida state representative. Therefore, some of the Respondent's contacts with Mr. DeWinkler took place when the Respondent was a Florida state representative. The Respondent had at least two contacts concerning the 580/584 Project with Joseph R. Brandenburg. These contacts occurred while the Respondent was a Florida state representative. Mr. Brandenburg was a Department District 7 Right-of-Way Surveyor from September, 1986, through July, 1988. One contact between the Respondent and Mr. Brandenburg involving the 580/584 Project was a meeting which was also attended by Mr. DeWinkler and Derrick Vardy, the Department's District 1 Right-of Way Administrator. During this meeting the Respondent inquired about areas along the 580/584 Project corridor for which right-of-way donations were still needed. As a result of this meeting, Mr. Brandenburg was to provide right-of-way maps and property legal descriptions concerning the 580/584 Project to the Respondent. The other contact which Mr. Brandenburg had with the Respondent was a telephone conversation during which the Respondent inquired about the information he was to be provided as a result of the meeting described in finding of fact 53. Mr. Brandenburg, subsequent to his two contacts with the Respondent, provided the right-of-way maps and property legal descriptions concerning the 580/584 Project to the Respondent. This information was to facilitate the donations of certain right-of-ways along the 580/590 Project corridor. Between February, 1988, and February, 1989, the Respondent also had three contacts with Larry R. Jones. Mr. Jones at that time was Department District 7 Right-of-Way Surveyor. The first contact between the Respondent and Mr. Jones took place shortly after Mr. Jones was employed by the Department. Mr. Jones and the Respondent argued about the width of the right-of-way needed for the 580/584 Project. Their difference of opinion was clarified by Mr. Jones' supervisor. The second contact between the Respondent and Mr. Jones occurred after a telephone call from the Respondent informing Mr. Jones that he was going to come by and pick up title search information concerning the 580/584 Project which was being provided by Pinellas County, Florida. The Respondent did come by and pick up the information. During the third contact between the Respondent and Mr. Jones, they discussed the impact of Murphy Act Deeds on the 580/584 Project. The Respondent suggested that any interest the State might have pursuant to the Murphy Act Deeds should be released to property owners who donated right-of-way for the 580/584 Project. Mr. Jones explained to the Respondent why this should not be done. Mr. Jones testified as to what a Murphy Act Deed, which is also known as "TIITF Reservation", is and the reason why the Department could not take the action the Respondent was suggesting, as follows: Basically a TIITF Reservation was something out of the '30's and '40's. If a tax collector seized a piece of property and sold it for the back taxes, they would reserve a strip of land for road purposes. And in this case 584 had some of these TIITF Reservations on them. That land is usable by the State Road Department. We have to go to DNR to get an easement, not the property owner. We don't pay for them. And by releasing the remainder over from what the PD&E study called for, we'd be in a position if we had to have more right-or-way, we would be back in an acquisition condemnation scenario, we'd be dealing with the property owners instead of DNR. Lines 2-15, page 103, Transcript of the September 4, 1991, Formal Hearing. At the time of the contacts with the Respondent, Mr. Jones was aware that the Respondent was a Florida state representative. The Respondent also represented to Mr. Jones that he was working for the Task Force. James G. Kennedy was the District Secretary for the Department's District 7 from 1987 until May, 1990. From 1984 until 1987, Mr. Kennedy was the Urban Office Director for the Department's District 1. Prior to and after the Respondent became a Florida state representative, Mr. Kennedy had numerous contacts with the Respondent about various transportation matters, including the 580/584 Project. During the Respondent's contacts with Mr. Kennedy after the Respondent became a state representative, the Respondent inquired about the 580/584 Project. In particular, the Respondent asked for information concerning the manner in which the Department acquired right-of-way and the progress on the project. Mr. Kennedy made his staff available to the Respondent. The degree of support given to the Respondent was in part attributable to the Respondent's position as a Florida state representative. The degree of contact Mr. Kennedy and his staff had with the Respondent was significant enough that Mr. Kennedy reported the situation to the Department's Secretary at the time, Kay Henderson. Secretary Henderson merely suggested that Mr. Kennedy use his best judgement to handle the matter. Mr. Kennedy was aware of the Respondent's involvement with the Task Force. Mr. Kennedy had been told by the Respondent that the Respondent was the leader of the Task Force. Mr. Kennedy was concerned enough about the Respondent's relationship with the Task Force that he asked the Respondent whether the Respondent thought there was a conflict of interest with his position as a Florida state representative. Mr. Kennedy was aware that the purpose of the Task Force was to obtain