Findings Of Fact Nannette K. Scoggins is the owner of the real property located at 5622 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida in Manatee County. Nannette K. Scoggins' property, the petitioner's property, 5624 Gulf Drive, and the other adjacent property, 5620 Gulf Drive, are zoned as "A-1 Hotel-Motel" under the City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance. On November 13, 1983, Mrs. Scoggins submitted to DNR an application for a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (control line). The proposed project, known as Jansea Place, would consist of two multifamily dwellings, four units to a building, divided by a swimming pool. A portion of the most seaward building would extend a maximum of 57 feet seaward of the control line. By letter dated July 11, 1984, DNR notified petitioner that the department was considering the permit application. The petitioner responded by letter dated July 18, 1984, objecting to any construction seaward of the control line. On October 1, 1984, petitioner received notification that DNR intended to recommend approval of the permit. The permit was scheduled for a vote by the Governor and Cabinet on October 16, 1984. The staff of DNR recommended approval of the permit. By telegram dated October 15, 1984, the petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and on October 22, 1984, petitioner filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The application for permit No. ME-89 is a complete application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line. On October 5, 1983, the Superintendent of Public Works of the City of Holmes Beach certified that this project does not violate any ordinance of the City of Holmes Beach. The plans for the proposed project are signed and sealed by an architect registered in the State of Florida, and the submitted plans comply with the design standards established in Rule 16B-33.07, Florida Administrative Code to resist adequately the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event. The plans, specifications, drawings and other information submitted to DNR with the application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line are complete and accurate, and meet the requirements of DNR for that purpose. Under the provisions of Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, the application was determined to be complete on August 6, 1984. The proposed construction is located landward of an existing vertical concrete bulkhead. The seawall was built jointly by the Scoggins and Mr. McLean, who owns the property immediately to the south of the Scoggins' property. The seawall was built after the hurricane of 1972 because the existing dune system had been destroyed. Since that time, the mean high water line has continued to encroach landward to the point where it is now east of the wall. However, the seawall is not necessary for the protection of the proposed building. Although the seawall would fail under the direct impact of a major hurricane, the proposed building is adequately designed to withstand the impact erosion, the wave loads, the winds, and the water forces associated with a major hurricane. The necessity and justification for the project's location in relation to the control line is stated in the application, and petitioner has not challenged the necessity or justification. The City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance requires that the buildings be separated by a minimum of 30 feet. Since the proposed buildings are separated by 30 feet, the proposed seaward building is located as far landward as possible without violating the zoning ordinance. Erosion and structural damage occurred as a result of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and the "No Name" storm in 1982 in the area between 1,000 feet south of the Scoggins' property and 500 feet north of the Scoggins' property. Although the beach was fairly stable from 1974 to 1979, the beach began to erode in 1980. When the seawall was built in 1974, the dune line was even with the seawall. However, as can be seen from a comparison of the photographs taken in June of 1979 with those taken in early 1985, the beach has eroded since June of 1979 and the dune line is now several feet landward of the seawall. The DNR recommendation for approval of the Scoggin's permit application was based upon historical erosion data for the period between 1940 and 1974, which was the most recent data available that could be used to review the project. Mr. Clark stated that the application was recommended for approval based on the design of the proposed building and its alignment with existing structures built seaward of the control line. The proposed project is located landward of a line of existing structures. Although the adjacent properties have been affected by erosion, there was no evidence presented to show that the existing structures located seaward of the control line have been unduly affected by erosion. In 1974, when the seawall was being constructed, the worker building the seawall dug up part of the petitioner's property and destroyed the sea oats he had planted. However, the proposed project has a driveway encircling the building which would provide vehicular access to the seawall if necessary. The proposed project will partially obstruct petitioner's view to the southwest. However, there was no evidence presented that petitioner's property or the other adjacent property, would be adversely affected in any other way by the proposed project. There was no evidence presented that the proposed project would be affected by, or have an effect on, beach or coastal erosion. The proposed project would have no effect on the beach dune system.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that DNR issue Permit Number ME-89 to Nannette K. Scoggins. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1985.
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction at Everglades Boulevard-State Road 710- Section 91000-6604, Okeechobee County Parcel 1 (right of way XSO-8).
