17-000947 Department Of Transportation vs. Ann W. Combee Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, June 9, 2017.

Summary: Department of Transportation established that two nonconforming driveways on Respondent's property should be closed and/or modified.

S TATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 1 7 - 0947

ANN W. COMBEE,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

D. R. Alexander, Adminis trative Law Judge of the Division

of Administrative Hearings (DOAH ) , conducted a hearing in this

case on April 18, 2017, in Bartow, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner : Richard E. Shine, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Ta llahassee, Florida 32399 - 0458

For Respondent: David W. Holloway, Esquire

David W. Holloway, P.A.

13100 Park Boulevard, Suite B

Seminole, Florida 33776 - 35 39

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issue s are (1) whether a driveway connection on

Respondent's property in Auburndale, Florida, is subject to

closure because it poses safety con cern s , and ( 2) whether a

second driveway connection on R espondent's property should be

modified because it fails to meet current access management

standards.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In a Notice of Intent to Modify Driveway Connection

(Notice) served on December 27, 201 6, the Department of

Transportation (Department) proposes to close a driveway

connection to State Road 544 on Respondent's property on the

ground it poses a potential safety condition. A construction

plan attached to the Notice informed Respondent that th e

Department also intend s to modify a second driveway connection

on the property by reducing its width . Resp ondent timely

requested a hearing and the matter was referred by the

Department to DOAH to schedule a formal hearing.

At the hearing, the Departmen t presented the testimony of

t hree witnesses. Department Exhibits 1 , 2, 4, 5, 6 (pages 3

through 7 only) , and 9 through 15 were accepted in evidence.

E xhibit 8 was accepted on a proffer basis only. Respondent

presented the testimony of three witnesses . Respondent's

Exhibits 2 through 4, 7 through 9, and 11 were accepted in

evidence.

A one - volume T ranscript of the hearing was prepared.

Proposed f indings of f act and c onclusions of law were filed by

the parties, and they have been considered in the prepar ation of

this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Background

1. The Department is the state agency responsible for

regulating access between state roads and private property

abutting th ose road s . See §§ 335.18 through 335.188, Fla. Stat.

State Roa d 544 is a part of the state highway system.

2. Since 1998, Respondent has owned a small, irregular ly

shaped parcel of property located at 502 Havendale Boulevard

(State Road 544) , Auburndale. The 0.46 - acre p arcel lies on the

southeast corner of the in tersection of S tate Road 544 and

4 2nd Street Northwest. Commercial establishments are located on

the other three corners.

3. In December 1998, Respondent lease d the property to a

tenant who operates Townsend Motors, a used car lot. The

business has operated continuously at that location since that

time. Aerial p hotographs reflect the lot has a capacity of

around 30 or so vehicles. Most ve hicles are displayed where the

triangle - shaped lot comes to a point at the intersection and

along the side of th e lot facing State Road 544 . Other vehicle s

are parked throughout the middle or rear of the lot. They are

rearranged from time to time to enhance sales. To replace cars

that are sold, t he tenant typically buys a few cars at a time,

which are delivered b y a tow truck . A uto carriers and large

trucks with trailers are not used to deliver vehicles. On the

"rare" occasion in the past when a "big transport" made

deliveries, the truck used the parking lot in a nearby Publix

store to the east.

4. State Road 544 is classified as a class 7 road . See

Fla. Admin. Code R. 14 - 97. 003(1) , Table 2 . That classification

is assigned to roads where adjacent land is developed to the

maximum feasible intensity and roadway widening is limited.

See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14 - 97.003(2). The regulation provides

that a driveway connection on a class 7 road must be at least

125 feet from an intersection and at least the same distance

from other connection s . This amount of spacing reduces driver

confusion and the potential for r ear - end collisions.

5. Respondent's parcel has two driveway connections , less

than 125 feet apart, facing State Road 544. The first

connection is approximately 60 feet east of the intersection and

is known as the western connection . The second c onnect ion lies

further east and is known as the eastern connection. A third

driveway connection is located on the western side of the parcel

facing 42nd Street Northwest.

6. Driveway connections on state roads must be permitted

or grandfathered. See § 335.1 825, Fla. Stat. ; Fla Admin. Code

R. 14 - 96.011(3)(a). Neither connection on State Road 544 is

permitted. A driveway is grandfathered if it was in existence

prior to July 1, 1988, when access permits were first required.

