05-12-99 vS
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SPECIAL CALLED COMMISSION MEETING - May 12, 1999
5:00 PM
AGENDA
Call to Order
1. Discussion and related action in connection with property on the Intracoastal
Waterway currently owned by Centex Homes
2. Any other business
Adjournment
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at
any meeting, such person may need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record shall include the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
Any person wishing to speak to the City Commission on any matter at this meeting should submit a request to the City
Clerk prior to the meeting. For your convenience, forms for this purpose are available at the entrance to the
Commission Chambers.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26,Florida Statutes,persons with disabilities
needing special accommodation to participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION, HELD IN CITY HALL AT 5:00 PM ON WEDNESDAY
MAY 12, 1999.
Present: Suzanne Shaughnessy, Mayor
Richard Beaver, Commissioner
Mike Borno, Commissioner
John Meserve, Commissioner
Theo Mitchelson, Commissioner
Also: David Thomson
Alan Jensen, City Attorney
Maureen King, City Clerk
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shaughnessy.
1.Discussion and related action in connection with property in the Intracoastal Waterway
currently owned by Centex Homes
The City Manager reported that he, along with the City Attorney and city staff members, had met
with representatives of the City of Jacksonville earlier in the day to discuss the purchase of the Centex
property. He said that Jacksonville would like Atlantic Beach to commit to contribute $190,000.00
towards the purchase of the property and also agree to be a co-applicant in the grant application He
explained that Jacksonville would get additional points toward the approval of the grant if Atlantic
Beach agreed to be a co-applicant. In addition, they would like Atlantic Beach to commit to the
management of the park. A copy of the City Manager's report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
The City Manager further explained that any monetary commitment the city made would not have
to be paid until the next fiscal year-between October and December. He also said that Jacksonville
had made no commitment to put Atlantic Beach on the deed and by so doing, Atlantic Beach would
not be liable for insurance costs. The City Manager explained that under the conditions of the grant,
the property would be required to remain as park land for at least ten years. However, the down side
of not owning the property, he said, would be that a future Jacksonville administration could sell the
property or allow it to be used for other purposes.
Discussion ensued and it was explained that up to 90% of the property could be left natural and only
10%would need to be developed and this could be as simple as providing some parking and opening
up some trails. City Manager Thompson explained that the grant application would come before the
City Commission for approval at the meeting of May 24, 1999.
Commissioner Mitchelson said that while he would be willing to consider the $190,000 as a targeted
goal for the 1999/2000 budget, he was concerned regarding making a financial commitment of
190,000 of unbudgeted funds. He also said he was uncomfortable making a commitment to maintain
property which did not belong to the city. Commissioner Mitchelson also noted that the grant
required that the land be used for parks for a period of ten years. However, he felt that while Atlantic
Page Two
Minutes - Special Called Meeting
May 12, 1999
Beach enjoyed a good relationship with the current Jacksonville administration, he suggested that a
deed restriction be included which would preserve the land for parks in the future in order to prevent
a future administration from selling the land or allowing it to be used for other purposes.
City Manager Thompson felt that Jacksonville would be willing to make a written commitment to
preserve the land for parks beyond the ten years required in the grant. He also indicated that Atlantic
Beach could be a co-applicant even if no financial commitment was made.
Commissioner Borno favored being a co-applicant but was not in favor of making a financial
commitment until the matter could be considered during the budget process. Commissioner Borno
said he would like to have some idea of the cost of insurance, but City Attorney Jensen pointed out
that Atlantic Beach did not have an option to hold the deed (and therefore would not be liable for
insurance coverage).
Commissioner Beaver inquired if there would be any consequences if Atlantic Beach did not
contribute anything towards the purchase. City Manager responded that he felt Jacksonville was
more interested in having Atlantic Beach undertake the maintenance. Commissioner Beaver said he
would like to find out whether it would be detrimental to the transaction if Atlantic Beach did not
participate in the purchase. Commissioner Beaver said he would like clarification on the boundaries
of the property and an aerial map was provided by the Mayor and a boundary map was provided by
the City Clerk.
