18-002348 Michael Orrantia vs. Gregory Henderson And Department Of Transportation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, September 5, 2018.

Summary: There was insufficient proof to demonstrate that Gregory Henderson is entitled to a private Airport Site Approval Order.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MICHAEL ORRANTIA,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 2348

GREGORY HENDERSON AND DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant t o notice, a disputed - fact hearing in this cause

was held by video teleconference between sites in Tampa and

Tallahassee, Florida, on July 10 , 2018, before Linzie F. Bogan,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner Michael Orrantia:

Sean Timothy Desmond, Esquire

Dudley, Sellers, Healy, Heath

and Desmond, PLLC

Suite 301

3522 Thomasville Road

Tallahassee , Florida 32309

For Respondent Department of Transportation :

Susan Schwartz, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Flori da 32399 - 0458

For Respondent Gregory Henderson:

Richard Lincoln Richards, Esquire

Richards Goldstein, LLP

Suite 310

55 Miracle Mile

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT or

Department) properly issued an Airport Site Approval Order to

Air - Med Eye Care in Hillsborough County, Florida.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On November 17, 2017, FDOT issued an A irport S ite A pp roval

O rder to Dr. Gregory Henderson to construct a private heliport

in Hillsborough County, Florida. On or about November 27, 2017,

Dr. Michael Orrantia timely filed a petition for administrative

hearing challenging the proposed A irport S ite A pproval O r der.

Dr. Orrantia filed a n amended petition on December 22, 2017 , and

the matter was scheduled for an informal hearing. On April 21,

2018, Dr. Orrantia filed a second amended petition for

administrative hearing. On May 10, 2018, the Department referred

this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a

disputed - fact hearing.

During the disputed - fact hearing, FDOT presented the

testimony of Alice Lammert and called no other witnesses.

Dr. Henderson testified on behalf of himself and offered

ad ditional testimony from Christopher Hill and David Roberts.

Dr. Orrantia did not testify but did offer testimony from

Dr. Henderson as part of his case - in - chief. FDOT Exhibits 1

through 4, 7 through 10, and 12 were admitted into evidence.

Dr. Henderso n Exhibits 1 through 17, 19 through 44, 46 and 47,

were admitted into evidence. There were no exhibits received

into evidence on behalf of Dr. Orrantia.

A T ranscript of the disputed - fact hearing was filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings on J uly 26, 2018. On

August 2, 2018, Petitioner filed an Agreed Upon Motion for

Extension of Time to F ile P roposed Recommended Orders. The

motion was granted, and on August 16, 2018, each party submitted

a Proposed Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. In March 2017, Dr. Henderson submitted to FDOT an

application for approval to construct a private airport

(heliport) in Hillsborough County, Florida.

2 . FDOT has authority under s ection 330.30, Florida

Statutes (2018) , 1/ to issue airport site approval orders , register

private airports, and license public airports.

3. Sect ion 330.27(2) defines an ÐairportÑ as Ðan area of

land or water used for, or intended to be used for, landing and

takeoff of aircraft, including appurtenant areas, buildings,

facilities, or rights - of - way necessary to facilitate such use or

intended use.

4. Section 330.27(4) defines a Ðprivate airportÑ as Ðan

airport, publicly or privately owned, which is not open or

available for use by the public, but may be made available to

others by invi tation of the owner or manager.Ñ

5 . P ublic airports must submit to an on - site inspection and

provide documentation to the Department for consideration of an

airport site approval order. Private airports are required to

maintain the same documentation req uired of public airports, but

are not required to submit documents to the Department or submit

to an on - site inspection. Instead, a pplicants seeking a private

airport site approval order use an interactive database to

respond to a series of questions and the applicant then certif ies

that they possess the documentation required to support the

application .

6 . On February 10, 2009, the Hillsborough County Board of

County Commissioners (county commission) granted Dr. Henderson a

zoning approval for the develo pment of his property located on

Eichenfeld Drive in Brandon, Florida . The zoning approval

contained a number of restrictions but generally allowed for the

construction of medical/professional offices, a comm ercial

apartment, and a heliport . 2/ Specifical ly as to the heliport, the

county commission approved the same with the following

limitation, to wit: Ð the permitted helicopter for the site shall

be a Robinson R44 or similar model subject to staff review and

approval. Ñ The Robinson R44 is the only mode l of aircraft that

the county commission has zoned for operation at the heliport.