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail-highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Okeechobee County through its agent Moseley Collins, P. E., County Engineer. The crossing location is southeast of the city of Okeechobee, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Everglades Boulevard. The proposed crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad at Seaboard Coastline milepost 911.93. The crossing would serve a growing subdivision approximately three (3) miles wide and nine (9) miles long, an area in which approximately 3,000 people live. There is one entrance to the subdivision across Highway 441 South. There is a second grade crossing signalized with crossbucks known as the Hazellieff Road crossing. This crossing does not serve the subject subdivision inasmuch as the road dead-ends after crossing the railroad. There are no current plans to buy up the right of way and extend the road at the Hazellieff crossing. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad would prefer that the Applicant extend the road to serve the subject subdivision. The Hazellieff crossing is approximately one-half mile from the proposed crossing, but the Applicant states that the crossing serves only a few families and the Applicant does not own the right of way across the muck-pitted area and has no plans to extend the road that crosses the railroad at Hazellieff crossing. There is an estimated average daily traffic count of 2,000 cars per day which would use the proposed crossing. There are six passenger train movements every twenty-four hours on the railroad at those crossings. There are six through freights every twenty-four hours and four local freights every twenty- four hours, plus additional extra trains as needed. The speeds range up to 79 miles per hour for passenger trains and 60 miles per hour for freight trains. The passenger trans are the AMTRAK trains. A need has been established for another opening across the railroad because of the long and circuitous route that must be traveled to enter the subdivision. In the event of a storm, there is an additional hazard to the road because of two bridges that must be crossed. The proposed opening would decrease greatly the mileage to be traveled to fire or hospital. The parties agreed that the proper signalization for the proposed crossing would be automatic crossing gates, flashing lights and ringing bells. The Applicant contends that an opening is needed to serve the growing subdivision known as Treasure Island; that the existing crossing is insufficient as far as the safety of the community is concerned and requires a much longer way to be traveled by the residents of the subdivision. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad contends that the existing public opening should be used and right of way bought by the county so that there would not be an additional crossing of the tracks. AMTRAK contends that there should be no new openings across the tracks where the passenger trains attain high speeds unless there is a great need and a study made to see if there cannot be a closing to balance the opening across the tracks. Florida Department of Transportation contends that a need has been established for the crossing and that the parties have agreed that lights, bells and gates are the needed signalization. The Hearing Officer further finds: That a need has been established by the Applicant. That proper signalization includes flashing lights, ringing bells and gates.
Recommendation Grant permit, providing there is a clearance from the Safety Engineer as to the visibility problem pointed out by the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Daniel H. Brunner, Esquire 955 L'Enfant Plaza, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20024 W. L. Hendry, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1337 Okeechobee, Florida Jack J. Vereen, Jr. Assistant Division Engineer 2206 N. W. 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33127 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled case at Trenton, Florida on July 8, 1980.
Findings Of Fact After DNR issued a cease and desist order to Petitioner, forbidding further construction on his Walton County lot seaward of the coastal construction control line, he applied for an after-the-fact permit authorizing work to go forward on a three-story ten-unit condominium, which would occupy some 95 percent of the width of his lot, and extend 34 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. DNR staff stated the following, in recommending denial: There presently exists over 160 feet of property located landward of the control line in which the proposed structure could be sited. The staff is concerned that the proposed encroachment is not justified, nor considered necessary for reasonable use of the property. In addition, staff is concerned about the potential cumulative effects of siting major structures seaward of the control line along this section of the coast, which contains a number of undeveloped lots, as well as redevelopable lots. The cumulative impact of such construction will result in significant disturbance and damage to well-established, mature vegetation and eventual destabilization of the coastal barrier dune ridge. Also, the proposed encroachment and shore-parallel site coverage will have an adverse impact on