CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1988 WL 65195
...We affirm that portion of DOT's order revoking Paradyne's permit, because Paradyne failed to construct the connection in accordance with the 1981 permit granted by DOT. We also hold that DOT can require Paradyne to submit a redesign of the connection due to the present safety hazards at the existing connection. § 335.18(1) and (3), Fla....
...rch 31, 1986, issued a notice to show cause (NSC), prompting Paradyne to request a formal administrative hearing, in which M & B intervened. DOT charged in the proceedings below that the highway connection constructed by Paradyne was in violation of section 335.18(1) and (3), in that it was not constructed in accordance with the permit design plan, and that in its present state, the existing connection was causing undue disruption of traffic and creating safety hazards, necessitating a material redesign of the connection....
...creased on Ulmerton to a degree which necessitates a modification and redesign of the private road located on Paradyne's property, as well as a redesign of the connection and intersection, in order for the highway connection to meet the standards of section 335.18....
...cess cannot be based upon a serving of the private interests of other abutters. Alan Construction Co. v. Gerding, 209 Md. 71, 120 A.2d 353 (1956). DOT's statutory authority to regulate connections to roads on the state highway system is contained in section 335.18(1) and (3) which provide: (1) The department shall regulate connections to roads on the State Highway System, as such connections are a significant contributor to vehicular accidents, congestion, and reduction in traffic-carrying capacity....
...We 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 *926 335.18(3)....
...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)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14267
...Miller, Sonya Miller, Phillip Benjamin and Marilyn Benjamin, in the construction of a 250-foot joint-use drive. Appellant raises five points on appeal. Three are discussed here. First, did the circuit court have jurisdiction to decide a controversy which, according to Florida Statute, section 335.18 (1981), has been delegated to a state agency, the Department of Transportation (DOT)? Second, did the trial court err by finding that DOT’s permit was intended to benefit the properties of appellant and appellees? Third, did the circ...
...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(l)(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. In the event it becomes impossible to provide the parties access to the intersection as contemplated by DOT’s permit, DOT has authority under section
335.18(4) to deny access and revoke the permit....
