Findings Of Fact The sign here in issue was erected in 1992 and remained in the same location until December 1986. The sign is located along the west side of U.S. 19 in Pasco County, Florida, 41 feet from the western edge of the pavement. The DOT right-of-way at this location is 57 feet. U.S. 19 is part of the state highway system. Respondent stipulated that the sign was located in the DOT right-of-way and was in violation. Upon receipt of the violation notice, the association relocated the sign off of the DOT right-of-way within ten days of the notice of violation (December 11, 1986).
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of s. 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, a law which requires that a permit be applied for, granted, and renewed each year as a regulation for outdoor advertising in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The following described sign had no valid permit tag for the years 1974-1975, 1976-1977: A two-faced sign, one face north and one face south, located on SR 33 at the junction of SR 48 with copy "Clear Lake Campground". Notice of violation regarding the subject sign was properly sent by the Department of Transportation and received by the Respondent. A hearing was requested by the Respondent through Linda Vernon, Wildwood, Florida. A notice was duly sent and the time set for 10:00 A.M. The hearing officer postponed this hearing until 1:00 P.M. awaiting the arrival of a representative of the Respondent. There was no appearance.
Recommendation Remove subject signs ten (10) days after date of final order unless said signs are previously removed by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Philip Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. C. W. Lichtenberger Post Office Box 47 DeLand, Florida 32720
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owned property including structures used for his dwelling and for his business which was located within the right-of-way of an interstate highway being constructed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation. The Petitioner and the Department negotiated with respect to the amount of compensation that Petitioner was entitled to receive. The Department located a residential dwelling which it contended was comparable to Petitioner's. Petitioner accepted the dwelling located by the Department as comparable for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation that Petitioner was entitled to receive. Petitioner elected, however, to construct a new dwelling on other property that he owned. Petitioner was compensated as if he had purchased the comparable dwelling and was compensated an additional $829 for "incidental expenses" beyond the replacement value as established by the comparable dwelling. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to be compensated for the cost of a "origination fee" which resulted from Petitioner's having to arrange financing. Although improperly labeled, it appears that Petitioner did receive adequate compensation for the loan origination fee. Petitioner received a check from the Department for a "replacement housing payment" which included the origination fee which Petitioner contends he was entitled to receive. While the replacement housing payment was not broken up so as to reflect these fees, it was calculated to include them. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to receive incidental expenses beyond those that he has already received in the amount of $2,068.23. Petitioner has received a payment for incidental expenses in the amount of $829, which includes expenses for a survey, sketch and description, loan application fee, title insurance, attorney's fees, and recording fees. Petitioner actually incurred incidental expenses beyond those for which he was compensated. These additional fees resulted, however, from the fact that Petitioner elected to construct a new residence rather than to accept the comparable residence located by the Department. Because Petitioner was constructing a new residence, it was necessary for him to incur some expenses which would not have been incurred had he accepted the comparable dwelling located by the Department. These expenses included costs of obtaining a rezoning of his property, costs of various construction permits, the cost of obtaining a construction loan, and the cost of a builder's risk insurance policy. While the Petitioner actually incurred these costs, they were costs that he would not have incurred if he had elected to accept the comparable dwelling located by the Department. Petitioner did accept the comparable dwelling for the purpose of setting the amount of benefits that he was entitled to receive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation denying the application of the Petitioner, John D. Lawrence, for additional relocation assistance benefits. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 2nd day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John D. Lawrence c/o Manatee Tropical Foliage Post Office Box 206 Parrish, Florida 33564 Charles G. Gardner Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Paul N. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about August 11, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a portable sign opposite Respondent's place of business advertising Respondent's business and exhibiting Respondent's telephone number, which appeared to be on the right- of-way of U.S. 41 in Pasco County. The right-of-way of U.S. 41 at this location extends fifty feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 41 and 38 feet from the edge of the paved lane on the east side of U.S. 41. Respondent's sign was located 28 feet from the edge of the northbound lane of U.S. 41, some 10 feet inside the eastern right-of-way line at this location. Respondent has occupied the same building for the past 10 or 11 years and the sign, which is portable, has been in the same location since she opened her salon. No one ever told Respondent that the sign was located on the DOT right-of-way before the sign was cited for the violation. As soon as she was advised the sign was illegal Respondent relocated the sign off the right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact On July 20, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a sign owned by Respondent along U.S. 19 near the intersection of Evans Road in Pinellas County which appeared to be on the DOT right-of-way along U.S. 19. The right-of-way along U.S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U.S. 19 and 50 feet from the edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. The measured distance from the edge of pavement to the sign was 39 feet, thus placing the sign 11 feet inside the right of way. Generally the line of power poles along U.S. 19 marks the DOT right-of- way; however, this is not necessarily true, particularly when additional right- of-way is acquired. One photograph of the sign (Exhibit 2), taken a short distance from the sign by the DOT sign inspector, would indicate part of the sign is inside the line of power poles. Another photograh (Exhibit 4), taken by Respondent from a greater distance from the signs, would indicate the sign is outside the line of power poles. The check list (Exhibit 3), prepared by the DOT sign inspector at the time the sign was cited, does not reveal the location of the sign with respect to the right-of-way, yet the inspector testified to the measurements in finding no. 2 above.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation, State of Florida, was the state agency responsible for the promulgation, within the limits of its delegated legislative authority, of administrative rules governing the construction and operation of public highways within the state. The Department's Notice of Rulemaking to amend Chapter 14-96, F.A.C., was published in the November 10, 1994 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Department proposed to substantially amend the provisions of Rules 14-96.001, .0011, .002, .003, .004, .005, .007, .008, .009, .011, .012, .015; to adopt new Rules 14-96.0121 and 14-96.016; and to repeal Rules 14-96.0031, .006, .010, .013, and .014. Forms were also to be incorporated into the rules by reference. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., (Racetrac), which, by stipulation, the Respondent agrees has standing in general to contest this rule, operates 41 properties in Florida. Approximately 90 percent of these are located on the state highway system. There were, at the time of the hearing, two sites under construction and eight more in the permitting process. Future plans call for further development with as many as one hundred sites under consideration. Factors considered by Racetrac when it looks at property during site acquisition include traffic counts and access to major thoroughfares and to the roads which abut the property. There are also factors considered in determining the continued development of a specific site. These include the risk to investment capital, and the potential for future reduction in access to the property. Any reduction in or change to access to and from the property changes the risk factor. The Department has two primary objectives in designing highways. These are planning for a reasonable lifetime for the highway as initially constructed, and controlling vehicle conflicts. The latter relates directly to the capacity and safety of the highway. When it designs the highways for this state, the Department relys on principles of traffic engineering to address their safety and operation efficiency. These principles are based upon an understanding of driver behavior. It is better to anticipate future safety and operational conditions and design for them, than to have to address a problem after it occurs. Driver behavior is an integral part of the information considered by traffic engineers in analyzing safety and operations of the state highway system. Other information considered includes the Department's highway construction and expansion plans. Of great importance in highway design is the need to minimize vehicle conflicts as there is a demonstrated relationship between highway safety and the number of vehicle conflicts on that highway. In designing highways, the Department engineers rely on design manuals which outline the geometric design of the road and provide for such control devices as pavement markings and the like. Safety is also affected by the various decisions that a driver must make in any given time. The larger number of decisions to be made, the greater the safety problem. In order to reduce the number of conflicts, the Department must either separate the drivers or separate in time the opportunity for conflict. Separating conflicts in time allows the driver to make separate decisions for each conflict, and in so doing, improves the safety of the highway. Access regulation is an inherent factor in highway operation to insure the safety and efficiency of the highway. Access management includes four basic principles. These are (1) reducing the number of vehicle conflicts on a highway segment; (2) separating conflict points; (3) limiting deceleration in through traffic lanes; and (4) taking turning vehicles from through traffic lanes. Access connections may be in the form of private driveways and public streets which intersect with a state highway. Management of access through those connections includes the placement and design of those connections while maintaining the right of the abutting property owner to access to the State Highway System. Proposed Rule Chapter 14-96, F.A.C. is the Department's guideline for access