08-001468
Lamar Outdoor Advertising-Lakeland vs.
Department Of Transportation
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 7, 2008.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, October 7, 2008.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8LAMAR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING- )
12LAKELAND, )
14)
15Petitioner, )
17)
18vs. ) Case No. 08-1468
23)
24DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )
28)
29Respondent. )
31)
32RECOMMENDED ORDER
34Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held on July 23,
452008, before Daniel M. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge of the
55Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to the
62administrative appeal of an Order Denying Petition for Variance
71or Waiver under Subsection 120.542(2), Florida Statutes (2007)
79in Tallahassee, Florida. 1
83APPEARANCES
84For Petitioner: Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire
90Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire
94Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson,
97Bell & Dunbar, P.A.
101215 S. Monroe Street, 2nd Floor
107Tallahassee, Florida 32302
110For Respondent: Susan Schwartz, Esquire
115Department of Transportation
118Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58
124605 Suwannee Street
127Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
130STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
134Whether Respondent properly denied Lamar Outdoor
140Advertising's Petition for Waiver or Variance from Florida
148Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(b).
152PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
154On November 28, 2007, Petitioner, Lamar Outdoor
161Advertising - Lakeland, submitted a Petition for Variance from
170Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(b), to the
177Department of Transportation (FDOT) (Respondent), seeking a
184variance to allow the raising of the height above ground level
195for four non-conforming signs in Polk County, Florida. On
204February 25, 2008, Respondent entered an Order Denying Petition
213for Waiver or Variance. On March 13, 2008, Petitioner submitted
223a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on the Variance
232Denial to Respondent, which was then referred to the Division of
243Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on March 24, 2008.
250On March 20, 2008, Petitioner filed a Petition to Determine
260the Invalidity of an Existing Rule with DOAH challenging Florida
270Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2)(b). On April 1, 2008, the
279challenges to an existing rule in DOAH Case No. 08-1408RX and
290the Challenge to the Variance Denial in DOAH Case No. 08-1468
301were consolidated for hearing. The parties waived the 30-day
310hearing requirement in Subsection 120.56(1)(b), Florida
316Statutes, and a hearing was scheduled for June 17, 2008. The
327matter was continued upon request of Petitioner, in order to
337complete additional discovery. The hearing was convened on
345July 23, 2008.
348Prior to hearing, the parties filed a Joint Stipulated
357Pre-Hearing Report. Petitioner requested official recognition
363of various provisions of the statutes and laws from Utah and
374Nevada, 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 750.707, and the
384preceding Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007 from 1990.
392Without objection recognition was granted. At hearing, the
400parties submitted Joint Exhibits 1 through 11, including the
409deposition of John Garner, which were admitted into evidence.
418No live testimony was presented at hearing.
425The Transcript was filed on August 6, 2008. By agreement
435of the parties, proposed orders were timely filed by
444August 26, 2008. The parties' proposals have been carefully
453considered in the preparation of this order.
460FINDINGS OF FACT
4631. Respondent is the State agency responsible for
471regulating outdoor advertising signs located within 660 feet of
480the State Highway system, interstate, or federal-aid primary
488system in accordance with Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
4962. Petitioner owns and operates outdoor advertising signs
504in the State of Florida. In December 2004, Petitioner purchased
514four outdoor advertising signs adjacent to Interstate 4 in Polk
524County, Florida. The signs are located on lots zoned for
534residential use. In accordance with Section 479.111, Florida
542Statutes, signs adjacent to interstate highways and federal-aid
550primary roads are only authorized in commercial, industrial
558zoned or un-zoned areas. These signs are, therefore, not in
568conformance with Section 479.111, Florida Statutes, and are non-
577conforming signs.
5793. When initially permitted, the height from the ground to
589the bottom of the sign (referred to as "Height Above Ground
600Level" or "HAGL") for each of Petitioner's four signs was ten
612feet or less. The overall height of the signs from the ground
624to the top of the sign ranged from 34 to 37 feet.
6364. Respondent erected a sound attenuation barrier
643(soundwall) along Interstate 4 in Polk County, Florida. As a
653result, the signs were blocked from view by passing motorists.
6635. In August 2006, without seeking the permission of
672Respondent, Petitioner raised the HAGL of the four signs to a
683height of 18 to 23 feet above ground level to allow the signs to
697remain visible over the soundwall.
7026. In September 2007, Respondent issued Notices of Intent
711to Revoke Petitioner's permits for violations of Florida
719Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2).