Commissioner Meserve noted that this was not a budgeted item, and that the property was not in
Atlantic Beach. He said he felt the city did not put enough money into Public Works projects and
was concerned at the amount of unbudgeted money which had recently been committed to parks.
He indicated he would not be willing to make a financial commitment at this point.
The City Manager reported that the grant application was due in Tallahassee on June 2, 1999, and
Jacksonville would like a commitment from Atlantic Beach to be a co-applicant on the grant, and
indicated that Mayor Delaney would be in attendance at the Commission meeting on May 24 to
answer any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Commissioner Beaver asked whether the City could commit to spend future moneys and the City
Attorney explained that if the City Commission agreed to this expenditure at this time, the
commitment was actually to appropriate funds in the next year's budget for this purpose.
Commissioner Beaver expressed concern regarding making this commitment when, he said the City
had many other maintenance projects which needed to be done. He asked the City Manager to ask
specifically what would happen if Atlantic Beach did not commit to contribute any funds.
Commissioner Meserve again reiterated that this was not a budgeted item and he felt that a
commitment at this time was actually pre spending the money before a budget was adopted. He was
also concerned that the property was not in Atlantic Beach and the city would be putting money into
Page Three
Minutes - Special Called Meeting
May 12, 1999
a project it did not own. He felt that the city should better maintain its current property and said he
would support this project so long as no funds were being committed.
The Mayor said she felt the question before the City Commission this evening was whether Atlantic
Beach would be willing to be a co-applicant and provide the maintenance. She felt Jacksonville
needed this information in order to prepare the grant application, but the money would not be
required until later. The Mayor said she saw this as a negotiation situation with Jacksonville
regarding the level of participation of Atlantic Beach. She felt that development of this property
would have a negative impact on Dutton Island.
Further discussion ensued and it was clarified that Jacksonville would proceed with the grant
application whether or not Atlantic Beach participated. However, they were more likely to receive
the grant if Atlantic Beach agreed to be a co-applicant. Commissioner Beaver also clarified that a
commitment to be a co-applicant did not automatically commit the city to any financial participation.
The City Manager said that Jacksonville would have to be able to show that there would be on-going
maintenance of the property, and accepting a role as managing the property would probably be
sufficient to participate as a co-applicant. He said that while Jacksonville had requested that Atlantic
Beach contribute funds, they had not indicated that failure to do so would in any way disqualify
Atlantic Beach from being a co-applicant.
Commissioner Mitchelson said that he would be happy for Atlantic Beach to be co-applicant and
agree to provide maintenance in order to maximize the points available to Jacksonville, however, he
felt that if 100%of the property would be owned by Jacksonville, then Jacksonville should pay 100%
of the purchase price.
Commissioner Mitchelson then moved that Atlantic Beach agree to be co-applicant in the
grant; that Atlantic Beach agree to guarantee the management of the property; that Atlantic
Beach be willing to perform 10% development on the property; and with the contingency that
the deed of the property contain a restriction which requires that it be maintained for park use
in perpetuity which goes beyond the 10-year requirement as listed in the grant. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Borno.
In further discussion, the Mayor reiterated that the deed restriction was very important to her. She
said that as far as development was concerned "minimum is better," and asked the City Manager to
convey this to the Jacksonville representatives. The Mayor said that when Jacksonville was first
approached regarding the possible purchase of this property, no financial participation by Atlantic
Beach was anticipated, and she suggested that participation on the part of Atlantic Beach be at the
lio
lowest possible cost. She said there were already some trails through the property and she would like
to see those trails made use of in the management plan.
On roll-call vote the motion carried unanimously.
Ippoinpw
EXHIBIT A
MINUTES - MAY 12, 1999
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Centex Property Negotiations with Jacksonville
DATE: May 11, 1999
SUBMITTED BY: David E. Thompson, City Manager
BACKGROUND: This morning, May 11, 1999, City Attorney Alan Jensen, Parks and
Recreation Director Timmy Johnson, Community Development Director
George Worley, and the City Manager met with Jacksonville
representatives to discuss the purchase of the Centex Property.