management. It addresses the process by which an abutting property owner may secure a permit for a connection to the State Highway System and provides the means for the closure or modification, by the Department, of existing connections. The existing Rule 14-96 was adopted in April, 1990, prior to the amendment of the Access Management Act in 1992. The rule under consideration here is the Department's attempt to amend Rule 14-96 in response to the provisions of the 1992 Act amendments and to treat matters not addressed in the 1990 rule. The proposed rule in issue here seeks to control a technical operation - the management of connections between private driveways and the State Highway System. Inherent therein is the use of numerous terms, the definition of which must be understood if the rule is to be effective and accomplish its purpose. Proposed Rule 14.96.002(6) defines the relocation, alteration or closure of a connection. An "alteration" of a connection is defined as agency action which would "substantially reduce the width" of a connection. "Relocation" of a connection is described as action to "substantially relocate" a connection. In each case, the terms "substantially reduce the width" and "substantially relocate" have meanings which are generally understood within the transportation engineering community. The former is generally recognized as a narrowing of a connection by one lane or a narrowing which affects the ability of vehicles to make a turning movement through the connection. The latter is generally understood to mean a lateral movement of the connection by one lane width. These definitions, however, do not necessarily answer the question of whether a change adversely affects the property owner. In most situations, the change is fact specific. What may be a small change may well have a significant impact on a connected property owner. What may be a physically significant change to a connection may yet have little impact on the property owner served by it. Some reductive changes may have a positive and beneficial impact on the operation of the connection. Petitioner seeks to show that the Department does not provide notice to property owners before it engages in either relocating, modifying, closing or altering a connection. It is true that the Department's current rules regarding access management do not provide for written notice to property owners when minor changes to driveway connections are made. However, the evidence introduced at hearing indicates that as a general practice, the Department does make contact with property owners to discuss such changes before they are made. It is further clear that when driveway connections are changed, the Department issues notices of intended agency action along with a notice of appeal rights, and there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the proposed rule would, in any way, deny a property owner's right to an administrative hearing when a proposed Departmental action would adversely affect those substantial interests. Another issue in contest is whether a raised median can constitute a traffic control device, and what procedures are required to change median openings. Proposed Rule 14-96.003(6) classifies medians and median openings as traffic control devices or features, and provides that the Department may install, remove or otherwise modify such features to promote traffic safety and efficient traffic operations. The use of raised medians is designed to correct safety problems on state roads as they prevent unlimited left turns. Traffic engineering studies have shown that when raised medians are installed on highways, the crash rate goes down and the Department's standard for installing or modifying traffic control features to promote traffic safety and operations is consistent with the Department's other safety and operational enhancement practices, such as separating conflicts. To do so, the Department must have flexibility in the design of its roads. Since they provide guidance and direction to vehicles travelling on the highway, raised medians are recognized as traffic control devices. The openings in such medians are also considered traffic control devices because they are an integral part of the median design. Raised medians are safety devices constructed on multi-laned roads. Ordinarily there are two lanes on each side of the median to the edge of the road. Median openings are designed to allow a vehicle proceeding one side of the median to cross to the opposite of the road without proceeding to an intersection. A median opening is not, however, a method of ingress or egress for property abutting the highway. A vehicle exiting from a piece of abutting property can enter onto the highway and proceed in one direction without crossing the median. In order to get to the opposite side of the road, or into the traffic proceeding in the opposite direction, however, a driver must go through a median opening or an intersection on a road divided by a raised median. A median opening does not give access to the private property abutting the highway. Though it facilitates access from the opposite side of the road, it is not a part of the connection as a vehicle passing through a median opening toward property on the opposite side of the highway must traverse two or more lanes of the highway before it can reach the juncture between the property and the highway. Petitioner attempted to establish that median openings are a part of the connection to a state highway, and there is some evidence to support that position. However, the better weight of the evidence indicates that median openings which are aligned with driveways are generally not considered connections to state highways, but are merely a convenience to the property owner. By themselves, and with the driveway, they permit opportunity