STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

INTERBAY PROPERTIES AND )

CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-1790

)

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ) TRANSPORTATION and SEABOARD ) COASTLINE RAILROAD COMPANY, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this cause came on the be heard before Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, on November 8, 1976 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 104, Collins Building, Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William L. Boyd, Esquire

Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32303

For Respondent Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Counsel, Department of Transportation Transportation: Haydon Burns Building

Tallahassee, Florida 3230

For Respondent Seaboard Coastline

Railroad Company: No appearance

ISSUE

Whether there should be a public at-grade opening and new roadway construction on 54th Avenue North, Section No. 15,000-6619 Pinellas County Parcel No. 1 (XSO-H) 2,088 feet northwest of Mile Post SY-886.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner is developing a 162 lot subdivision on a tract of land in Pinellas County which is adjacent to railroad tracts maintained by the Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company. To service that subdivision, Petitioner seeks a permit from the Respondent Florida Department of Transportation for a public railroad crossing at the intersection of the railroad and 54th Avenue North.

The Petitioner contends:

1. That the nearest other public railroad crossing would not be adequate to serve this new development area, even though it does provide an access to the proposed subdivision.

   
   

2. That the area would be best served with a new access at 54th Avenue North which would become the main route into the subdivision.

   
   

3. That a second access is required to obtain financing by the Federal Housing Administration.

   
   

4. That the proposed access would provide better municipal emergency service.

   
   

5. That it would immediately provide a fully signalized crossing whereas the existing crossing might not be signalized for a number of years.

   
   

6. That the new crossing would prevent heavy traffic from using the existing crossing.

The Respondent Florida Department of Transportation contends:

1. That from a safety point of view, it is generally better to reduce the number of railroad highway crossings.

   
   

2. That the crossing currently in existence is now and may be adequate in that it eventually will be fully signalized and upgraded by Pinellas County.

   
   

3. That at some time in the future this railroad corridor may be used for mass transit or as a light rail facility, and if such usage occurred, it would be better to have fewer crossings across the tracts.

   
   

4. That if the crossing is permitted, it recommends a certain type of signalization, a certain type of intersection upgrading and restrictions on nearby building structures.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The railroad crossing at 59th Avenue North can serve as a single access to the proposed subdivision. Use of the access as the only entrance to the subdivision requires travel through a substandard area and requires the Petitioner to upgrade 1900 feet of a county owned road at its own expense (59th Avenue North).

   
   

2. Two accesses would be convenient to the future homeowners and permit better accessibility for emergency vehicles and for service vehicles.

   
   

3. If the proposed crossing is not approved, the Petitioner may not be able to obtain private or government subsidized financing (FHA) for the proposed subdivision.

   
   

4. With respect to the proposed crossing at 54th Avenue North, the Petitioner has obtained an easement from Pinellas County for an extension of 54th Avenue across the railroad tracks into the subdivision. Pinellas County has accepted responsibility for perpetual maintenance of the crossing if the proper signalization is installed, at no expense to the county.

5. The Respondent Florida Department of Transportation recommends that if the crossing is permitted, the following conditions be met:

   
   

   1. 54th Avenue North should be constructed with a six inch raised vertical curb on each side of the railroad tracks.

   2. 54th Avenue North should be modified to eliminate the dip which presently exists on each side of the railroad tracks in order to improve visibility.

   3. Side-mounted flashing lights, gates and bells should be installed at the crossing.

   4. That no structures should be built on the small triangular piece of land designated as Parcel B on Petitioner's Exhibit 3.

      
      

6. The Respondent recommended and the Petitioner agreed that the signalization and roadway modifications will be installed or constructed without cost to the Florida Department of Transportation.

   
   

7. The possible use of the railroad corridor as a mass transit or light rail facility is speculative at this time.

   
   

8. The Respondent Seaboard Coastline Railroad had notice of the hearing and made no appearance.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.

   
   

10. Section 338.21(3), Florida Statutes, provides that the Florida Department of transportation ". . .shall have regulatory authority over all public railroad crossings in the state, including the authority to issue a permit for the opening and closing of such crossings."

    
    

11. Section 338.21(2), Florida Statutes, provides that "Every railroad company maintaining a railway-highway crossing shall, upon reasonable demand and notice from the department, install, maintain, and operate at such crossing an automatic flashing light signal and ringing bell, the design of which shall be approved by the department. . ."

RECOMMENDATION

The Parties have shown that the crossing is necessary for the safety of the future residents of the area and that when developed, there will be a need for two accesses to the subdivision.

Issuance of a permit for the proposed railroad crossing at 54th Avenue North with the conditions set forth in the fifth and sixth Finding of Fact.

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida.

DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

William L. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

G. S. Burleson, Sr.

Assistant State Utility Engr. Haydon Burns Building, DOT Tallahassee, Florida 32304

Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad

500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207

Henry Van Kestern

Cambell - Van Kesteren, Inc. 4422 Cantral Avenue

St. Petersburg, Florida 33711

W. L. Anderson

District Utility Engineer, DOT Post Office Box 1249

Bartow, Florida 37516

W. Gray Dunlap, Esquire County Attorney

315 Haven Street Clearwater, Florida 37516

Thomas J. Murphy Post Office Box 1304

St. Petersburg, Florida 33733

Docket for Case No: 76-001790

Orders for Case No: 76-001790