The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
Following unsuccessful negotiations with the Department regarding the proposed modifications, Dixie filed a formal petition for administrative hearing on December 3, 1993. The petition charged that the Department, in modifying the driveways, failed to comply with the provisions of the "State Highway System Access Management Act", sections 335.18- 335.188, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992). In the alternative, the petition sought specific performance of the earlier agreement.a. Defendants failed to timely approve or deny the Application as required by Sections 335.18 and 120.60(2), Florida Statutes; andWe conclude, based upon our review of controlling statutes and the facts presented, including the undisputed evidence that Paradyne did not construct this road connection in accordance with the 1981 permit, that DOT has the right to revoke Paradyne's permit under section 335.18(3). The evidence supports the need for a major redesign of the intersection on Ulmerton Road and Paradyne's connection with that road due to the heavy amount of traffic entering and exiting Paradyne's property during peak morning and afternoon traffic periods. As a consequence, DOT has the authority to require Paradyne to submit a redesign of its connection which will accommodate the current traffic conditions in a safe and efficient manner under section 335.18(1). Further, DOT can properly require that any revised connection designed by Paradyne must allow access to Ulmerton for both Paradyne and M B, since two separate accesses for Paradyne and M B at this light-controlled intersection cannot safely be allowed to exist.We find, however, that the circuit court violated due process of law because it did not have authority to order appellant to participate with appellees in the construction of the 250-foot connector road. The permit, as issued, did not require a 250-foot connector road. The circuit court is only authorized to enforce the DOT permit under section 120.69. The authority to regulate connectors to state roads has been delegated to DOT pursuant to section 335.18, Florida Statutes (1981). Therefore, we reverse and remand to the circuit court to enforce the DOT permit pursuant to section 120.69, so both parcels will have access to the light-controlled intersection. Upon remand, DOT may intervene as a matter of right pursuant to section 120.69(1)(d), or be joined as an indispensable party based on its duties under section 335.18. It is possible that DOT will find that the intersection, as designed, does not meet the standards in section 335.18, Florida Statutes (1981). In this event, DOT should be allowed to redesign the connector road to meet the standards of section 335.18, and to have minimal impact on the property rights of appellant and appellees… . . . Stat. 5/3-103 (35 days); Ind.Code § 36-7-4-1003 (30 days); Iowa Code § 335.18 (30 days); Kan. Stat. . . .
. . . state-court action against the County for certiorari review and declaratory judgment, under Iowa Code § 335.18 . . . Finally, Iowa Code §§ 335.18-25 allow a party aggrieved by a decision of the board of adjustment to seek . . . Count IV was a claim under Iowa Code § 335.18 for certiorari review of the board’s decision denying the . . . decision is an integral part of the administrative remedy itself, and is provided for by Iowa Code § 335.18 . . .
. . . failed to comply with the provisions of the “State Highway System Access Management Act”, sections 335.18 . . .
. . . Defendants failed to timely approve or deny the Application as required by Sections 335.18 and 120.60 . . .
. . . . § 335.18(1) and (3), Fla.Stat. (1985). . . . the proceedings below that the highway connection constructed by Paradyne was in violation of section 335.18 . . . the connection and intersection, in order for the highway connection to meet the standards of section 335.18 . . . in accordance with the 1981 permit, that DOT has the right to revoke Paradyne’s permit under section 335.18 . . . which will accommodate the current traffic conditions in a safe and efficient manner under section 335.18 . . .
. . . plus interest at the rate of 14.50% per annum over a period of 5 years in 60 monthly installments of $335.18 . . .
. . . circuit court have jurisdiction to decide a controversy which, according to Florida Statute, section 335.18 . . . pursuant to section 120.69(l)(d), or be joined as an indispensable party based on its duties under section 335.18 . . . possible that DOT will find that the intersection, as designed, does not meet the standards in section 335.18 . . . In this event, DOT should be allowed to redesign the connector road to meet the standards of section 335.18 . . . parties access to the intersection as contemplated by DOT’s permit, DOT has authority under section 335.18 . . .