to use the driveway but are not considered access features. They do not connect private property to the highway, but merely allow traffic to cross from one side of the highway to the other. As was stated, a raised median with openings placed at appropriate places thereon, is a safety device promoting the safe and efficient operation of the highway. The design of raised medians and the location of the median openings is determined through a study and evaluation of the needs of that section of the highway, including the need to provide for left turn movements. Highway traffic engineers must have the latitude to design and place medians where they will have the most salutary effect on the traffic on that highway. The ultimate consideration of highway designers is to design a highway meeting the current and anticipated traffic needs in the area in such a way that promotes traffic safety and efficiency on the state highways. The term, "promote", is understood and used by transportation engineers, some of whom may, however, prefer to use the term "improve." In either case, however, whichever term is used in connection with traffic safety and efficiency, they are generally understood as meaning the creation of a driving environment that would minimize or reduce crashes. Whereas those terms are ordinarily used as criteria supporting highway construction and design, they also afford abutting property owners the opportunity to challenge a Department decision to close a median opening on the basis that neither traffic safety nor efficient traffic operations would be promoted by the closure. There are frequently solid bases for maintaining a median opening. Closing it may overload an intersection with traffic that would otherwise turn at the median opening. In addition, certain types of abutting properties, such as high volume or specialized vehicle operations, might justify maintaining a median opening. The current version of Chapter 14-96 does not require the Department to give notice to abutting property owners when a median opening is to be closed. Proposed Rule 14-96.003(5) also does not specifically provide for a written notice to an abutting property owner. However, it has historically been Department practice to provide such notice to property owners prior to taking closure action, and it is the intention of the Department, as evidenced by the testimony at hearing, to continue the practice of addressing the issue of notice on a case by case basis. Petitioner seeks to challenge the Department's definition of certain terms used within the proposed rule and outlined in Proposed Rule 14-96.002. One of these is the term, "connection permit" which is defined in subparagraph (5). This provision defines a connection permit as: "a written authorization issued by the Department allowing the initiation of construction of a specifically designed connection and any specific conditions related to the subject connection to the State Highway system at a specific location generating an estimated volume of traffic. Petitioner alleges this definition allows the Department to expand its control by specifically limiting a volume of traffic through a given connection in violation of the statute which permits limitations on vehicle use only on "non-conforming" access points. The Department rejects this assertion, claiming the phrase was included only to refer to the connection category applied for. The Department's position is a reasonable reading of the language in issue, and it is so found. Proposed Rule 14-96.002(13), challenged by the Petitioners as being arbitrary, seeks to list those organizations whose publications are considered "generally accepted professional practice", another term challenged by the Petitioner. This rule includes the Department as one of those agencies whose publications fall within that category. Petitioner claims it is inappropriate for the Department to list itself as an authority for determining what constitutes generally accepted professional practice when that is considered as a standard by which the Department will take action. At first glance it would seem that the practice is questionable. However, evidence at the hearing, from experts with national reputations in the fields of traffic engineering and traffic management, indicates that the Florida Department of Transportation is recognized as a national authority in the area of access management, the subject matter with which the rule in question deals. Some Department publications in this area, and that of transportation engineering, have been recognized nationally. It should also be noted that the proposed rule does not prioritize by way of use preference any of the publications listed, nor does it require applicants to use Department publications. By the same token, it does not make Department studies which have been based on Department publications, any more authoritative than those based on publications by others. It would appear, also, that including the Department as an authority in the proposed rule is consistent with "generally accepted professional practice" in transportation engineering, and the evidence also indicates it is generally accepted professional practice in engineering to use local publications in making engineering decisions for the local area. Some experts even suggest it would be improper to disregard local publications and give credence only to national publications. Another term used by the Department in the Proposed Rule at 14- 96.002(19), and challenged here by Petitioner is "non-restrictive median." Petitioner contends this definition contravenes the Manual and Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (MUTCD), (Rule 14-15.010) as it, allegedly, includes any painted center line as a non-restrictive median. It appears the Department has taken this definition