donations of right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor to speed up the completion of that project. Mr. Kennedy made his Department available to the Respondent to assist the Respondent in his efforts to insure that the donation of right-of-way along the 580/584 Project corridor was handled properly. The Respondent provided Mr. Kennedy with up-to-date Task Force Monitor Maps. Derrick Vardy was a Department District 1 Right-of-Way Administrator. Mr. Vardy had two telephone conversations with the Respondent and approximately two or three face-to-face meetings with him concerning the 580/584 Project. Some of these contacts occurred in August, 1987. Mr. Vardy attempted to assist the Respondent with documents needed to acquire donations of right-of-way for the 580/584 Project. All of the information which the Respondent obtained from employees of the Department was information which was available to the public. The information was obtained, however, on behalf of the Task Force and not in the Respondent's capacity as a Florida state representative or as a member of the public. The Respondent's contacts with the Department while he was a Florida state representative were made to further the goals of the Task Force and were made on behalf of the Task Force. Compensation. Beginning in 1985, when the Respondent began to perform services for the Task Force, and continuing until November, 1986, the Respondent was paid a consulting fee for his services as executive director of the Task Force. After the Respondent's election as a Florida state representative in November, 1986, the payments from the Task Force that had been made directly to the Respondent were made to Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc. Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc., is a closely held corporation, the stock of which was owned by the Respondent. From 1985 until sometime during 1987, the Task Force paid $2,000.00 a month to the Respondent and later Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc. The amount paid by the Task Force to Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc., was increased in 1987 to $3,000.00 and the corporation began "absorbing expenses" according to the Respondent. The payments to Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc., were made in payment for services of the Respondent. Those services were the same services the Respondent performed for which payments were made directly to the Respondent before he become a Florida state representative. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the payments made by the Task Force to Gerald S. Rehm and Associates, Inc., were merely reimbursements of expenses of the corporation. The Respondent testified that the payments his corporation received while he was a Florida state representative were reimbursements of expenses. This testimony was not credible. The Respondent characterized the payments he had received prior to his election as a Florida state representative as consulting fees. He did not characterize the payments he received before his election as a reimbursement of expenses. The Respondent admitted that his services were essentially the same before and after he became a Florida state representative. Therefore, since his services did not change and the amount of the payments did not change after he became a Florida state representative, it is not credible to believe that the payments after he became a Florida state representative were merely intended as a reimbursement of expenses. Additionally, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that there was any connection between the expenses that the Respondent or his corporation incurred and the amount of the payments he or his corporation received. Finally, the Respondent testified that the increase from $2,000.00 per month to $3,000.00 per month which occurred in 1987 was to cover expenses. Therefore, based upon the Respondent's own testimony, only $1,000.00 of the $3,000.00 monthly payments were for expenses.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that the Respondent, Gerald S. Rehm, violated Section 8(e), Article II, of the Constitution of the State of Florida, as alleged in Complaint No. 90-50. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 13th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection A. General 1 3-4. 2 1. 3-4 2. 5 5. B. Top of the Bay Task Force 1 6. 2 7. 3 8. 4 9-10. 5 12. 6 13. 7 11 and 13. 8 7 and 9-11. C. The Respondent's Relationship with the Task Force 1 14. 2 Hereby accepted. 3-4 17. 5-6 21. 7 22. 8 23-24. 9 15. 10 19-20. 11 73-75. 12 76-77. 13 75. D. Respondent's Contacts with the Department of Transportation 1 See 26-27. 2 27-29. 3 28-29. 4 32. 5 30. 6 See 30. 7 31. 8 See 32. 9 26. 10 33. 11 33. The weight of the evidence failed to prove when Ms. Estes was employed with the Department. It is not, therefore, possible to tell whether his contacts with Ms. Estes were during his term as a Florida state representative based upon when he served. Ms. Estes did testify, however, that she knew the Respondent was a Florida state representative. Based upon this testimony, it has been concluded that the Respondent had contacts with Ms. Estes while he was a Florida state representative. 12 34-35. 13 38. 14 39. 15 39-41. 16 See 39-41. 17 Not relevant. The evidence failed to prove who the "developer" was or what relationship, if any, the "developer" had with the Task Force or the Respondent. 