See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14 - 96.011( 3)(a). Because the driveway

connections were in place before 1988, they qualify for that

status. To retain that status, however, a driveway must be

consistently used by the owner. If use is discontinued for a

period of one year or more, the use is consi dered abandoned.

See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14 - 96.005(2)(c).

7. If a driveway loses its grandfathered status through

abandonment , the owner must appl y for a n access permit ;

otherwise, the driveway is subject to closure. A connection

that retains its gran dfathered status may still be modified if

safety or operational issues exist. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14 -

96.011(4)(b) ( the Department may modify a grandfathered

connection "if such modification is determined to be necessary

because the connection would jeo pardize the safety of the public

or have a negative impact on the operational characteristics of

the state highway" ). The parties agree the eastern driveway is

grandfathered and has been consistently used by the tenant since

1998. The re is a dispute over the status of the western

driveway.

8. The Department must allow owners of private properties

adjoining a state road to have " reasonable access " to and from

their property . See § 335.18(2)(a), Fla. Stat. As a general

rule, limiting the number of driv eway connections promotes

better traffic movement and an increased level of safety and

mobility for the system as a whole.

9. To determin e the number of connections necessary to

establish reasonable access, the Department considers the

projected conne ction and roadway traffic volumes, the type and

intensity of the land use, the access management classification

of the state road , and the standards for that classification .

See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14 - 96.002(25).

B. The Intersection Project

10 . The ge nesis of this dispute is a safety project

(Project) at the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street

Northwest adjacent to Respondent's property. The Project was

initiated after the Department received pedestrian complaints

concerning safe travel acr oss the intersection to access retail

and food stores and a lack of crosswalks that comply with the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) . The Project is only

0.038 miles in length and is limited to improvements at the

intersection and the installation of sidewalks adjacent to

Respondent's parcel and the three other corner commercial

properties. There will be minim al impact to current vehicular

patterns , and no increase in capacity is expected .

1 1 . Part of the design effort for the P roject include d an

ev aluation of existing driveway connections for potential

modifications that will improve traffic safety or traffic

operations on the roadway. This evaluation was limited to

driveways on State Road 544 , as the Department has no

jurisdiction over driveways o n 42nd Street Northwest, a local

road.

12. During the planning process, the Department noted that

the western driveway is less than 125 feet from the

intersection , violates spacing requirements, and raises safety

concerns . Accordingly , the Department p roposes to remove it,

"saw it over," and install type F curb and gutter along the

roadway. To comply with access management standards for class 7

roads , the Department also proposes to narrow the width of the

eastern driveway from around 60 feet to 36 fee t and "widen the

wings somewhat" to allow larger vehicles to swing into and out

of the car lot. (Wings are the sides of the driveway that slope

down from the top of the curb to the street level.) No changes

to the driveway facing 42nd Street Northwest ar e proposed , and

no other driveways on State Road 544 near the intersection will

be modified. T he Department determined that no other practical

alternatives to this action exist.

1 3 . Based on its evaluation of the property, the

Department concluded that o ne direct connection on State

Road 544 and an indirect connection on 42nd Street Northwest , a

local road, provide reasonable access to the property.

1 4 . The Department intends to install new pedestrian

signal poles and increase access to a nearby b us stop. The

Project include s connected sidewalks for the four commercial

properties on the corners of the intersection and enhanced

special emphasis crosswalks that are designed to comply with the

ADA and connect to the existing Publix sidewalk to the ea st.

The high - visibility crosswalks , pedestrian signalization

improvements , and removal of the western driveway will improve

traffic movement through the intersection and enhance motorist,

bicycle , and pedestrian safety .

1 5 . A Department Safety Office B enefit Cost Analysis

re vealed there were a total of 60 rear - end or angle crashes at

the intersection during the five - year period 2010 through 2014

and that some could have been prevented with better signage and

signals. The study projects 11 crashes will be avoided over the

upcoming five - year period once the Project is completed.

Besides reducing angle and rear - end crashes at the intersection,

the propos ed modifications will improve safety and operational

conditions for pedestrians and motorists who will have greater

connectivity to adjacent commercial properties .