At the outset, Jacksonville requested that Atlantic Beach commit to:
10% of the purchase price, $270,000 toward the purchase;
Commit to the management of the park; and
Act as a co-applicant for grant funding toward the purchase of the
property.
After some discussion, there were a variety of changes and options
discussed by the group:
The $270,000 request for the purchase was reduced to $190,000,
and this money would not have to be paid until the last quarter of
the year. This places this project in the 1999-00 budget cycle, and
it gives the City Commission time to identify funds and budget
appropriately if they wish to fund it.
The management of the park can be done more cost-effectively by
Atlantic Beach than by Jacksonville. With the park ranger
assigned to Dutton Island, the additional time to oversee the
Centex property would be a reasonable extension of his/her duties.
However, the management will be very dependent on the nature of
the programs and the construction in the park, and Atlantic Beach
has pointed out its desire to leave 90% of the park in its natural
state. Atlantic Beach will review and approve the grant application
before it is submitted to Tallahassee.
Relative to AB acting as a co-applicant for the grant,this joint
action by Atlantic Beach and Jacksonville gives the grant
application additional points toward approval. The grant is a
competitive grant, and the points will be valuable in the approval
process. Jacksonville has already initiated the grant application,
and it should be ready by the end of the week. Staff should have
this application in time to place it on the May 24, 1999 City
Commission Agenda.
Under the existing proposal, there is no commitment to deed the
property to the City of Atlantic Beach. If the property remains the
possession of Jacksonville, then Atlantic Beach will not have to
insure it. Under the grant, the property will be required to remain
as park land for at least ten(10)years. The disadvantage, however,
is that Jacksonville could change the use of the property in ten (10)
years.
Capital expenditures have not been identified at this point, and
there has been no discussion as to the responsibility for funding
them. Since most of the park will be left in a natural state,the
capital costs should remain relatively low. However,this is an area
that has not been addressed at this time.
Summary: The City of Jacksonville would like for Atlantic Beach to
commit $190,000 to the purchase of the property, act as a co-applicant for
the grant funding to purchase the property, and commit to the management
of the park.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
Page Four
4111 Minutes - Special Called Meeting
May 12, 1999
2. Any other business:
Commissioner Borno reported that an Atlantic Beach firm had volunteered to provide T-shirts at no
cost for the concert being sponsored by the Teen Council, on condition that the shirts be given to the
volunteers. He suggested the shirts be yellow so they would stand out in a crowd. Commissioner
Borno moved to accept the donation of twenty "Sun" colored T-shirts from a local Atlantic
Beach company, with the agreed-to printing to be put together by the City Manager and
Commissioner Borno. The motion was seconded by Mayor Shaughnessy.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the shirts should say"Security" or"Staff" and the Mayor said
she would prefer the word "Staff" on the shirts. The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Meserve reported the Mayport sewer project was becoming very expensive
because of unanticipated problems with as-built plans, and had come to a halt . He reported
phase one of the sewer line was completed and in operation and the city would soon realize
revenues for the service. With respect to the paving of Washington Street he said many truck
loads of sand would have to be removed and replaced with proper fill.
City Attorney Jensen reported that Miles Francis, Executive Director of the Jacksonville
Transportation Authority, (JTA)had requested a legal opinion from the office of the General
Counsel for the City of Jacksonville regarding the right of the JTA to construct an overpass
located within Atlantic Beach when Atlantic Beach had raised objections under its ordinance
code regarding the height of the overpass. Mr. Jensen distributed a copy of the legal opinion
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Mayor Shaughnessy inquired whether the JTA was under any obligation to respond to
negative input received during public hearings and the City Attorney advised that if the JTA
was found to have abused their authority they could be stopped, otherwise they could do
what was necessary to plan and build the roads.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed A-1-A improvements and Commissioner Borno
noted that this project was stopped because of negative input. Commissioner Meserve,
however, pointed out that there had been consensus between the Beaches Cities and the
community regarding the A-1-A project and there had not been consensus in this area against
the flyover. The Navy supports the improvements and also the Fleet Landing residents had
sent a petition to the JTA supporting the improvements.