the natural recovery processes of the beach/dune system following the impact of a major storm event. The proposed building is not designed in accordance with the standards set forth in Subsections 16B-33.05(6) and 16B-33.07(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. File number WL-183 ATF has been assigned. . . . RECOMMENDED DENIAL, ASSESMENT OF A CIVIL FINE OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) AND REQUIRING REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The "reference [to] the extensive site coverage was not only the shore parallel site coverage, but also included the proposed encroachment seaward of the control line." (T. 18). DNR staff opposes construction on Mr. Hill's lot of a habitable structure seaward of the control line. (T. 19, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, pp. 12 and 13). Petitioner Hill timely instituted formal proceedings on his application, WL-183 ATF, and Case No. 85-2455 is still pending. Shore Parallel Site Coverage Since October of 1983, in processing coastal construction permit applications, DNR has taken into account "shore parallel site coverage," i.e., DNR staff have considered the relationship between lot width and the width of any structure proposed to be built fronting the water, seaward of a coastal construction control line. A succession of waterfront buildings stretching the entire width of their respective lots walls off the foreshore from more landward dunes. "[I]f you cover an extensive portion of the beach in the shore parallel direction, you tend to she[a]r off the upland area from the beach area and limit and inhibit the natural recovery processes of the dune system." (T. 15) With respect to Petitioner's proposed project and any other of this size and shape planned this far down on a similarly platted, developed and configured beach, DNR engineers put the maximum acceptable width of the structure at 50 to 60 percent of the lot's gulf frontage. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, p. 23; T. 20, 22, 32, 35. DNR has no written policy limiting the width of structures built seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although DNR endeavors to treat similar sites similarly, sites vary significantly and different widths may be allowed on similar sites when structures with different depths are planned. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, pp. 9-13. In its post-hearing memorandum in support of Petitioner's rule challenge to DNR's non-rule policy regarding side setbacks, Petitioner quotes the following: Q: Would you generally recommend this 50 to 60 percent shore-parallel site coverage for other types of similarily situated lots, either on the same beach or on other beaches in Florida? A: The reference 50 to 60 percent is something we would feel comfortable with in certain areas of the beach that have similar characteristics and existing--similar situations regarding existing development, potential for redevelopment, stability of the dune area, and things of that nature. It certainly wouldn't apply--those figures wouldn't apply to all areas of the Florida coastline. [Deposition of Brett Moore, September 10, 1985, pp. 16-17.] Q: But for, say, a similarly situated beach, maybe you would try to get people to move toward that time of width without specifically telling them that that's the width of coverage that you desire. A: For the two areas I mentioned, I feel that something in the vicinity of 60 percent site coverage would be acceptable to the staff, and that's what I would tell people if someone proposed a project in that area today. [Deposition of Brett Moore, p. 27.] A: Given that amount of encroachment on the dune, I feel that a reasonably acceptable shore-parallel coverage, given that shore- normal coverage, that would not have a significant adverse impact, would probably be between zero percent coverage and thirty percent coverage. In terms of what we would recommend, generally, in what kind of dune encroachment of a major structure, approximately a thirty-foot width, or about fifty percent coverage would probably be acceptable in terms of the impact to the dune and the recovery potential following a major storm event. Q: Okay. Did you--so fifty percent would probably be okay by your lights; is that a fair characterization of that statement you just made? A: Yeah, I could recommend a fifty percent coverage there, . . . In terms of what I would recommend for a site like that with that kind of encroachment with a major structure on the dune, I would recommend approximately fifty percent coverage. Q: What about for a similar type of beach, not one down in Charlotte County or any place like that, but let's just say a similar type of beach somewhere in the panhandle, same relative dimensions, topography and the like? A: So for the same---for the same site, I would recommend the same. [Deposition of Ralph Clark, pp. 10-11.] At 2-3. Neither this evidence nor any other adduced at hearing proved the existence of an agency statement of general, statewide application purporting in and of itself to have the direct and consistent effect of law. It is DNR's policy to treat similarly situated landowners similarly and to consider cumulative impact. The parties proposed orders contain proposed findings of fact which are addressed by number in an appendix to this final order.