directly from Rule 14-94.002(23). The MUTCD does not refer to "restrictive" as opposed to "non-restrictive" medians. It was the intent of the Department, in drafting this provision, to simplify the application of its spacing standards, and in doing so, has reduced the relevant categories of connections from twelve to six. "Reasonable access" is defined in Proposed Rule 14-96.002(22) as: ... the minimum number of connections, direct or indirect, necessary to provide safe ingress and egress to the State Highway System based on Section 335.18, Florida Statutes, the Access Management Classification, projected connection and roadway traffic volumes, and the type and intensity of the land use. Petitioner claims that the use of the word, "indirect" in this definition attempts to nullify the amendments to the Access Management Act, (AMA), which, according to Petitioner, eliminated the authority of the Department to consider either alternate or joint access as reasonable access. The term "reasonable access" in its definition, requires the consideration of varying factors. The Department has a concern for the safety of the traveling public as well as a recognition of the statutory mandate encompassed in the AMA that every owner of property which abuts a road on the State Highway System has a right to reasonable access to the abutting state highway. These countervailing forces have to be maintained in balance. The determination of what constitutes reasonable access requires the evaluation of several factors pertinent to the specific instance. Factors to be considered include traffic volume, safety, operational efficiency, highway characteristics, growth potential and the impact of the proposed connection on all of the above. Also to be considered is the basic statutory right of a property owner to reasonable access and the impact on him of denial of that access. No firm and fast formula for determining the reasonableness of access has been devised. Direct access is easy to determine. It is a connection which joins the highway directly. However, there are other means of providing access. These may include access gained by connection to a side street which directly connects with the highway, or the use of a joint easement or a service road and are called indirect access. In determining whether indirect access can constitute reasonable access, many factors, including those cited above, must be considered. Another definition challenged is that of "significant change", as defined in Proposed Rule 14-96.-002(27)as: ... a change in the use of the property, including land, structure or facilities, or an expansion of the size of the structures or facilities causing an increase in the trip generation of the property exceeding 25 percent more trip generation (either peak hour or daily) and exceeding 100 vehicles per day more than the existing use. If the Department determines that the increased traffic generated by the property does not require modifications to the existing permitted connections, a new permit application shall not be required. Petitioners claim that this provision tries to modify the definition of significant change as found in the AMA by giving the Department the authority to determine what is a significant change. Comparison to the AMA, (at Section 335.182(3)(b)), Florida Statutes, reveals that the first sentence of the rule definition is identical to the statutory definition of significant change. In the rule, however, the last sentence is added. It does not change the meaning or effect of the statutory definition but merely advises the public that a significant change need not necessarily require a new permit application. Proposed Rule 14-96.003(4), as it relates to the cost of alterations to a permitted connection, provides that the cost of all construction related to the permit shall be the responsibility of the permittee, with certain exceptions. If an existing permit requires alteration to meet current standards, the alteration will be done at no cost to the permittee, unless the permittee requests modifications beyond those required by the Department. In that case, the change shall be subject to Departmental approval and shall be the responsibility of the permittee. Petitioner claims this provision conflicts with the AMA where it grants authority to modify existing permitted or grandfathered connections. Petitioner reads into this provision authority which is not there. This provision deals particularly with the cost of any modification or alteration and does not purport to grant to the Department any authority not already within its charter. Petitioners claim that Proposed Rule 14-96.003(7) exceeds the authority granted to the Department by attempting to place a burden on a connection permit applicant to demonstrate that the proposed connection will create a benefit to the State Highway System. This provision states: If the requirements of rule chapter 14-97 or other adopted Department access management standards cannot be reasonably complied with, or if the standards can be met but the applicant desires to submit an alternative plan, the applicant may submit alternative plans which will require the approval of the Department's District Secretary or designee. The acceptance of any alternative plans shall be based upon maximum achievement of the purpose of Rule chapter 14-97 F.A.C. and Section 335.181, Florida Statutes. Any alternative access plan proposed under this section will need to provide document- ation, in a traffic study, signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, how the plan better serves the driving public and not just the applicant's clients or customers. The Department will also consider the transportation conditions stated in Section 335.184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This provision provides for an