C . Respondent's Objections

1 6 . Respondent raises a number of objections to th e

Department's proposed action . She contends the western dr iveway

is not abandoned , and ev en though it fails to mee t current

spacing requirements , it should not be closed ; the proposed

modification to the eastern driveway is not warranted by safety

or operational concerns ; the D epartment violated a number of

statutory provisions during the process leading up to the

iss uance of the Notice; the proposed action will deny her and

the tenant reasonable access to the property ; and the changes

will reduce the value of the property .

a . The Western Connection

1 7 . To comply with insurance requirements, in 1998 the

tenant erect ed bollards (short vertical posts embedded in the

driveway) a round m ost of the parcel to restrict access to the

premises . Among other locations, b ollards were placed along the

entire back side of the western connection , blocking off vehicle

access through that driveway. Bollards were also placed on

roughly half of the back side of the eastern connection , leaving

less than 30 feet open to allow vehicles to enter and exit the

premises. Even though the bollards remained in place for almost

20 years, Respond ent consider s the m nothing more than temporary

fixtures , as they could be removed at any time by sawing them

off at ground level or pulling them out of the concrete .

1 8 . The bollards remained in place until s hortly after the

Notice was received by Resp ondent in early January 2017. The y

were then removed by the tenant from the western driveway (and

other areas) . The tenant denies the Notice triggered the ir

removal and maintains they were removed to provide "extra room

for the FedEx and stuff like that to get in . " H e added that h is

current insurance company no longer requires bollards for

security purposes .

1 9 . The Department contends the western driveway

connection was abandoned because bollards blocked vehicle acce ss

through th e driveway from Decem ber 1998 until January 2017. The

tenant's testimony confirms this assertion .

20 . The tenant admits he has "not frequently [been] using

the westernmost driveway," but maintains the connection was

n ever abandoned, as Fed ex trucks and the mail carrier reg ularly

parked on the driveway apron, which lies between the roadway and

the bollards. Emergency responders also use the apron when

responding to accidents at the intersection, and disabled

vehicles traveling eastbound on State Road 544 are pushed onto

the apron. The bottom line is that even though the apron may

have been used, the driveway itself was not, and the connection

was basically used as a "pull - off . " In fact, the tenant

acknowledged that u ntil January 2017, except for customers who

used the park ing lots of adjacent businesses located south of

the parcel , all other customers used the eastern connection to

access the property .

2 1 . The evidence supports a finding that, even if the car

lot has remained in business continuously, and Respondent did

not intend to abandon the driveway, for the reasons stated

above, it was effectively abandoned for more than one year.

2 2 . Because the western driveway is only 60 feet from the

intersection and violates spacing standards , it is subject to

closure based on safety concerns . Without closure, additional

traffic will enter and exit the car lot, there will be less

driver reaction time for vehicles to stop, and it will increase

the potential for more pedestrian injuries and vehicle crashes.

b . The Eastern C onnection

2 3 . The eastern driveway is 58 feet wide when measured at

the back of the property line . Until January 2017, less than

30 feet w ere usable be cause bollards block ed the remainder of

the connection .

2 4 . The maximum width for a class 7 drivew ay connection is

determined by the number of vehicle trips per day that enter a

property and whether the connection is in a rural or urban

location. Under current design standards for urban locations , a

24 - foot driveway connection is typically allowed . S ee Dep't

Ex. 15. Assuming a large volume of traffic entering or exiting

the driveway, a maximum of 36 feet may be permitted. Id.

A lthough there is no evidence that a large volume of traffic

enters or exits the premises, a fter speaking with the owner's

representative , Mr. Combee, t he Department agreed to increase

the width fr om 24 feet to 36 feet and widen the sides (wings) to

make the driveway more accessible by customers and vehicles

making deliveries. By comparison, the nearby Publix store has a

24 - foot connection to State Road 544 , al though it also has

several indirect connections on the local streets . Th e modified

connection is of sufficient length and size for vehicles to

enter and exit the premises.

c . Other Objections

i. Notice

2 5 . Responden t contends the Department did not comply with

section 335.199(1) , Florida Statutes, before issuing the Notice .

That subsection provides as follows:

Whenever the Department of Transportation

propose s any project on the State Highway

System which will divid e a state highway,

erect median barriers modifying currently

available vehicle turning movements, or have

the effect of closing or modifying an

existing access to an abutting property

owner, the department shall notify all

affected property owners, municip alities,

and counties at least 180 days before the

design of the project is finalized. The

department's notice shall provide a written

explanation regarding the need for the

project and indicate that all affected

parties will be given an opportunity to

pr ovide comments to the department regarding

potential impacts of the change.