7 . On April 17, 2009, Dr. Henderson transferred the

property by general warranty deed to KMDG - Eichenfeld, LLC. On

January 1, 2017, KMDG - Eichenfeld, LLC , leased the property to

Gregory Henderson, MD, FACS, Inc., for a ten - year term .

8 . On July 25, 2017, Dr. Henderson received airspace

approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a

private use heliport on the property subject to restrictions,

including a design ated approach and departure path.

9 . FDOTÓs on - line application process requires an applicant

to certify that they complied with all airport site approval

conditions and that they will maintain documentation related to

the application.

10 . Dr. Henderson completed t he on - line application process

and certif ied that he had rights to the property, local

government authorization, and FAA approval.

11 . Dr. Henderson further certified that for the site, he

had a f acility d iagram, a quadrangle map showing the g eodetic

position, and a location map.

12 . In accordance with the certification, Dr. Henderson

maintained a list of VFR (visual flight rules) airports within

three nautical miles and IFR (instrument flight rules) airports

within 10 nautical miles of the p roposed site and he, as

required, sent a notice of the heliport establishment to each of

the listed facilities.

1 3 . Dr. Henderson maintains a list of real property owners

within 300 feet of the proposed heliport and sent each a letter

notifying them of the proposed use. Dr. Henderson received a

single response to the notification, an email listing concerns

from Dr. Orrantia , who owns the adjoining property.

1 4 . As required, Dr. Henderson published a public notice in

the Tampa Bay Times.

1 5 . Dr. Hende rson appropriately certified that there are no

solid waste facilities wi thin 10,000 feet of the heliport Ó s f inal

a pproach and t akeoff are a, safe air traffic patterns have been

established, and safety and security measures have been

implemented.

1 6 . Alice Lammert is FDOT 's private airport compliance

manager. On or about July 26, 2017, Ms. Lammert, in response to

an email from Chris topher Hill who works as Dr. HendersonÓs

representative, provided Mr. Hill with instructions for securing

approval from FDOT o f the proposed heliport site. The

instructions list several steps associated with FDOTÓs approval

process. Step 6 of the instructions provides, in part, that

Ð[o]nce FDOT is satisfied that all of the conditions of [Florida

Administrative Code Rule] 14 - 60 .005(5)(a - m) have been met, an

Airport Site Approval Order will be issued.Ñ

17. Step 5 of the instructions provides as follows:

Once a complete application has been

submitted and all documentation requested has

been received, FDOTÓs review will begin.

Pl ease keep in mind that this review may take

several weeks, as we conduct our own airspace

analysis; determine if adequate area exists

for the type of aircraft that will be

operated from the site ; and conduct an

examination of obstacles, approach/departure

paths, ownership rights, and so on.

(emphasis added) .

18. On October 4, 2017, Ms. Lammert submitted to Mr. Hill a

list of questions related to Dr. HendersonÓs application. One of

the questions asks ÐWhat is the make and model of the aircraft

that will be operating from the helipad?Ñ Mr. Hill responded

ÐRobinson R66 .Ñ Ms. Lammert conducted an analysis of the runway

and taxiway design criteria and airport design layout in light of

the performance characteristics of the Robinson R66 and

determined that t he proposed heliport could accommodate this

particular model of aircraft. FDOT did not however, perform a

similar analysis for the Robinson R44, which is the only aircraft

zoned for operation at the site by the county commission.

19. Dr. Henderson testif ied that the Robinson R66 and R44

aircraft have similar design and performance characteristics.

Dr. HendersonÓs opinion as to the design and performance

characteristics of the respective helicopters is not credited

because there was insufficient proof off ered to establish that

Dr. Henderson possesses the necessary training, experience, or

education to render such a technical opinion.