The Mayor said she would prefer the funds be directed to the Beach Boulevard bridge. She
said she had learned that in the event of an evacuation the Corps of Engineers was responsible
for navigation and the bridge would be opened to allow their boats to pass through. She also
felt that the construction of Wonderwood Road would alleviate some of the traffic problems
at the Mayport Road/Atlantic Boulevard intersection.
Page Five
Minutes - Special Called Meeting
May 12, 1999
The Mayor confirmed that no response had been received from the JTA regarding their
representatives attending a workshop meeting with Atlantic Beach City Commission
regarding the flyover, and requested that the City Manager be directed to telephone the JTA
and ask them if they intended to attend the workshop meeting .
The Mayor solicited the wishes of the City Commission regarding whether they would like
to have a meeting with staff to receive their input regarding the R-A-M report. Following
discussion, it was agreed to advise staff that the City Commission would like to receive any
input they wished to submit regarding the R-A-M report and a meeting was tentatively
scheduled for Wednesday, May 19, 1999 for this purpose. However, the mayor suggested
leaving it up to staff to determine if they feel a written report would suffice, or if they would
prefer to have a workshop meeting. A joint workshop with R-A-M and the Stormwater
Review Committee would be held at a later date.
There being no further discussion or business to come before the City Commission, the Mayor
declared the meeting adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
SUZANNE SHAUG f$ SSY
Mayor
ATTEST:
ifYiMA EN KIN
Certified Municipal Cl
1;4—== 11z-it UM.OFFICE OF GEN COUNSEL
EXHIBIT B 3
MINUTES - MAY 12, 1999
r04 ;)
OFFICE OF
RICHARD A.MULLANEY GENERAL COUNSEL TEL(904)630-1700GENERALCOUNSELCITYOFJACKSONVILLEFAX(904)630.1731
117 WEST DUVAL STREET,SUITE 480
CINDY A. LAQUIDARA JACKSONVILLE,FLORIDA 32202 DIRECT DIAL NUMBERCHIEFDEPUTYGENERALCOUNSEL
630.1728EMAIL:CINDYL®coJ,NET
May 11, 1999
Post-Ir Fax Note 7671 °at0 S-17)_95 ad9°S
To LQ h Y e vi Fir• 4•ots1 rC_
Miles N. Francis, Jr., Executive Director CoJDcat, co.
Jacksonville Transportation Authority Prone# A" U- I-7 a
100 N. Myrtle Avenue Fax•
GR,.../(p,q cl th
Fax*
Cv
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Re: Request for Legal Opinion; Atlantic Boulevard Overpass
Dear Mr. Francis:
You have asked for a legal opinion regarding the right of the Jacksonville
Transportation Authority (the JTA) to construct an overpass located within Atlantic
Beach when the City of Atlantic Beach has raised objections under its ordinance code to
the height of the overpass. As set forth below in more detail, the JTA is empowered to
construct the overpass regardless of such an objection.
Bacicg oun :
The JTA is responsible,along with the Florida Department of Transportation, for
the construction of state roads within Duval County. Fla. Stat. Section 349. In keeping
with its rights and liabilities under Section 349, the JTA conducted a review of the traffic
and safety conditions surrounding the interchange of Mayport Road and Atlantic
Boulevard_ These conditions pointed to the nerd for a revised traffic pattern. Following
a detailed study by professional traffic and structural engineers engaged for that purpose,
the JTA identified four possible alternatives. Public hearings were held, and, although
unnecessary, the Atlantic Beach City Commissioners approved the overpass.
c acvrt:llrr ll-.t ur UEN COUNSEL ID:9046301316 PAGE 2/3
Miles N. Francis, Jr.
May 11, 1999
Page - Two -
Subsequently, questions were raised by Atlantic Beach concerning the design of
the overpass. As a courtesy, the project was delayed while those concerns were reviewed.
Question:
Assuming that the Atlantic Beach/Mayport Road overpass is the subject of a
determination by Atlantic Beach that its construction would violate the Atlantic Beach
zoning code height restrictions, may the JTA construct the roadway?
Short Answer:
Yes, the JTA may construct the roadway despite Atlantic Beach's objections.