Subsection (3) of the statute also requires at least one public

hearing in the jurisdiction where the project is located.

2 6 . The Department has always construed this provision as

applying only to large p rojects that involve an expenditure of

"upward of a million dollars" and take out or block medians,

remove turn lanes, or re configure intersection s in conjunction

with a modification or closure of a driveway connection.

Because the P roject entails the expenditure of $119, 936 .00, and

only new curbs, sidewalks, striping, and pedestrian signals are

contemplated, the Department considers it a " very limited scope"

project and one that does not implicate the statute.

2 7 . For small projects such as this , th e Department

provides preliminary notification to the property owner and

tenant, if any ; a written notice setting forth the proposed

agency action and the reason for the changes ; an opportunity for

the owner to meet with Department representatives to express

concer ns ; notice to the affected local governments ; and

ultimately an administrative hearing, if one is requested. This

process complies with section 335.1825(3), which only requires

"reasonable notice" to the owner before clos ing an unpermitted

connection.

2 8 . Before the Notice was issued, oral noti ce regarding

the P roject was given to the tenant by a Department

representative . During the meeting , the tenant told the

representative that he "didn't mind" if the western drivewa y was

removed. A lso, a Department representative spoke by telephone

with Mr. Combee before the Notice was issued , but Mr. Combee

says he was under the impression t he Department was only seeking

to close the connection on 42nd Street Northwest. A n on - site

meeting with Mr. Combee and his counsel was conducted in

February 2017. Based on concerns expressed by Mr. Combee , the

Department agreed to increase the width of the eastern driveway

from 24 to 36 feet and widen the wings to provide greater

accessibility into and out of the lot.

29 . Besides meeting with the tenant and Mr. Combee, the

Department informed the City of Auburndale and Polk County about

the intersection project and asked them whether any comments had

been received from the public regarding t he intersection.

3 0 . Assuming arguendo that section 335.199 applies to

e very project involving the closure or modification of a

driveway connection , regardless of its size, there was no

showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's

failure to comply with all requirements of the statute.

ii. Lack of an Engineering Study

3 1 . Respondent contends the Department violated Florida

Administrative Code R ule 14 - 96.011(4)(b) by failing to conduct a

formal engineering study to substantiate the safety and

operational concerns for closing and modifying the connections.

3 2 . In lieu of a signed and sealed engineering study , the

Department performed a Safety Cost Benefit Analysis documenting

the five - year crash history at the intersection. The study als o

includes an engineer's estimate of the type and cost of specific

improvements planned to improve the safety of motorists and

pedestrians at the intersection. See Resp. Ex. 5.

3 3 . N othing in rule 14 - 96.011(4) or (5) requires that a

formal engineering study be conducted before closing an

unpermitted connection or modifying a grandfathered connection.

In fact, the rule cited by Respondent provides the "problem may

be substantiated by an engineering study signed, sealed, and

dated by a professional engin eer registered in the State of

Florida." ( e mphasis added). Th erefore , both driveway s are

subject to removal or modification without any type of formal

study being conducted. Here, the Department relied on a study

of the crash history at the intersection , access management

standards for connections on class 7 roadways , and safety

concerns expressed by members of the public . Th ese measures are

adequate to support the Department's proposed action.

iii. Reasonable Access

3 4 . Respondent contends the Depart ment's proposed action

leaves her without "reasonable access" to the property. To

support this contention, h er engineering expert opine d that both

driveways on State Road 544 are necessary in order for large

trucks making deliveries to enter and exit the lot . Th e

engineer assumed incorrectly, however, that semi - trucks and

trailers now access the property to make deliveries , and a

36 - foot d riveway will be too small to accommodate that type of

vehicle. He also opined that large trucks c annot access the

p roperty through the 42nd Street Northwest connection because a

building is located in the middle of the parcel and prevents

them from being driven across the lot and exiting through the

eastern connection.

3 5 . The expert agrees a 36 - foot driveway provi des

reasonable access for automobiles and small trucks. The

evidence shows that r e placement vehicles are normally delivered

by a tow truck hauling no more than one or two at a time and

l arge semi - truck s and trailer s do not make deliveries at the

property. Assuming th at th e m ail carrier or FedEx wish to

continue parking where the apron now sits while they deliver the

mail or a package , they can do so by pulling over the six - inch

curb and park ing on the grass.