18 41. 19 42. 20 42-43. 21 44. 22 45. 23 See 48. 24 46. 25 49. 26 Hereby accepted. 27 50. 28-29 51. 30-31 50. 32 52. 33 52-54. 34 53. 35 54. 36-37 55. 38 56. 39 See 56-57. 40 58. 41-42 59. 43 60. 44 59. 45 61. 46 66. 47 Hereby accepted. 48 62-63. 49 64. 50 68. 51 Hereby accepted. 52 69. 53 70. 54-55 69. 56 See 71. 57 Hereby accepted. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 3. The evidence proved that the Respondent dropped the title of "President." The evidence also proved that the Respondent's duties after becoming a Florida state representative did not materially change. 2 14. 3 6. 4 7. 5 7 and 10. 6 See 7. 7 15-16. 8 The meeting referred to in this proposed finding of fact is not relevant. It occurred before the Respondent became a Florida state representative. See 50, 52-53 and 69. 9 17. 10 See 25-27 and 30-32. See 28-29 with regard to the 6th and 7th sentences. 11 33-34 and 36. 12 39-40 and 71. 13 52-55. The last sentence is not relevant. 14 42, 48 and 71. See 43-45. 15 56-59. 61-63 and 71. The 4th and 5th sentences are generally true, but see 64-67. Although correct (except the value of the right-of-way, which the weight of the evidence failed to prove), not relevant to this proceeding. 18 See 21-24. But see 16-20. 22 and hereby accepted. 47, 68 and hereby accepted. 21 13. 22 74-77. 74. The 2d sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence; see 80. 74. See 25-71. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 19. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire Bonnie J. Williams J. B. Donnelly, Esquire Executive Director Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson Commission on Ethics & Moffit The Capitol, Room 2105 216 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 6 Suite 300 Tallahassee, FL 32302-0006 Post Office Box 10555 Tallahassee, FL 32302-2555
The Issue The issues in this case are whether a sign owned by the Respondent is in violation of Section 479.07(1) and 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what remedial action should be taken by the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact Heinl's Nursery, a division of American Nursery Products, Inc., is the owner of a sign located in Dade County, Florida, on the west side of Krome Avenue (State Road 997) about 36 feet north of its intersection with S.W. 126th Street. The subject sign is located approximately 23 feet from the right-of- way of Krome Avenue. The subject sign has been at that location for a number of years. The face of the sign is made of wood and measures approximately 4 feet by 8 feet. The sign is mounted on metal poles. The message on the sign consists of the owner's name, a logo or graphic decoration, and an arrow pointing towards the right. The Department of Transportation has not issued a permit for the sign. The area in which the sign is located is not zoned commercial or industrial and is not an unzoned commercial or industrial area. The sign is not located on the business premises of the sign owner. Krome Avenue (State Road 997) is part of the federal-aid primary highway system. By notice dated March 21, 1989, the owner of the sign was advised that the sign was in violation of the applicable statutes and must be removed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order providing for the immediate removal of the subject sign. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of July 1989. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 31st day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mr. Mike S. Waters 15000 S.W. 192nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33187 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the Map of Reservation filed by Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority in July, 1988 is unreasonable or arbitrary, and has the effect of denying General Homes of Florida, Inc. a substantial portion of the beneficial use of the property owned by General Homes within the limits of the Map of Reservation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was consolidated back to its parent corporation, and now operates as General Homes Corporation which is a large builder of single family homes in the Tampa area. The property affected by the Map of Reservation filed by Respondent was acquired by Petitioner in 1985 and comprises some 24 acres which have been platted into 96 lots known as Eastbrook Subdivision. Eastbrook Subdivision is the third housing development commenced by Petitioner in unincorporated northwest Hillsborough County. The first such subdivision started in 1980 was called Carrollwood Springs. That project was successful and when that development was nearly completed additional property in the vicinity was purchased and the Eaglebrook Subdivision was started. That project was of a similar size to the Carrollwood Springs Subdivision and, it too, was successfully developed and sold. The success of these developments led Petitioner to the purchase, in August of 1985, of the 24 acres to be developed as the Eastbrook Subdivision which is similar in size to the two former developments. At the time this purchase was made there were two proposed alignments of the northwest expressway, the Lake Le Clare Alignment and the Railroad Alignment. The Lake Le Clare Alignment, if adopted, would cross the Eastbrook property but the Railroad Alignment would not. Petitioner had closely monitored the selection process throughout 1985 and was under