applicant, who can meet the Department's standards but who prefers to submit a non-conforming proposal, to do so. The rule thereafter requires that applicant to show, by use of a professionally accomplished traffic study, where the alternative proposal serves the public better than the conforming plan. Once the applicant identifies the specifics of his alternative plan, the Department and the applicant discuss the alternative and the Department has the opportunity to stipulate any conditions pertinent to the alternative. If there is no agreement, though not specifically provided for in the rule, the Department claims the applicant has an opportunity to challenge any condition felt to be improper. The forum for or method of that challenge is not stipulated. Petitioner also challenges Proposed Rule 14-96.005(3)(a)&(b) on much the same grounds, but also alleges that these provisions require notice and a new application for any modification to an existing permit even when no significant change occurs. Petitioners claim there is no specific statutory authority for the Department to require this. Subsection (a) of the proposed rule merely requires, in the event of a significant change, an abutting property owner to seek of the Department a determination as to whether a permit application must be filed and whether changes to existing connections are required. If no significant change exists, no action is required by the property owner, and even should there be a significant change, if no modification to the connection is necessary, no new permit application is required. Subsection (b) of the proposed rule calls for the Department to issue notice to a property owner when a significant change has occurred and the property owner has not filed a required permit application. In any case, the Department claims, the property owner is granted opportunity to contest either or both the determination of significant change and the need to modify the connection in a hearing conducted under the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Proposed Rule does not so provide, however. Petitioner contends that Proposed Rule 14-96.007(4)(c) & (d) constitute an unlawful indexing and creates an unlawful presumption of reasonable access in cases of joint or alternate access. To be sure, the proposed rule does establish a presumption that existing access is reasonable but it also provides an applicant seeking additional access with an opportunity to rebut this presumption. The presumption in subsection (d), that existing "grandfathered" access connections are reasonable, carries with it the opportunity for the applicant to show that it is not. In short, the presumptions created by the rule are rebuttable. Petitioner also claims that the requirement in Proposed Rule 14- 96.007(9) for recording of access permit conditions is not supported by any statutory authority. As noted in the rule requirement, the conditions are limited to only those contained in the access permit, and the recording requirement is no more than an effort to insure compliance and avoid the possibility of future misunderstanding. Another proposed provision in Proposed Rule 14-96.007(10) is contested by Petitioner who alleges there is no statutory authority to attempt to eliminate expansion of highway right of way through the acquisition of abandoned transportation corridors for access to state highways by abutting landowners. The rule in question states that abandoned rail corridors which are adjacent to state highways are considered intervening properties. This applies, however, only to those properties acquired for non-highway uses, not to that acquired for highway expansion. Petitioner also claims that through Proposed Rule 14-96.011(1)(d) the Department, without statutory authority, tries to make "potential" safety or operational problems grounds for revoking or modifying an existing connection. Section 335.187, Florida Statutes, which governs the revocation or modification of connections does not refer to "potential" problems. The proposed rule allows the Department to close or modify a permitted connection if it determines the connection poses a current or potential safety problem which is documented by an engineering study. There is no quarrel with action to close or modify a connection which is unsafe when that condition can be shown through existing factors. It is not enough to only react to existing problems, however. Department engineers must be able to predict those areas which can reasonably be expected to pose future safety problems. In doing so, they may use information which indicates the potential problem by expected changes to the conditions creating traffic on the highway. Petitioner contests Proposed Rule 14-96.012(2)(b) and (3)(b)3. Its challenge to the former is based on its contention that the proposed rules ignore the statutory mandate regarding closure or modification of unpermitted connections since they are applicable only to new connections. Petitioner also asserts that the latter unlawfully allows the Department to determine that a property owner's request for hearing was filed for purposes of delay and is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious. The proposed rule allows the Department to close or modify unpermitted connections for a variety of reasons. Included are: (1) that significant changes have occurred; (2) the safety or operational characteristics of the highway would be negatively impacted; and (3) the connection is not grandfathered. Notwithstanding the rule permits a property owner with an illegal connection to maintain that connection pending hearing or issuance of the permit, the Department may nonetheless close the connection if it can determine the owner's actions are for the purpose of delaying the Department's exercise of its jurisdiction. Further, though