36. The evidence supports a finding that o ne direct access

point on State Road 544 and one indirect access point on

42nd Street Northwest provide reasonable access to the property

and res ult in safer and more efficient access to the state

highway system.

iv. Economic Concerns

3 7 . Respondent contends the value of her property will be

diminished as a result of the closure of the western conn ection .

However, e conomic injury is not a statutory consideration for

closing or modifying connections , and redress for that type of

injury , if any, lies in another forum.

v. Management of Project

3 8 . The Department routinely allows construction project

administrators who are not professional engineers to manage the

day - to - day work on intersection projects such as this. While

the project plans were sig ned and sealed by a professional

engineer, who is the project engineer of record, a construction

project administrator , Mr. Freeman, will take the plans and

"make it a reality in the field." R espondent contends

Mr. Freeman is violating section 471 .003(1) by performing

certain investigative, evaluating, planning, and designing

activities without an engineering l icense. Assuming arguendo

th is is true, jurisdiction over that issue lies with the Florida

Board of Professional Engineers and not the Depa rtment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 9 . The Department initiated this action by issuance of a

Notice , with an attached construction plan sheet, alleging that

the eastern and western driveway s are nonconforming connections

and must be modified or closed. Therefore , the Department has

the burden of proving , by a preponderance of the evidence, th e

allegations in the Notice and plans . See Dep't of Transp. v.

J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

40 . Section 334.044(14) provides that the Departm ent has

the following power and duty:

(14) To establish, control, and prohibit

points of ingress to, and egress from the

State Highway System . . . as necessary to

ensure the safe, efficient, and effective

maintenance and operation of such

facilities.

41. Se ction 335.181 of the State Highway Access Management

Act establishes the broad framework for regulating access to

state roads . It provides in relevant part:

(1)(a) Regulation of access to the State

Highway System is necessary in order to

protect the publ ic health, safety, and

welfare, to preserve the functional

integrity of the State Highway System, and

to promote the safe and efficient movement

of people and goods within the state.

* * *

(2)(a) Every owner of property which abuts

a road on the State Highway System has a

right to reasonable access to the abutting

state highway but does not have the right of

unregulated access to such highway. The

operational capabilities of an access

connection may be restricted by the

department. However, a means of reasonable

access to an abutting state highway may not

be limited by the department, except on the

basis of safety or operational concerns as

provided in s. 335.184.

(b) The access rights of an owner of

property abutting the State Hi ghway System

are subject to reasonable regulation to

ensure the public's right and interest in a

safe and efficient highway system. This

paragraph does not authorize the department

to deny a means of reasonable access to an

abutting state highway, except on the basis

of safety or operational concerns as

provided in s. 335.184.

42 . Section 335.182 requires that the Department adopt

rules for closing or modifying nonconforming connections. In

accordance with th is responsibility , th e Department has adopt ed

rules in chapters 14 - 96 and 14 - 97 . To resolve this dispute,

reference to the following rules is necessary.

43. R ule 14 - 96.01 5 prescribes certain requirements that

must be met when modifying unpermitted and grandfathered

connections in conjunction wi th a Department safety project . It

reads in relevant part as follows:

14 - 96.015 Department Design and

Construction Projects .

When existing connections are modified by a

Department project, access will be provided

to abutting properties, subject to

reaso nable regulation as referred to in

Section 335.181(2)(b), F.S. To the maximum

extent feasible, this new access will be

consistent with adopted Department

connection standards.

(1) Corridors will be examined during the

preliminary engineering and design phases to

determine if existing connections, median

openings, and signals spacing and design

standards are in conformance, or can be

brought into conformance, with adopted

Department standards.

* * *

( 3 ) Where connections are to be modified as

part of a Department construction project,

and the Department is not planning to

acquire any portion of the property for the

project , the Department will provide notice

and opportunity for an administrative

proceeding pursuant to Rule 14 - 96.01 1(1)(d),

F.A.C., construction plans for a Department

project signed, sealed, and dated by a

Professional Engineer registered in the

State of Florida shall substantiate a

connection's non - conformance with Department

standards or potential safety or operatio nal

problem, and a separate engineering study

shall not be required.

* * *

(5) The Department shall bear the cost of

modification of existing approved

connections, necessitated solely by

Department construction projects. When a

permitted or grandfathered

4 4 . The Department has also adopted rule 14 - 96.011, which

establishes standards for modifying unpermitted connections. It

reads in relevant part:

14 - 96.011 Modification of Connections.