7237. Previously, in 1972, an agreement was entered into
732between the State of Florida and the United States Department of
743Transportation to implement and carry out the Highway
751Beautification Act (HBA) by controlling outdoor advertising
758signs located along interstates and federal-aid primary
765highways.
7668. One of the purposes stated in the 1972 Agreement, was
777to allow Florida "to remain eligible to receive the full amount
788of all Federal-aid highway funds." In accordance with the
797Agreement, a determination that Florida failed to maintain
805effective control of outdoor advertising could result in a 10
815percent reduction in federal highway funds.
8219. Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007 was
828primarily drawn from the federal regulation language in
83623 CFR 750.707, in effect since 1973, which provides as to non-
848conforming signs:
850(5) The sign must remain substantially the
857same as it was on the effective date of the
867State law or regulations. Reasonable repair
873and maintenance of the sign, including a
880change of advertising message, is not a
887change which would terminate non-conforming
892rights. Each State shall develop its own
899criteria to determine when customary
904maintenance ceases and a substantial change
910has occurred which would terminate non-
916conforming rights.
91810. In November 2007, after receiving the Notices of
927Intent to Revoke Permits, Petitioner filed a Petition for
936Variance from Respondent to authorize the raising of these four
946signs blocked by a noise attenuation barrier.
95311. Thereafter, Respondent notified the Division
959Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that
967a request for a variance had been received from Petitioner. By
978letter dated January 7, 2008, FHWA was asked (1) if it had
990developed any minimum criteria as to when a substantial change
1000had occurred to a non-conforming sign as prohibited by federal
1010regulations and (2) if no minimum criteria were established,
1019whether a variance from an existing rule could be granted to
1030allow a non-conforming sign to be increased in height as
1040minimally necessary to be seen over a noise attenuation barrier.
105012. By letter dated February 5, 2008, FHWA responded that
1060(1) "a minimum Federal criteria has not been established," and
1070(2) "an increase in height is considered an expansion or
1080improvement, which is not allowed for non-conforming signs."
1088The letter concluded:
1091To summarize, the HBA and its implementing
1098regulations do not permit the adjustment of
1105a non-conforming sign where action by the
1112State transportation agency obstructs the
1117visibility of the sign from the highway. As
1125such, the FHWA would expect FDOT to deny the
1134request for a variance from the provisions
1141of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-
114710.007(2).
114813. FHWA's February 2008, correspondence was not its first
1157attempt to address modifications to non-conforming signs. By
1165letter dated June 15, 2000, FHWA informed the Florida Department
1175of Transportation that non-conforming signs were not permitted
1183to be raised to be seen over a noise wall, stating:
1194Federal regulations require that non-
1199conforming signs must remain substantially
1204the same as they are on the effective date
1213of the State law or regulations enacted to
1221control them. FDOT is required to develop
1228its own criteria to determine when customary
1235maintenance ceases and a substantial change
1241has occurred which would terminate non-
1247conforming rights. In this instance, we
1253believe raising the sign above the wall
1260would constitute a substantial change and
1266appreciate that FDOT has come to the same
1274conclusion.
127514. In September 2000, Respondent asked FHWA if non-
1284conforming signs could be reduced in size or height when
1294required by local ordinance. FHWA agreed to allow a reduction
1304in height for non-conforming signs, if required by local
1313ordinaces. Later in 2000, FHWA also authorized the addition of
1323catwalks or other fall-protection devices to non-conforming
1330signs provided such addition does not increase the structural
1339integrity of the sign or prolong the life of the sign.
1350Respondent's rules were amended accordingly to allow non-
1358conforming signs to be reduced in size when required by a local
1370ordinance and catwalks and other fall-protection devices to be
1379added provided they did not increase the signs' structural
138815. In December 2003, Respondent sought FHWA concurrence
1396on amending Rule 14-10.007 to allow sign owners to submit a
1407request to raise a non-conforming sign when a noise attenuation
1417barrier screens or blocks the sign. The text of the proposed
1428rule provided that any requests approved by Respondent would be
1438forwarded to FHWA for final acceptance.
144416. In March 2005, FHWA responded through a memorandum
1453providing: "Guidance on Adjustment of Non-Conforming Outdoor
1460Advertising Signs." As background, the memorandum noted:
1467With the broader use of noise walls around
1475the country, the conflict between HBA
1481prohibition against substantial improvement
1485of non-conforming signs and sign owners'
1491demands to maintain sign visibility is
1497arising with increasing frequency.