20 . David Roberts, FDOTÓs a viation o perations

a dministrator, explained that FDOT is required to ensure that the

applicant has local government auth orization to construct a

heliport , but the Department does not dictate what aircraft is

to be used on the heliport once constructed. According to

Mr. Roberts, t he type of aircraft to be used at the facility is

determined by the airport operator, the FAA, and the local

political subdivision. Mr. Roberts also testified that t he

airport owner must certify during registration every two years

that the airport meets the operational requirements of the

aircraft that are using the faci lity.

21 . Ms. Lammert reviewed the FAA Notice of Heliport

Airspace Determination authorizing th e airspace use above the

heliport . A s eparate analysis conducted by an FDOT contractor

confirmed that, subject to the conditions and recommendations of

the FA A, the private use landing area would not adversely impact

the navigable airspace.

22 . On or about November 17, 2017, FDOT issued an A irport

S ite A pproval O rder for the Air - Med Eye Care and noted therein

the following :

The Department is satisfied that you r

airport, if completed in accordance with your

site proposal, will meet all of the following

required conditions: (1) that the site has

adequate area allocated for the airport, as

proposed; (2) that the proposed airport will

conform to the Department's l icensing or

registration requirements; (3) that the

proposed airport will comply with the

applicable local government land development

regulations and zoning requirements; (4) that

all affected airports, local governments, and

property owners have been not ified and any

comments submitted by them have been given

adequate consideration; (5) that safe, air -

traffic patterns can be established for the

proposed airport with all existing airports

and approved airport sites in its vicinity.

The Airport Site Approv al Order is granted

subject to your compliance with the following

conditions that are deemed necessary by the

department to protect the public health,

safety, or welfare:

All operations are conducted in DAYNFR

weather conditions ;

The landing area is limi ted to private - use ;

All helicopter ingress/egress route

operations are conducted on 210° (ingress)

magnetic clockwise to 030° (egress) magnetic

headings, additional approach/departure route

operations are conducted on 080° (ingress) to

260° (egress ) magne tic headings, using the

touchdown pad (TLOF) as the center of the

compass rose.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. S tat.

24. The general rule is that the burden of proof, apart

from a statutory directive, is on the party asserting the

affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. Young

v. Dep't of Cmty. Aff. , 625 So. 2d 831, 833 - 834 (Fla. 1993);

Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA

1981); Balino v. Dep't of HRS , 348 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA

1977). In this case, FDOT bears the burden of showing that the

applicant is entitled to a private airport site - approval order. 3/

25. Section 330.30(1) provides in part as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (3),

the owner or lessee of any proposed airport

shall, prior to site acquisition or

construction or establishment of the proposed

airport, obtain approval of the airport site

from the department. Applications for

approval of a site shall be made in a form

and manner prescribed by the department. The

department shall grant the site approval if

it is satisfied:

1. That the site has adequate area allocated

for the airpor t as proposed.

2. That the proposed airport will conform to

licensing or registration requirements and

will comply with the applicable local

government land development regulations or

zoning requirements.

3. That all affected airports, local

government s, and property owners have been

notified and any comments submitted by them

have been given adequate consideration.

4. That safe air - traffic patterns can be

established for the proposed airport with all

existing airports and approved airport sites

in it s vicinity.

* * *

(c) Site approval shall be granted for

private airports only after receipt of

documentation in a form and manner the

department deems necessary to satisfy the

conditions in paragraph (a).

26. The conditions imposed by section 330.30 , as cited

above, establish statutory prerequisites that must be met before

FDOT grants approval of an airport site. See Seefried v. DepÓt

of Transp. , Case No. 12 - 1512 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 21, 2013; Fla. DOT

Mar. 25, 2013).

27. Section 330.27 provides definit ions of certain terms

used in section 330.30. Section 330.27 does not, however, define

the term ÐsatisfiedÑ as used in section 330.30. The word

ÐsatisfyÑ is the root word of ÐsatisfiedÑ and according to

Merriam - Webster, the transitive verb ÐsatisfyÑ mean s Ðto put an

end to doubt or uncertainty.Ñ https://www.merriam - webster.com/

dictionary/satisfy .