* * *

(3) Unp ermitted Connections.

(a) Grandfathered Connections to the State

Highway System. Connections permitted or in

existence prior to July 1, 1988, use of

which have never been discontinued as

described in subparagraph 14 - 96.005(2)(c)3.,

F.A.C., are considere d "grandfathered" and

shall not require the issuance of a permit

and may continue to provide connection to

the State Highway System except as provided

in subsection (4).

(b) Unpermitted/Non - Grandfathered

Connections. All other unpermitted

connections ar e subject to closure in

accordance with paragraph (5)(b).

(4) Modification of Grandfathered

Connections.

* * *

(b) The Department will modify a connection

if such modernization is determined to be

necessary because the connect ion would

jeopardize the safety of the public or have

a negative impact on the operational

characteristics of the state highway. The

problem may be substantiated by an

engineering study signed, sealed, and dated

by a professional engineer registered in th e

State of Florida. Such engineering study

shall consider the following:

1. Analysis of accidents or operational

analysis directly involving the connection

or similar connections, or a traffic

c onflicts analysis of the site.

2. Analysis of the impact modification of

the connection will have on maintenance or

safety on the public road system.

3. Analysis of the impact modification of

the connection will have on traffic patterns

and circulation on the public road system.

4. The principles of transpor tation

engineering as determined by generally

accepted professional practice.

(c) If the Department acts to modify a

connection, the Department shall offer an

opportunity to meet on site with the

property owner or designated representative.

The Departme nt will take into consideration

the following:

1. Documents, reports, or studies obtained

by the property owner or lessee and provided

to the Department.

2. Alternative solutions proposed by the

property owner.

(5) Notification Process for Modificatio n

of Unpermitted Connections. Notice of the

Department's intended action will be

provided in accordance with Rule Chapter 28 -

106, F. A. C.

(a) The Department shall give written

notice to the property owner, with a copy to

the occupant, for a grandfathere d connection

if significant changes have occurred or if

the connection is found to cause a safety or

operational problem (as specified in this

rule chapter). The notice will identify the

specific information regarding the safety or

operational problem and request that the

problem be corrected or that a written

agreement on a schedule for the correction

be approved by the Department within 30 days

of receipt of the notice.

* * *

2. If the reason for the modification is a

safety or operational problem, the notice

will state the basis of the Department's

determination and describe the changes

necessary to reduce the hazard or correct

the situation.

* * *

( 6 ) Responsibility for Costs of Correcting

Deficienci es. The property owner and

current user of the connection shall be

responsible for the costs of modifications

required pursuant to actions taken in

accordance with the procedure in Rule 14 -

96.011, F.A.C.

4 5 . In this case, the Department has fully compli ed with

the requirements of the law and applicable regulations set forth

above. The evidence clearly establishes that closure of the

abandoned, nonconforming western connection will improve

vehicular and pedestrian safety. Also, reducing the width of

the nonconforming eastern driveway is required in order to meet

class 7 access standards. The eastern driveway and the driveway

on 42nd Street Northwest provide reasonable access to

Respondent's property. There are no reasonable alternative s

that would impr ove safety and provide reasonable access to the

parcel.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation e nter a

final order approving the clos ure of Respondent's weste rn

driveway and modif ication of the eastern driveway , as part of

the Department's State Road 544 Safety Project .

DONE AND ENTERED this 9 th day of June , 201 7 , in

Talla hassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

D . R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Admi nistrative 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 9 th day of June , 201 7 .

CO PIES FURNISHED:

Michael J. Dew , Secretary

Department of Transportation

Mail Station 57

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450

(eServed)

Andrea Shulthiess , Clerk of Agency Proceedings

D epartment of Transportation

Mail St ation 58

60 5 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0 4 5 0

(eServed)

T om Thomas , General Counsel

Department of Transportation

Mail St ation 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450

(eServed)

Richard E. Shine, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Mail St ation 58

605 Suwannee Street

Ta llahassee, Florida 32399 - 0458

(eServed)

David W. Holloway, Esquire

David W. Holloway, P.A.

13100 Park Boulevard, Suite B

Seminole, Florida 33776 - 3539

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the r ight to submit written exceptions within

15 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

render a final order in this matter.