1501In analysis and guidance, the memorandum stated:
1508Current FHWA regulations permit a non-
1514conforming sign to remain "at its particular
1521location for the duration of its normal life
1529subject to customary maintenance." 23 CFR
1535750.707(c). The intent of the HBA is to
1543permit a non-conforming sign to continue in
1550place until it is destroyed, abandoned, or
1557discontinued, or is removed by the State
1564(which can use 75 percent Federal funding
1571for the removal of the sign). A non-
1579conforming sign must "remain substantially
1584the same as it was on the effective date of
1594the State law or regulations" adopted to
1601implement the HBA. 23 CFR 750.707(d)(5). A
1608height increase is an expansion and
1614improvement of a sign. In addition,
1620increasing sign height to clear a noise wall
1628typically will require new structural
1633measures, such as a monopole design, that
1640would be inconsistent with the concept of
1647limiting non-conforming signs to the
1652duration of their normal lives.
165717. The memorandum concluded with the admonition: "If a
1666State fails to comply with the non-conforming sign provisions of
1676the HBA, it will become necessary to evaluate whether the State
1687is maintaining effective control."
169118. On February 25, 2008, Respondent entered an Order
1700Denying Petitioner's Petition for Variance or Waiver, noting:
"1708FHWA has consistently advised Respondent that any increase in
1717height of a non-conforming sign would be a substantial change
1727under the federal regulation." As the underlying purpose of the
1737laws implementing Rule 14-10.007, was to implement and enforce
1746the federal-state Agreement, the HBA of 1965, and federal
1755regulations, Respondent concluded that "Petitioner has not
1762offered any contrary basis for Respondent to conclude that the
1772purpose of the laws underlying the rule can be achieved with a
1784variance." The Order Denying the Petition for Variance or
1793Waiver went on to state that Petitioner has not established a
1804substantial hardship as the affected signs were all over 30
1814years old and represented only four of the 900 signs owned by
1826Lamar Outdoor Advertising - Lakeland. Lastly, Respondent cited
1834to several cases for the proposition that a sign owner does not
1846have a right to be seen by passing motorists and concluded:
1857Any value Petitioner derived from having
1863signs visible from Interstate 4 was also
1870based on an artificially created condition
1876established in an exercise of the state's
1883police power for the benefit of the
1890traveling public. Principles of fairness do
1896not compel Respondent to waive its rules and
1904risk the loss of federal funds so that
1912Petitioner can continue receiving the same
1918state-sponsored benefit of passing motorists
1923that the signs enjoyed before the soundwall
1930was erected. Petitioner is subject to and
1937affected by the rule in the same manner as
1946every other sign owner who might wish to
1954construct improvements to a non-conforming
1959sign to enhance or maintain its economic
1966vitality.
1967CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
197019. The DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and
1980the parties hereto, pursuant to Sections 120.569 and Subsections
1989120.48(8) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
199420. Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, provides in
2001pertinent part: Variances and Waivers -
2007(1) Strict application of uniformly
2012applicable rule requirements can lead to
2018unreasonable, unfair, and unintended results
2023in particular instances. The Legislature
2028finds that it is appropriate in such cases
2036to adopt a procedure for agencies to provide
2044relief to persons subject to regulation. A
2051public employee is not a person subject to
2059regulation under this section for the
2065purpose of petitioning for a variance or
2072waiver to a rule that affects that public
2080employee in his or her capacity as a public
2089employee. Agencies are authorized to grant
2095variances and waivers to requirements of
2101their rules consistent with this section and
2108with rules adopted under the authority of
2115this section. An agency may limit the
2122duration of any grant of a variance or
2130waiver or otherwise impose conditions on the
2137grant only to the extent necessary for the
2145purpose of the underlying statute to be
2152achieved. This section does not authorize
2158agencies to grant variances or waivers to
2165statutes or to rules required by the Federal
2173Government for the agency's implementation
2178or retention of any federally approved or
2185delegated program, except as allowed by the
2192program or when the variance or waiver is
2200also approved by the appropriate agency of
2207the Federal Government. This section is
2213supplemental to, and does not abrogate, the
2220variance and waiver provisions in any other
2227statute.