the impression that the Railroad Alignment would be selected for the Expressway. In 1986, the Expressway Authority selected the Lake Le Clare Alignment. However, the Map of Reservation was not filed until July, 1988. Petitioner proceeded apace with the development of the Eastbrook Subdivision by opening a sales center and five fully furnished model homes with the intention of selling single family homes in the subdivision. Weekly newspaper ads were run, billboard locations were rented and local realtor parties were hosted to draw more attention, and buyers, to the subdivision. In fiscal year 1986, General Homes spent some $300,000 in marketing efforts and sold some 56 homes in Eaglebrook closing out that subdivision. Eastbrook was opened and 16 lots were sold there. In 1987 General Homes spent over $400,000 in sales and marketing but sold and closed only 27 homes in Eastbrook. In fiscal year 1988 General Homes sold and closed 21 homes but incurred a loss of approximately $250,000. The expressway alignment was well known at this time and the public was aware the alignment would affect portions of the Eastbrook Subdivision. The Map of Reservation runs through the southern part of the Eastbrook Subdivision and Petitioner devoted most of its attention to developing the northern portion of the subdivision. However, the impending expressway and its impact on the Eastbrook Subdivision had a dampening effect on sales in this subdivision and in 1987 General Homes lost $231,000 in the Eastbrook Subdivision. In 1988, General Homes suspended all construction activities, discontinued speculative building and attempted to sell the unsold lots in the subdivision. In early 1988, General Homes sold ten lots in Eastbrock to Atlantic Homes who built homes on those lots. An option by Atlantic Homes to purchase additional lots was not exercised. Since the cessation of building activities, General Homes has held the land not sold as unproductive assets in which development costs have accrued, taxes and interest payments continue, but the lots cannot be sold for the erection of a single family home.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of General Homes of Florida, Inc. for a determination that the Map of Reservation filed by the Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority is unreasonable or arbitrary and that it denies Petitioner a substantial portion of the beneficial use of its property be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 21st day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter J. Winders, Esquire One Harbor Place Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 William C. McLean, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 21 Tampa, Florida 33601 =================================================================
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent Department of Transportation enter a final order denying the application of petitioner V. J. Allen, d/b/a The Seafood Shack, for a sign permit. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of January, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 25th day of January, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Two signs are located 0.8 mile west of State Road, 79 on Interstate 10, and 0.8 mile east of State Road 79 on Interstate 10. Both signs do not have permits attached to them. Both signs bear messages which are visible from the traveled way of Interstate 10. Neither sign is located within an incorporated municipality or town. Both signs advertise in part Simbo's Restaurant. Mr. Jim Williams, Outdoor Advertising Inspector for the Department of Transportation, testified that he had spoken with Mr. Simms on June 28, 1978. Williams stated that he asked Simms if Simms would remove the signs; however, Williams did not identify the signs to which he was referring. According to Williams, when Simms was asked if he would take the signs down, Simms stated he would leave them up and go to court. There was no substantial and competent evidence introduced that Simms was referring to the signs in question in this case. Both signs were measured by Charles Averitt, a surveyor with the Department of Transportation, and the sign 0.8 mile west of State Road 79 on Interstate 10 was determined to be 16 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. The sign 0.8 mile east of State Road 79 on Interstate 10 was determined to be 16.5 feet from the edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10. Gene Simms testified that he was the owner and operator of Simbo's Truck Stop and Restaurant. Simms testified the signs in question were the property of Simms' Enterprises, Inc., and had been at all times pertaining to this complaint. Simms stated that he owned 50 percent of the stock in Simms Enterprises, Inc., and the remainder was owned by his brother, Jimmy Simms. The notice of violation in this cause names Gene Simms as the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation take no action regarding the subject DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip S. Bennet, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard C. Hurst, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Gene Simms Simbo's Auto-Truck Stop and Restaurant Route 1, Box 186 Bonifay, Florida 32425
The Issue Whether Respondent’s proposed modifications to Petitioner’s driveway connections provide the public with reasonable access to or from the State Highway System.