the Proposed Rule 14-96.012(2)(b) refers to conditions which "jeopardize the public safety", the Department considers that language to be operationally similar to the "current or potential safety problem" standard, as used elsewhere in the rule chapter, and it contends it does not intend to treat the two types of connections differently in regard to modifications or closures based on safety considerations. Petitioner also contends that the Department has no authority to modify existing permitted or unpermitted legal connections during construction projects as is provided for in Proposed Rule 14-96.015. While changes may be made, the rule does not permit changes to be made indiscriminately. Modifications may be made consistent with the Department's access management standards as outlined in Rule 14-96 and with the Standard Index. Further, the Proposed Rule provides for property owners to be given notice of proposed Departmental actions, except for eminent domain situations, which would afford the property owner the opportunity to challenge the propriety or necessity of the proposed modification. Notice is currently given in these situations even though the current rule does not require it.
Findings Of Fact On February 29, 1984, DOT received bids on a highway construction project designated as follows: Federal Aid Project No. F-300-2(3)(JOB No. 11070-3504), Lake County, Florida ("the project"). Six bids were submitted. Intervenor was the apparent low bidder, having submitted a bid in the amount of $5,479,403.76. Petitioner was the apparent second low bidder at $5,491,602.16. Following a review of the bid submitted by Intervenor, DOT determined Intervenor to be the lowest responsible bidder and announced its intention to award the project to Intervenor by posting the bid tabulations on April 9, 1984. Thereafter, Petitioner filed its notice of protest with DOT within the time provided in Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. The project at issue in this proceeding is a federal aid project. In order for DOT to receive federal aid funding from the United States Department of Transportation for the project, the Federal Highway Administration must concur in DOT's decision to award the contract to a particular contractor. At the time of the bid letting, Petitioner held a Certificate of Qualification with DOT. Thereafter, however, on April 20, 1984, Petitioner was convicted by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, of conspiring to submit collusive, non- competitive and rigged bids in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1. Thereafter, on June 1, 1984, DOT sent Petitioner a notice by certified mail that it intended to revoke Petitioner's Certificate of Qualification pursuant to Section 337.165, Florida Statutes. The notice advised Petitioner that it could request a hearing within ten days of receipt of notification, but Petitioner chose not to request such a hearing. Thereafter, by final agency action of June 18, 1984, DOT revoked Petitioner's Certificate of Qualification to participate as a contractor on DOT projects for a period of 36 months commencing June 18, 1984. On June 18, 1984, the Federal Highway Administration declared Petitioner unacceptable for employment on any future highway projects requiring Federal Highway Administration approval or concurrence for a period of six months commencing June 1, 1984, and ending December 17, 1984. This action was based upon Petitioner's aforementioned conviction.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 31, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's sign apparently on the right-of-way of U.S. 19, 1000 feet south of Sunset Road in Pasco County. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location on the east side of U.S. 19 extends 32 feet from the eastern edge of the paved lane. The sign was located 25 feet from the eastern edge of the paved lane. Respondent admitted that the sign was in the right- of-way the day the inspector was there, but was relocated there without their knowledge or consent by the contractor paving the parking lot. Davis Center gave Respondent permission to place their sign (Exhibit 2 and 3) on its property. The center is in the process of repaving its parking area in stages so as not to block off all parking at one time. To clear the area for the paving equipment the contractor moved Respondent's sign to the grassy area alongside the parking lot. As soon as Respondent learned its sign had been placed on the right-of-way, it removed the sign from the right-of-way.
The Issue Whether at least one of three signs located in the area of subject sign is in violation of state and federal law. Which signs, if any, are in violation. Whether the subject sign is in violation of the spacing regulation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact There are three signs standing on a strip of land adjoining U.S. 19, a Federal Aid Primary Road approximately six (6) miles North of S.R. 60. The spacing requirement is that there must be at least 500 feet between signs. Copy on the sign advertising "Parkview Terrace by U.S. Home" is a two-faced sign with one side blank and is located between two signs which have a permit to advertise although the spacing between the three signs standing is not the required 500 feet. The cited sign presently advertising "Parkview Terrace by U.S. Home" was formerly in a location owned by Artcraft which company did not apply for a permit and which Artcraft informed Complainant was going to be removed. The Complainant did not prosecute for permit violation inasmuch as the inspector was told the sign would be removed and when removed the other to signs involved herein would be eligible for permits. The site was abandoned but Respondent erected another sign in approximately the same location without a permit.