28. In order to satisfy itself that a particular airport

site should be approved, FDOT promulgated rule 14 - 60.005 and set

forth therein several conditions tha t must be met by the

applicant. Rule 14 - 60.005(4) provides as follows:

Conditions for Site Approval. The Department

shall grant site approval for a proposed

airport that complies with all the

requirements of Section 330.30, F.S., subject

to any reasonabl e conditions necessary to

protect the public health, safety, or

welfare. Such conditions shall include

operations limited to VFR flight conditions,

restricted approach or takeoff direction from

only one end of a runway, specified air -

traffic pattern layou ts to help prevent mid -

air collision conflict with aircraft flying

at another nearby airport, airport noise

abatement procedures in order to satisfy

community standards, or other environmental

compatibility measures.

29. Rule 14 - 60.005(5), as applicable to private airports

pursuant to rule 14 - 60.005(6), 4 / provides as follows:

Public Airport Site Approval. Public airport

site approval applications shall be

accompanied by the following supporting

documentation to allow the Department to make

its airport s ite approval determination and

to ensure the applicantÓs satisfaction of

conditions stated in subsection 14 - 60.005(4),

F.A.C., above:

(a) Property Rights. Provide a copy of

written legal confirmation of ownership,

option to buy, or lease agreement for t he

real property that comprises the site on

which the proposed airport would be located.

Although adequate safety areas surrounding an

airport site are important and a factor in

the DepartmentÓs approval determination, the

applicant is not required to hold property

rights over those real property areas that

would constitute runway approach surfaces.

(b) Facility Diagram. Provide a scale

drawing showing the size and dimensions of

the proposed facility; property rights of way

and easements; lighting, power , and telephone

poles; location of building(s) on property

and surrounding areas; and direction,

distance, and height of all structures

over 25 feet within 1,000 feet of the site

perimeter.

(c) Geodetic Position. Provide a copy of a

U.S. Geological Sur vey quadrangle map or

equivalent with the proposed site plotted to

the nearest second of latitude and longitude.

(d) Location Map. Provide a copy of a map

or sketch, at least 8.5 x 11 inches in size,

showing the location of the proposed site,

with respe ct to recognizable landmarks and

access roads to the site clearly marked.

(e) Aviation Facilities. Provide a list of

names and mailing addresses for adjacent

airports, including a sample copy of the

letter submitted as proposal notification to

these air ports, and attach a copy of all

airport reply correspondence.

1. For a proposed airport or seaplane

landing facility, list all VFR airports and

heliports within five nautical miles and all

IFR airports within 20 nautical miles.

2. For a proposed helipo rt, list all VFR

airports and heliports within three nautical

miles and all IFR airports within 10 nautical

miles.

(f) Local Government. Provide a copy of

each of the letters of notification, showing

the recipientÓs name and mailing address,

that have b een submitted to each zoning

authority having jurisdiction, for the

municipality and county in which the site

lies or which is located within five nautical

miles of the proposed airport site. The

applicant shall also include a copy of all

related correspo ndence from each city or

county authority, including a statement that

the proposed airport site is in compliance

with local zoning requirements or that such

requirements are not applicable.

(g) Adjacent Property. Provide a list of

the names and mailing addresses of all real

property owners within 1,000 feet of the

airport site perimeter, or within 300 feet of

the heliport or helistop site perimeter,

including a single copy of the letter of

notification submitted as notification to

these adjacent real pro perty owners, and

include a copy of all real property owner

correspondence in reply. If notification was

provided by a local government as part of its

review and approval process for the airport,

provide written confirmation of the fact, in

lieu of the ab ove required submittal by the

applicant.

(h) Public Notice. Provide a copy of the

notice and of the letter, showing the

recipientÓs name and mailing address,

requesting publication of notification of the

proposed airport site in a newspaper of

general c irculation in the county in which

the proposed airport site is located and

counties within five nautical miles of the

proposed airport site. If this condition has

been accomplished by a local government as

part of its review and approval process for

the a irport, provide written confirmation of

the fact, in lieu of the above required

submittal by the applicant.

(i) Waste Sites. Provide written

confirmation that the runway(s) on the

proposed airport would not be located

within 5,000 feet of any solid was te

management facility for a proposed airport

serving only non - turbine aircraft, or within

10,000 feet of any solid waste management

facility for a proposed airport serving

turbine - driven aircraft.