2228(2) Variances and waivers shall be granted
2235when the person subject to the rule
2242demonstrates that the purpose of the
2248underlying statute will be or has been
2255achieved by other means by the person and
2263when application of a rule would create a
2271substantial hardship or would violate
2276principles of fairness. For purposes of
2282this section, "substantial hardship" means a
2288demonstrated economic, technological, legal,
2292or other type of hardship to the person
2300requesting the variance or waiver. For
2306purposes of this section, "principles of
2312fairness" are violated when the literal
2318application of a rule affects a particular
2325person in a manner significantly different
2331from the way it affects other similarly
2338situated persons who are subject to the
2345rule.
2346* * *
2349(5) A person who is subject to regulation
2357by an agency rule may file a petition with
2366that agency, . . . requesting a variance or
2375waiver from the agency's rule.
2380* * *
2383(8) An agency shall grant or deny a
2391petition for variance or waiver within 90
2398days after receipt of the original petition,
2405. . . The agency's decision to grant or
2414deny the petition shall be supported by
2421competent substantial evidence and is
2426subject to ss. 120.569 and 120.57 . Any
2434proceeding pursuant to ss. 120.569 and
2440120.57 in regard to a variance or waiver
2448shall be limited to the agency action on the
2457request for the variance or waiver, except
2464that a proceeding in regard to a variance or
2473waiver may be consolidated with any other
2480proceeding authorized by this chapter.
248521. Petitions for Variance or Waiver must comply with
2494the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-
2502104.002.
250322. A non-conforming sign is defined in Subsection
2511479.01(14), Florida Statutes, as:
2515[A] sign which was lawfully erected but
2522which does not comply with the land use,
2530setback, size, spacing, and lighting
2535provisions of state or local law, rule,
2542regulation, or ordinance passed at a later
2549date or a sign which was lawfully erected
2557but which later fails to comply with state
2565or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance
2572due to changed conditions.
257623. 23 CFR Subsection 750.707(b) similarly defines a non-
2585conforming sign as:
2588[A] sign which was lawfully erected but does
2596not comply with the provisions of State law
2604or State regulations passed at a later date
2612or later fails to comply with State law or
2621State regulations due to changed conditions.
262724. 23 CFR Part 750.707(d)(5), provides that a non-
2636conforming sign may undergo reasonable repair and maintenance,
2644but must "remain substantially the same as it was on the
2655effective date of the State law or regulations." Petitioner
2664argues that because 23 CFR Part 750.707(d)(5) allows each state
2674to "develop its own criteria to determine when customary
2683maintenance ceases and a substantial change had occurred which
2692would terminate non-conforming rights," the Respondent is free
2700to draft a rule that an increase in height as minimally
2711necessary to be viewed over a soundwall is "customary
2720maintenance."
272125. Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007 provides in
2729pertinent part:
2731(1) A nonconforming sign must remain
2737substantially the same as it was as of the
2746date it became nonconforming.
2750(2) Reasonable repair and maintenance of
2756nonconforming signs, including change of
2761advertising message, is permitted and is not
2768a change which would terminate the
2774nonconforming status. Reasonable repair and
2779maintenance means the work necessary to keep
2786the sign structure in a state of good
2794repair, including the replacement in kind of
2801materials in the sign structure. . . . The
2810following are examples of modifications
2815which do not constitute reasonable repair
2821or maintenance, and which constitute
2826substantial changes to a nonconforming
2831sign that will result in the loss of
2839nonconforming status:
2841* * *
2844(b) Modification that changes the area of
2851the sign facing or the HAGL of the sign,
2860however:
28611. Reduction in the area of the sign facing
2870or the HAGL of the sign, which reduction is
2879required by an ordinance adopted by a local
2887government entity with jurisdiction over the
2893sign, is not a change which would terminate
2901the nonconforming status of the sign,
2907provided like materials are used and no
2914enhancements are made to the visibility of
2921the sign.
292326. The implementing language for Rule 14-10.007 is found
2932in Subsection 479.02(1), Florida Statutes, which provides:
2939It shall be the duty of the department to:
2948Administer and enforce the provisions of
2954this chapter and the agreement between the
2961state and the United States Department of
2968Transportation relating to the size,
2973lighting, and spacing of signs in accordance
2980with Title 1 of the Highway Beautification
2987Act of 1965 and Title 23, Unites States
2995Code, and federal regulations in effect as
3002of the effective date of this act.