Findings Of Fact The Department, pursuant to section 334.044(14), Florida Statutes, has a duty: [t]o establish, control, and prohibit points of ingress to, and egress from, the State Highway System, the turnpike, and other transportation facilities under the department’s jurisdiction as necessary to ensure the safe, efficient, and effective maintenance and operation of such facilities. By correspondence to Petitioner dated September 23, 2019, the Department advised of its plans to modify, as part of a reconstruction and resurfacing project, certain existing driveways that connect from Petitioner’s property to US 27 and SR 60. According to the Department, the modification of Petitioner’s driveway connections “will improve safety or traffic operations on the state roadway.” The planned US 27/SR 60 interchange reconstruction (US 27/SR 60 interchange) seeks to change certain operational and design features of the two roadways. In the area of Petitioner’s property, SR 60 is classified as a Class 5 road with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. The Class 5 designation is assigned to roads where adjacent land has been extensively developed and where the probability of major land use change is not high. In the area of Petitioner’s property, US 27 is classified as a Class 3 road with a posted speed limit of 50 miles per hour. The Class 3 designation is assigned to roads where abutting land is controlled to maximize the operation of the through traffic movement, and the land adjacent to these roadways is generally not extensively developed. Petitioner, since approximately 1968, has continuously owned and operated a Sunoco gas station on approximately a one-acre parcel, located at 19300 U.S. 27 South, Lake Wales, Florida. It is undisputed that the existing driveway connections from Petitioner’s property to the State Highway System have been in continuous use since 1968. According to the testimony of Department witness Leanna Schail, current Department access management standards provide that a driveway connection on a Class 5 road must be at least 225 feet from an intersection and at least the same distance from other connections. As for Class 3 roads, the access standards provide that a driveway connection must be at least 660 feet from an intersection and at least the same distance from other connections. The respective distance standards are necessary in order to facilitate the reduction of driver confusion and rear-end collisions. U.S. Highway 27, at its location nearest Petitioner’s gas station, is a north-south highway that intersects SR 60, which runs east and west. Petitioner’s gas station is located southwest of the US 27/SR 60 interchange. The parcel where Petitioner’s gas station is located appears essentially square-shaped, with the northern edge of the parcel abutting the exit ramp from SR 60. The eastern edge of Petitioner’s parcel abuts US 27. The southern edge of Petitioner’s parcel abuts Oak Avenue. The western edge of Petitioner’s parcel abuts private property. West of the “private property” is Mulberry Street, which runs north and south, and connects to the south with Oak Avenue, and to the north at the SR 60 exit ramp. EXISTING ACCESS TO AND FROM STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM In its current configuration, eastbound motorists on SR 60 who are west of the SR 60/US 27 interchange must transition to the right to access the exit ramp which has direct access connections to Mulberry Street, Petitioner’s property (two turn-in points), and US 27 South. The Department’s witness credibly testified that the “two turn-in points” from the SR 60 exit ramp are less than 225 feet from the existing and planned SR 60/US 27 interchange and do not meet current design standards. Westbound motorists on SR 60 do not have direct access to Petitioner’s gas station. In its current configuration, southbound motorists on US 27 have direct access to a driveway connection to Petitioner’s gas station. Northbound motorists on US 27, who are south of the SR 60/US 27 interchange, properly access Petitioner’s gas station by turning left on Oak Avenue and then right onto Petitioner’s driveway connection to Oak Avenue.2 Southbound motorists on US 27 can also indirectly access Petitioner’s gas station by turning right onto Oak Avenue and then right on Petitioner’s driveway connection to Oak Avenue. In its current configuration, motorists leaving Petitioner’s gas station have right-turn-only direct access from the two driveways that connect to the SR 60 exit ramp, right-turn-only direct access to US 27 South, and indirect 2 A reasonable inference deduced from the evidence is that motorists turning left to access Petitioner’s gas station from US 27 North will be inclined, under certain conditions, to avoid Oak Avenue by driving north a short distance on the US 27 South travel lanes (i.e. in the wrong direction) so as to access that portion of Petitioner’s driveway that connects directly to US 27 South. The Department’s proposed design change to this driveway connection will lessen the probability of a motorist engaging in this dangerous driving maneuver. Additionally, the Department’s proposed redesign of this driveway connection will improve