(j) Air Traffic Pattern. Provide written

confirmation, including a graphical

depiction, demonstrating that safe air

traffic patterns can be established for the

proposed airport with all existing and

approved airport sites within three miles of

the proposed airport site. Provide a copy of

written memorandum(s) of understanding or

letter(s) of agreement, signed by each

respective party, regarding air traffic

pattern separation procedures between the

parties representing the proposed airport and

any existing airport(s) or approved airport

site(s) located within t hree miles of the

proposed site.

(k) Safety Factors. Provide written

confirmation that the runway and taxiway

design criteria and airport design layout of

the proposed airport have appropriately taken

into account consideration of the

manufacturerÓs per formance characteristics

for the type(s) of aircraft planned to be

operated; the frequency and type(s) of flight

operations to be anticipated; planned

aviation - related or non - aviation activities

on the airport; and any other safety

considerations, as neces sary, to help ensure

the general public health, safety, and

welfare of persons located on or near the

airport.

(l ) Security Factors. Provide written

confirmation that the proposed airport site

owner or lessee will take appropriate steps

to help protect the general public health,

safety, and welfare through secure airport

operations and that they will develop and

implement adequate airport security measures

to safeguard airport and aviation - related

assets from misappropriation or misuse in

order to preven t potential loss or public

endangerment.

(m) FAA Approval. Provide a copy of the

notification to the FAA regarding the

proposed airport site and a copy of the FAAÓs

airspace approval correspondence given in

response.

30. As previously noted, Dr. Hende rson, as part of the

application review process, provided FDOT with information from

the county commission showing that the Robinson R44 is the only

aircraft zoned for operation at the heliport. Subsequent to

receiving approval from the county commission, and knowing of

Robinson R44 zoning limitation, Dr. Henderson informed FDOT that

he would operate a Robinson R66 helicopter on the heliport and

not the Robinson R44. It is without question that FDOT knows

that the county commission has not approved the he liport for the

Robinson R66 model helicopter.

31. Dr. HendersonÓs statement to FDOT that he will operate

a Robinson R66 model helicopter at the heliport is an admission

by Dr. Henderson that he knowingly intends to operate the

heliport in contravention t o the zoning requirements established

by the county commission.

32. In its Proposed Recommended Order, FDOT asserts that it

Ðrequires local zoning authorization, but does not enforce the

conditions set forth by the local zoning boardÑ when considering

a n application for airport site approval. The agency also

contends that Ðthe Department does not restrict the aircraft

authorized to use an airport to the aircraft identified in the

application.Ñ The essence of FDOTÓs position seems to be that as

part of the site approval process, the Department really does not

concern itself with the specifics of the approval issued by the

local zoning board, and further, that it does not care about the

type of aircraft to be operated at the facility.

33. Section 330.30 requires that prior to approving an

airport site, FDOT must Ðput an end to doubt or uncertaintyÑ

about whether a proposed airport complies with applicable local

government land development regulation or zoning requirements.

The Department cannot fulfill i ts obligation to the public if it

ignores during the site approval process express Ðaircraft type

limitationsÑ imposed on an applicant by a local zoning board.

Contrary to FDOTÓs assertion, the issue, in the context of site

approval, is not one of Ðenforc ementÑ of local zoning

requirements, but is instead one of Ðrecognition and

acknowledgmentÑ of such requirements so as to protect the health,

safety and welfare of the public.

34. Because the county commission conditioned its approval

of Dr. HendersonÓs s ite on the operation of a ÐRobinson R44 or

similar model subject to staff review and approval,Ñ and

Dr. Henderson informed FDOT that he will operate a Robinson R66

model helicopter (which has not been approved), Dr. HendersonÓs

pending application for sit e approval fails to comply with the

requirements of rule 14 - 60.005(5)(f) because he has not, and

indeed cannot on the instant record, certify that the proposed

airport site will be operated in compliance with local zoning

requirements. Stated succinctly, Dr. Henderson has failed to

secure local zoning authorization to operate a Robinson R66 model

helicopter at the site, and such authorization is a statutory

prerequisite to FDOT approving the site.