Discussion:
The JTA is created as a stateenag cy, with the powers to design and construct state
roadways and appurtenances thereto in Duval County, Florida. Fla. Stat. Section
349.04. In furtherance of its obligations to determine the need and safety issues
necessary with regard to the construction of such roadways, the JTA is not required to
abandon its determination and construction plans to address height limitations within
a community, even assuming such zoning limitations were intended to apply tooverpasses, which they are do not. Moreover, Section 349.042 expressly identifies those
hearings and constraints placed upon the JTA in the planning and construction of its
roadways. It is notable that Section 349.042 provides for hearings, and notices, but not
for the veto or overriding of any JTA decision as to the necessity of construction.
It is notable that this issue was put to rest as to the FOOT, in an opinion equallyapplicabletothe )TA. See Department o,f Transportation v. Lopez-Torres, 526 So.2d 674
Fla. 1988).
Conclusion:
trust that this opinion has provided the guidance sought. Please feel free to call
Vl vi,. I.VU,VDGL lu. ovb:3101a1b PAGE 3/3
Miles N. Francis, Jr.
May 11, 1999
41110 Page - Three -
me should you have any further questions or require any additional information.
Very truly yours,
Cindy A. Laquid(a/
Chief Deputy General Counsel
i
5/11/99 CAL G:4SHARECJWIND LVTIALEGALppZONING.HOT
526 So.2d 674 Page 1
13 Fla. L. Weekly 263
Cite as: 526 So.2d 674)
110
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Planning and Land Development Regulation Act;
Petitioner, however, Act does not divest Department of its
v.plenary power to plan and construct state roads and
Dr.and Mrs.Augusto LOPEZ-TORRES,Town of bridges and thus, Department may route state road
Ocean Ridge and Audubon Society of bridge through or into municipality by way of
the Everglades, Respondents. corridor that conflicts with municipality's
comprehensive growth plan. West's F.S.A. §§
No. 69,035. 163.3161-163.3215.
Supreme Court of Florida. 2] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND
PROCEDURE 0755
April 14, 1988.I5Ak755
Department of Transportation's power to plan and
Rehearing Denied July 7, 1988. construct state roads and bridges, while plenary, is
not absolute; dictates of Department can be
Community, citizens and environmental society overridden if they are found to be without authority
appealed final administrative order entered by and constitute abuse of discretion.
Department of Transportation which reversed hearing
officer's ruling that community was entitled to 2] BRIDGES C=7
summary order on its challenge to Department's 64k7
decision to reconstruct bridge over navigable island Department of Transportation's power to plan and
waterway at different location from that of existing construct state roads and bridges, while plenary, is
plan. The District Court of Appeal, Letts, J., 488 not absolute; dictates of Department can be
So.2d 848, reversed and remanded. Upon overridden if they are found to be without authority
certification of questions, the Supreme Court, Kogan, and constitute abuse of discretion.
S J., held that Department of Transportation had
authority to route state road bridge through 2] HIGHWAYS C=99
municipality in corridor that conflicted with 200k99
municipality's comprehensive growth plan. Department of Transportation's power to plan and
construct state roads and bridges, while plenary, is
Approved in part,quashed in part,and remanded. not absolute; dictates of Department can be
overridden if they are found to be without authority
1] BRIDGES C:::›18 and constitute abuse of discretion.
64k18 674 Maxine F. Ferguson, Appellate Atty. and A.J.
Local governments and Department of Transportation Spalla, General Counsel, Dept. of Transp.,
should cooperate and coordinate their transportation Tallahassee, for petitioner.
planning efforts to greatest extent possible as
provided by the Local Government Comprehensive Hugh MacMillan, Jr. of Hewitt & MacMillan, P.A.,
Planning and Land Development Regulation Act; Palm Beach Gardens, James R. Brindell of Gunster,
however, Act does not divest Department of its Yoakley, Criser & Stewart, P.A., and John C.
plenary power to plan and construct state roads and Randolph of Johnston, Sasser, Randolph & Weaver,
bridges and thus, Department may route state road West Palm Beach,for respondents.
bridge through or into municipality by way of
corridor that conflicts with municipality's James W. Vance of Janes W. Vance, P.A., West
comprehensive growth plan. West's F.S.A. §§ Palm Beach, amicus curiae for City of Boynton
163.3161-163.3215.Beach, Fla.