300927. Section 479.02 was initially enacted in 1941 providing
3018the duty of the department to administer and enforce the
3028chapter. The requirement to enforce the Highway Beautification
3036Act was added in December 1971. See Laws of Florida, Chapter
304771-971, Section 2. The final clause for enforcement of "federal
3057regulations in effect as of the effective date of this act" was
3069added in 1984. See Laws of Florida, Chapter 84-227, Section 3.
308028. Respondent has defined "reasonable repair and
3087maintenance" as "the work necessary to keep the sign structure
3097in a state of good repair, including the replacement in kind of
3109materials in the sign structure." Fla. Admin. Code R.
311814-10.007(2). Respondent's definition of reasonable repair and
3125maintenance is not illogical and therefore falls within its
3134grant of rulemaking authority. Board of Podiatric Medicine v.
3143Florida Medical Association , 779 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
3154(agency definitions of term subject to various interpretations
3162entitled to deference unless definition is without any valid
3171basis).
317229. Respondent's definition of maintenance is reasonable.
3179Cf. Indiana Insurance Co. v. Winston , 377 So. 2d 718, 720
3190(Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (defining "maintenance" as "the labor of
3200keeping something in a state of repair or efficiency").
3210Conversely, Petitioner's manipulation of the term "maintenance"
3217to include replacing all structural supports and nearly doubling
3226the size of a structure is without valid basis.
323530. Allowing each state to develop rules on when customary
3245maintenance ceases and a substantial change has occurred, does
3254not vest the individual states with unbridled discretion.
326223 CFR § 750.705(j) requires that the State submit all
3272regulations and enforcement procedures regarding outdoor
3278advertising control to the FHWA for approval. If FHWA
3287determines that a state is not in compliance with the HBA, it
3299can withhold 10 percent federal highway funding. Cf. South
3308Dakota v. Volpe , 353 F. Supp. 335 (S.D. S. Dak. 1973) (upholding
3320FHWA's removal of 10 percent highway funding because South
3329Dakota's liberal zoning legislation was not consistent with the
3338HBA).
333931. Section 339.05, Florida Statutes, entitled Assent to
3347Federal Aid Given, also provides authority for Florida
3355Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007, stating, in pertinent part:
3363The department is authorized to make
3369application for the advancement of federal
3375funds and make all contracts and do all
3383things necessary to cooperate with the
3389United States Government in the construction
3395of roads under the provisions of such Acts
3403of Congress and all amendments thereto.
340932. In 2003, Respondent asked FHWA for permission to amend
3419its rule to allow non-conforming signs to be raised over
3429soundwalls. FHWA stated in unequivocal terms that increases in
3438height for non-conforming signs were not allowable under federal
3447regulations.
344833. In Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corporation v.
3456State, Department of Transportation , 796 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st
3466DCA 2001), rev. denied , 821 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2002), the court
3478affirmed an order directing the removal of non-conforming signs
3487reconstructed after being destroyed by wildfire. The court in
3496Chancellor addressed the sign owners' suggestion that other
3504states have allowed their sign regulations to vary from the
3514federal regulations, despite the threatened removal of federal
3522funds, by stating:
3525Florida has exerted considerable effort over
3531the last 30 years in complying with the
3539Highway Beautification Act in order to
3545protect its full share of federal highway
3552funds. The federal-state agreement has been
3558executed, legislation required for
3562compliance has been enacted, and
3567comprehensive state administrative rules
3571have been enacted. The legislature surely
3577did not intend to cast aside these years of
3586effort and imperil the state's share of
3593future federal highway funds simply to allow
3600erection of some non-conforming highway
3605billboards. We instead conclude, as
3610respecting highway signs, that the
3615legislative intent was to authorize erection
3621of new like-kind signs to replace
3627grandfathered signs only if erection of the
3634signs would not be contrary to the Highway
3642Beautification Act and the federal
3647regulations. Because the appellant's non-
3652conforming signs do not satisfy this
3658condition, they are not authorized.
3663Chancellor , 796 So. 2d at 549-550.
366934. In 2002, the Florida legislature enacted legislation
3677balancing the federal legislation with the rights of sign owners
3687by providing:
3689This chapter does not prevent a governmental
3696entity from entering into an agreement
3702allowing the height above ground level of a
3710lawfully erected sign to be increased at its
3718permitted location if a noise-attenuation
3723barrier, visibility screen, or other highway
3729improvement is erected in such a way as to
3738screen or block visibility of the sign.