traffic movement through the interchange by enhancing bicycle and pedestrian safety. access to US 27 by turning left on Oak Avenue and then right on US 27 South. PROPOSED ACCESS TO AND FROM STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM Beginning at a point approximately 1,000 feet west of the SR 60/US 27 interchange, the Department proposes to construct near the southern edge of SR 60 a bi-directional frontage road which will abut and run parallel to the SR 60 eastbound travel lanes. The eastern-most segment of the bi-directional frontage road will terminate at Mulberry Street. Motorists travelling east on the frontage road who desire to access Petitioner’s gas station will be able to do so by way of a one-way extension that runs from Mulberry Street east to the northwest portion of Petitioner’s property. The addition of the frontage road eliminates the second eastern-most access point to Petitioner’s property from the current SR 60 exit ramp, but still allows for direct ingress to Petitioner’s property from the new frontage road. In its proposed configuration, eastbound motorists on SR 60 who are west of the SR 60/US 27 interchange, and who desire to exit to US 27 South, will transition from SR 60 via a redesigned exit ramp which will bypass the northern portion of Petitioner’s property and take motorists to US 27 South, where they will have one direct and one indirect access point to Petitioner’s gas station. The direct point of ingress to Petitioner’s gas station will be at a point nearest to the central eastern quadrant of Petitioner’s property which abuts US 27 South. If a motorist misses this point of direct ingress, then the motorist may proceed to the indirect point of ingress by turning right from US 27 South on Oak Avenue, and then making a second right turn to access Petitioner’s property. These same access points are available to motorist travelling southbound on US 27. The totality of the evidence shows that egress from Petitioner’s property to the State Highway System has dropped from three direct access points (two onto the SR 60 exit ramp/one onto US 27 South) to only one indirect access point (Oak Avenue). Furthermore, the evidence shows that ingress to Petitioner’s property from the State Highway System has been reduced from three direct access points (two from SR 60 exit ramp/one from US 27 South) to two direct access points (frontage road/US 27 South), with no material change to the indirect access point from Oak Avenue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order finding that the proposed modifications to the driveway connections of the J. Glenn Wright Trust property provide the public with reasonable access to or from the State Highway System, and denying the challenge of the J. Glenn Wright Trust to the Amended Notice of Intent to Modify Driveway Connection issued on September 23, 2019. 3 See Footnote two regarding concerns associated with motorists traveling northbound on US 27. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 13th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Holloway, Esquire David W. Holloway, P. A. 10764 70th Avenue, Suite 6206 Seminole, Florida 33772 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Erik Fenniman, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Kevin J. Thibault, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed)
The Issue Whether a sign owned by Respondent and located on the northbound side of 27, at 853 U.S. 27 South, Lake Placid, Florida, is located in the road right-of-way, and must be removed.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system. U.S. 27 in Highlands County, Florida, is a part of the state highway system, and title to the right-of-way for said highway is held in the name of the State. Respondent is the owner, and maintains a two sided sign structure (sign) located at 853 U.S. Highway 27 South, Lake Placid, Florida, in Highlands County, which has been erected in the DOT right of way of U.S. Highway 27, inventory section 44, approximately 300 feet South on the North bound side of the highway. The sign is approximately 8 foot by 8 foot made of wood with wooden poles, and contains the advertising copy: "Mrs. CLAIR Psychic...Tarot...Palms...(Se habla espanol)", followed by a telephone number. On March 22, 1991, Respondent was served with a Notice of Violation from the DOT concerning said sign, and was advised that said sign was erected in violation of Florida law, and must be removed within ten working days of the notice. Said sign is presently standing in the DOT right-of-way, as of the date of the formal hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's request for an exemption from the provisions of Section 479.11(8), Florida Statutes, be DENIED and that Respondent be ordered to remove said sign from the DOT right of way, in accordance with the provisions of Section 479.107, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 23rd day of December, 1991. Copies furnished: Jay O. Barber, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Laura Uwanawich Mrs. Clair 853 U.S. 27 South Lake Placid, FL 33852 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. #58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