111 HIGHWAYS 0103 J. Michael Haygood of Haygood & Williams, P.A.,
200k103 West Palm Beach, amicus curiae for Boynton Beach
Local governments and Department of Transportation Community Redevelopment Agency.
should cooperate and coordinate their transportation
planning efforts to greatest extent possible as KOGAN,Justice.
provided by the Local Government Comprehensive
Copr. 0 West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S.Govt. Works
526 So.2d 674
Page 2
Cite as: 526 So.2d 674, *674)
The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, has Department of Transportation entered a final order
III certified the following as questions of great public which adopted the findings of fact set forth in the
importance: recommended order. However,the Secretary rejectedI. Has the legislature preempted municipalities from the hearing officer's conclusions of law, finding those
exercising any control over the establishment of conclusions disturbed the DOT's plenary and
state roads and bridges? exclusive power granted to it by the legislature to
II. Does the DOT have the authority to route a state plan, establish and locate the state road system. No
road bridge through or into a municipality in a full evidentiary hearing was held, and the DOT
corridor that specifically conflicts with the entered a final administrative order authorizing
municipality's comprehensive growth plan? construction of the bridge at the new location.
III. Were the procedural standards employed in the
case at bar sufficient to justify the DOT's decision On appeal the Fourth District Court of Appeal found
on the merits? reversible error on the ground that the respondents
Lopez-Torres v. Department of Transportation, 488 had been denied due process of law because theySo.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). This Court has never received a full evidentiary hearing on thejurisdictionpursuanttoarticleV, section 3(b)(4), merits. The district court concluded that the DOT's
Florida Constitution. *675 For the reasons expressed power, while plenary, was not absolute and therefore,
we answer the first two questions in the affirmative after reexamining the evidence, declared that the
and the third question in the negative, and remand DOT's decision to relocate the bridge was clearly
this cause for a full evidentiary hearing. erroneous and constituted an abuse of discretion. The
district court reversed and remanded the cause for a
The dispute arose between the Lopez-Torres and the full hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida
Department of Transportation (DOT) over the DOTS Statutes(1983).
decision to construct a replacement state road bridge
700 feet north of the existing Boynton Beach span. The legislature has statutorily vested a broad
Although the DOT objected, the town of Ocean discretionary authority in the DOT to plan and
Ridge and the Audubon Society were permitted to construct state roads and bridges. The Florida
intervene. The respondents filed a motion for Transportation Code (Code) (codified as chapters
summary recommended order, asserting that the DOT 334-39, 341, 348 and 349, and sections
was precluded from relocating the proposed 332.003-.007, 351.35-.37, and 861.011), section 334,
replacement bridge because the relocation site was Florida Statutes (1985), provides for a statewide
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of Ocean transportation system under the supervision and
Ridge, enacted pursuant to section 163.3161, Florida control of the DOT. The Code specifies the
Statutes(1985). responsibilities of the DOT, the counties, and the
municipalities, establishing a stratified structure of
Although other issues were alleged in the pleadings control under which the DOT has the primary power
which instituted this administrative proceeding, [FN*] to plan, construct and maintain the state road system.
the parties stipulated that the hearing would only As Judge Anstead correctly points out in his dissent,
address the issue of law in the respondents'motion for this Court in Webb v. Hill, 75 So.2d 596 (Fla.1954),
summary recommended order. The hearing officer explained that the DOT's authority preempts
subsequently issued a recommended order barring the municipalities from exercising any control over the
DOT from relocating the state road bridge as a matter establishment of state roads and bridges:
of law because the proposed relocation was The boards of municipalities and counties of the
inconsistent with, and therefore precluded by, Ocean state are vested with no authority, duty or discretion
with reference to the location, designation andRidge's comprehensive plan.
construction of the state roads comprising the state
FN* The Lopez-Torres allege in their request for an highway system.... The authority to exercise
administrative hearing that the relocation of the discretion and make decisions is vested in the State
bridge "will have the effect of destroying the quality Road Department by the Legislature.