3745However, if a nonconforming sign is located
3752on the federal-aid primary highway system,
3758as such existed on June 1, 1991, or on any
3768highway that was not part of such system as
3777of that date but that is or becomes after
3786June 1, 1991, a part of the National Highway
3795System, the agreement must be approved by
3802the Federal Highway Administration. Any
3807increase in height permitted under this
3813section may only be the increase in height
3821which is required to achieve the same degree
3829of visibility from the right-of-way which
3835the sign had prior to construction of the
3843noise-attenuation barrier, visibility
3846screen, or other highway improvement.
3851§ 479.25, Fla. Stat. (2002-2006).
385635. After the FHWA's 2005 memorandum disapproving any
3864increases in height to non-conforming signs, Section 497.25,
3872Florida Statutes was amended in 2006 to provide that only signs
3883conforming to state and federal requirements for land use, size
3893and height could be increased in height if a noise-attenuation
3903barrier is erected so as to block the sign's visibility. By
3914specifying that conforming signs may be raised, under the
3923doctrine of expression unius est excluiso alterius , the Florida
3932legislature has declined to provide authorization for the
3940raising of non-conforming signs.
394436. Petitioner had the option of allowing the signs to
3954remain at their original height. Instead, Petitioner chose to
3963violate Respondent's rules and raised the HAGL without
3971permission. Therefore, Petitioner lost the signs' right to
3979remain as non-conforming uses.
398337. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Order Denying
3992Petition for Variance or Waiver was an abuse of agency
4002discretion. Petitioner did not demonstrate that the underlying
4010purpose of the implementing statute could be met through
4019variance, nor that the loss of these four signs would be either
4031a substantial hardship or would violate principles of fairness.
404038. Moreover, in accordance with Subsection 120.542(1),
4047Florida Statutes, FHWA concurrence was required to authorize
4055Respondent to waive the provisions of Florida Administrative
4063Code Rule 14-10.007. As FHWA explicitly refused to approve the
4073variance, Respondent properly denied Petitioner's request.
4079RECOMMENDATION
4080Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
4090Law, it is
4093RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a
4101final order denying Petitioner's Request for a Waiver or
4110Variance.
4111DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2008, in
4121Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
4125S
4126DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
4129Administrative Law Judge
4132Division of Administrative Hearings
4136The DeSoto Building
41391230 Apalachee Parkway
4142Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
4145(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
4149Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
4153www.doah.state.fl.us
4154Filed with the Clerk of the
4160Division of Administrative Hearings
4164this 7th day of October, 2008.
4170ENDNOTE
41711/ All references to Florida Statutes are to Florida Statutes
4181(2007), unless otherwise indicated.
4185COPIES FURNISHED :
4188Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire
4192Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson,
4195Bell & Dunbar, P.A.
4199215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor
4205Post Office Box 10095
4209Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095
4212James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings
4219Department of Transportation
4222Haydon Burns Building
4225605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
4231Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
4234Stephanie Kopelousos, Secretary
4237Department of Transportation
4240Haydon Burns Building
4243605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 57
4249Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
4252Alexis M. Yarbrough, General Counsel
4257Department of Transportation
4260Haydon Burns Building
4263605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58
4269Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
4272Susan Schwartz, Esquire
4275Department of Transportation
4278Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58
4284605 Suwannee Street
4287Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
4290NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
4296All Parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
430615 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions
4317to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that
4328will issue the final order in this case.
![](/images/view_pdf.png)
- Date
- Proceedings
-
PDF:
- Date: 10/07/2008
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
-
PDF:
- Date: 08/26/2008
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order and, in the Alternative, Proposed Recommended Order filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 08/25/2008
- Proceedings: Proposed Order of Respondent, Department of Transportation filed.
- Date: 08/06/2008
- Proceedings: Transcript filed.
- Date: 07/23/2008
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
-
PDF:
- Date: 06/04/2008
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for July 23, 2008; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
-
PDF:
- Date: 05/29/2008
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Department`s First Request for Production of Documents filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 05/29/2008
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Certificate of Service of Answers to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 04/11/2008
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
-
PDF:
- Date: 04/11/2008
- Proceedings: Petitioner`s Request for Production of Documents to Respondent filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
- Date Filed:
- 03/24/2008
- Date Assignment:
- 03/31/2008
- Last Docket Entry:
- 12/19/2008
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Counsels
-
Susan Schwartz, Esquire
Address of Record -
Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire
Address of Record