35. As noted above, FDOT contends that Ðthe Department doe s

not restrict the aircraft authorized to use an airport to the

aircraft identified in the application.Ñ Generally speaking,

this statement may be true as to post - site approval flight

operations. However, there is nothing i n section 330.30 or the

rules r elated thereto, which allows an applicant, as part of the

site approval process, to circumvent local zoning requirements by

misrepresenting, to both FDOT and the local zoning board, the

type of aircraft that will be operated at the facility. 5 /

Furthermore , FDOTÓs assertion flies in the face of the

DepartmentÓs application approval process which asks an applicant

to identify the Ðtype of aircraft that will be operated from the

siteÑ so that FDOT can Ðconduct [its] own airspace analysis.Ñ

37. Section 330. 30(1) dictates that prior to approving an

airport site FDOT must be ÐsatisfiedÑ that the proposed airport

Ðwill comply with the applicable local government land

development regulations or zoning requirements.Ñ FDOT has

failed to prove that Dr. HendersonÓ s application satisfies

section 330.30(1)(a)2. , and rule 14 - 60.005(5)(f).

38. Finally, Dr. Orrantia argues that Dr. Henderson does

not have sufficient property rights to the heliport because the

property is owned by KMDG - Eichenfeld, LLC, and leased to Gre gory

Henderson, MD, FACS, Inc. The lease agreement admitted into

evidence demonstrates that Dr. Henderson is the president of

Gregory L. Henderson, MD, FACS, Inc . , and is authorized to enter

into leases and apply for licenses on behalf of the corporation.

Accordingly, this contention by Dr. Orrantia is without merit and

does not provide a basis for denying the airport site approval

application of Dr. Gregory Henderson.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RE COMMENDED that the Department of Transportation

enter a final order denying the site approval application of

Gregory Henderson and withdrawing the Airport Site Approval Order

issued to Dr. Henderson on November 17, 2017 , Site Approval

Number SW201 7 - FLA - 017 2 - H P.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5 th day of September , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LINZIE F. BOGAN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallah assee, 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 5 th day of September , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ All subsequent references to Florida Statutes will be to 2018,

unless otherwise indicated.

2/ A heliport is generally understood as being a facility or

structure which facilitates the takeoff and landing of

helicopters.

3/ The parties agree that FDOT bears the burden of persuasion.

4/ Rule 14 - 60.005( 6) provides, in part, as follows:

Private Airport Site Approval. Private

airport site approval applications, as stated

in paragraph 14 - 60.005(3)(b), F.A.C., above,

are subject to the same requirements for

approval as stated for public airport site

approv al applicants in paragraphs 14 -

60.005(5)(a) - (m), F.A.C., above. However,

private airport site approval applicants are

required only to respond to interactive

inquiries on the specified Department private

airport website. Private airport applicants

are no t required to submit a hard copy,

written site approval application nor

supporting documentation, as required of

public airports. However, all private

airport site approval applicants shall retain

for their records all of the required

documentation relate d to the site approval

application, in order to be able to respond

to any possible future local, state, or

federal inquiry.

5 / It is difficult to discern what Dr. HendersonÓs true

intentions are with respect to the type of aircraft that he

intends to ope rate at the site. It is either the Robinson R44

or the R66, or possibly neither. If the goal is to protect

the health, safety, and welfare of the public, as noted is

section 330.30, then it must be the case that FDOTÓs site

approval process should func tion so as to require truth and

accuracy from those who seek airport site approval.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Frederick R. Dudley, Esquire

Dudley, Sellers and Healy, P.L.

Suite 301

3522 Thomasville Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

(eServed)

Susan Schwartz, Es quire

Department of Transportation

Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0458

(eServed)

Richard Lincoln Richards, Esquire

Richards Goldstein, LLP

Suite 310

55 Miracle Mile

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

(eServed)

Sean Timothy Desm ond, Esquire

Dudley, Sellers, Healy, Heath

and Desmond, PLLC

Suite 301

3522 Thomasville Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

(eServed)

Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Pro ceedings

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, Ma il Stop 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32 3 99 - 0450

(eServed)

Erik Fenniman, General Counsel

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450

(eServed)

Michael J. Dew, Secretary

Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Stop 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0450

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommen ded Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.