of the residential property of petitioner and will also 75 So.2d at 599. We agree that the discretionary
be destructive to environmentally sensitive property authority over the state road system still rests with the
immediately adjacent to the residence of petitioner." DOT and reject the respondents' argument that the
present *676 statutory law of Florida grants authority
After reviewing the record the Secretary of the to a municipality to exercise control over the
Copr.®West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
526 So.2d 674 Page 3
Cite as: 526 So.2d 674, *676)
establishment of state roads and bridges. upon the DOT to comply with the relevant statutory
scheme authorizing the planning and construction of
1] Although the primary responsibility for planning our state roads and bridges, including the provisions
the location of state roads and bridges rests with the requiring public hearings and consideration of local
Department of Transportation, local governments are conditions.
required to develop and adhere to comprehensive
planning programs pursuant to the Local Government While we agree that the power vested in the DOT is
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development limited to the lawful exercise of its discretion, we do
Regulation Act (Act) (codified at section not agree with the fourth district that an examination
163.3161-.3215), section 163.3161, Florida Statutes of the record in this case, consisting primarily of the
1985). Among the issues to be included in a DOT's internal files, yields a finding that the DOTs
community's plan are those issues addressing existing final order authorizing the bridge construction in the
and proposed transportation routes. The intent of the new location was "clearly erroneous and constituted
Act was to encourage and assure coordination an abuse of discretion." Although a hearing was held,
between state and local levels of government in the parties stipulated that the only issue to be
planning and development activities. § 163.3164, addressed was the narrow point of law raised in the
Fla.Stat. (1985). We see no reason to engage in an respondents' motion for summary recommended
analysis of each statutory provision cited by the order--whether the DOT is precluded from choosing a
respective parties. A careful reading of the Act in construction site for the proposed bridge that is
pari materia with the Code reflects that local inconsistent with Ocean Ridge's comprehensive plan.
governments and the DOT should cooperate and No factual findings were made regarding the
coordinate their transportation planning efforts to the respondents' other allegations. Because a full
greatest extent possible; but the Act does not divest evidentiary hearing was never held in which the
the DOT of its plenary power to plan and construct respondents could present evidence to determine
state roads and bridges. By virtue of its preemptive whether the DOT abused its discretion, it is not
authority, the DOT may route a state road bridge possible to conclude the DOT's decision to relocate
S
through or into a municipality by way of a corridor the bridge was unlawful. Whether the DOT abused
that conflicts with the municipality's comprehensive its discretion is a question of fact that must be
growth plan. If the DOT was bound to build the determined in a full evidentiary hearing.
proposed bridge at the existing location in accordance
with the comprehensive plan of Ocean Ridge, then Accordingly, we agree with the fourth district that
the construction site of the bridge would be the respondents were denied due process of law
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of Boynton because no full evidentiary hearing was held.
Beach. Without this preemptive authority the DOT However, we disapprove of the district court's
would have no way to resolve any conflict between analysis that an abuse of discretion has been shown.
the comprehensive plans of neighboring communities This question of fact must be determined in a full
with the respect to the location of state roads and evidentiary hearing by a hearing *677 officer based
bridges. upon all of the evidence presented. Therefore, we
approve the decision of the district court to the extent
2] This is not to say, however, that the DOT's it is consistent with this opinion, quash that portion in
power, while plenary, is absolute. We agree with the which the district court finds the Department of
fourth district court's reading of State of Florida v. Transportation abused its discretion,and remand for a
Florida State Improvement Comm'n., 75 So.2d 1 full evidentiary hearing.
Fla.1954), that the power vested in the DOT is not
absolute and is limited to the lawful exercise of its It is so ordered.
discretion. Its dictates can be overridden if they are
found to be without authority and constitute an abuse McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH,
of discretion. Webb at 599. The DOT must exercise SHAW,BARKETT and GRIMES,JJ.,concur.
its discretion to devise plans and select sites that best
serve the public need. In so doing it is incumbent END OF DOCUMENT
I
Copr.C West 1999 No Claim to Orig. U.S.Govt. Works