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Transportation should issue a permit for the installation of a railroad crossing in the vicinity of the S.C.L. Railroad Company Milepost, 775 feet North of Milepost SW-873 on the alignment of 12th Avenue, East, Bradenton, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Having heard the testimony of witnesses for the Petitioner and Respondents and the arguments of those witnesses appearing and of counsel for the Department of Transportation on the issues and considering the evidence presented in this cause, it is found as follows: Petitioner, City of Bradenton, Florida is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, duly authorized to establish and maintain city streets within the boundaries of the City of Bradenton, Florida. The City of Bradenton has heretofore filed an application with the Dept. of Transportation of the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 338.21 Florida Statutes for permission to establish a graded railroad crossing for 12th Avenue East between 9th and 10th street East, a city street, proposed to intersect the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracks approximately 775 feet north of Milepost SW-873 of the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. 12th Avenue would serve that portion of the city which has experienced rapid development and substantial increase in population. An existing crossing on 13th Avenue was technically closed by the city but in fact both public and private use is made of the crossing. The 13th avenue crossing is hazardous as now used and opening a crossing as proposed on 12th Avenue would take most of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic off 13th Avenue, and reroute it to 12th Avenue where the visibility is not restricted. The nearest public crossing is 9th Avenue between seven hundred and eight hundred feet away from 13th Avenue and a crossing is needed nearby. The parties agree that the 12th Avenue crossing is needed and that the 13th Avenue crossing is hazardous. The 13th Avenue crossing will remain a private crossing. The city and the railroad company agree: That a permit should be granted for the 12th Avenue crossing. That the crossing involves a switching operation of ten slow movements or less a day with no night traffic. That heavy use is involved only at the Tropicana plant work-time when employees are going to work or after work. Employees now use the 13th Avenue crossing. That a cross-buck, together with a flagging operation, is sufficient signalization. That a cross-buck together with a flagging operation will still be use at the 13th Avenue private crossing. That the proposed crossing is desirable and necessary and the proposed signalization is sufficient to protect the general public. The city agrees to bear the expense of installing the signalization and maintaining such crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The proposed crossing is necessary and desirable. The signalization is adequate as planned, to protect the public. The Petitioner city needs the crossing. The respondent railway company does not oppose the opening providing signalization and mainte- nance be provided by others. The respondent Department of Transportation safety engineer recommends that the permit be granted to open the crossing conditioned on: (a) the use of a flagman, (b) compliance by the city with the Manual on uniform control Devices 2B-42, 2C-31, 3B-16 (painting the railroad crossing sign on pavement, use of railroad warning disk, providing cross-bucks), (c) minimum sight distance, as agreed on by the railroad and Department of Transportation standards, (d) the crossing being constructed and maintained by other than the Department of Transportation. The city Petitioner has agreed to install cross-bucks and to maintain the crossing in safe and usable conditions.
The Issue The granting or denial of a permit to open a public at-grade crossing as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1977.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant petitions for a public at-grade crossing constructed in the vicinity of Mt. Dora, Florida, and 1,202 feet west of Milepost ATA-794 across the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company tracks. The purpose of this proposed crossing is to give public access from State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. Highway #441, to a shopping center, said shopping center containing a Publix Super Market, an Eckerd Drugs and a number of other retail stores to serve the public needs of Mt. Dora; all of the parties hereto having stipulated to the need for said crossing for public access to the shopping center, as the Applicant has no other means of ingress and egress to the shopping center which is completely constructed and ready for opening. The proposed crossing shall be a four-lane drive way, 64 feet in width, with two 24 foot paved access roads and a 16 foot median in the center. There are no permitted public at-grade crossings in the immediate vicinity; however, there are existing private grade crossings on both the east and west boundary of the shopping center which are used by the public. The existing grade crossing on the east is 787 feet from the proposed crossing, being DOT crossing #621-816X; the grade crossing on the west is 430 feet from the proposed crossing, being DOT crossing #621-818L. The Applicant has agreed that the only public access to the shopping center would be across the subject proposed public at-grade crossing and the public and the employees of the Applicant would be prevented from crossing the at-grade crossings on the east and west of the property by a chain-link fence to be constructed across the paved access roads that could allow traffic to use the two existing private at-grade crossings. The chain-link fence on the east side would be solid with no openings; the chain-link fence on the west side would contain an 8 foot gate which would be locked. The sole purpose of the gate would be to provide emergency vehicle access to the city of Mt. Dora for fire trucks, police or other emergency vehicles should the necessity arise for such access. The public would be unable, except in an emergency situation, to obtain access to the shopping center by using the existing private at-grade crossings to the east and west of the proposed public at-grade crossing. Applicant has shown that the shopping center is virtually complete and ready for opening and that there is an economic need and public necessity for said shopping center as shown by the market surveys done by the Applicant, by Publix Super Markets and Eckerd Drugs, and that it would work an economic hardship on the Applicant and deprive the citizens of Mt. Dora from the use of said shopping facilities if the public at-grade crossing is delayed in opening. It has been determined by the Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation that the immediate installation of the signals called for herein would adversely affect the scheduled installation of signal improvements at grade crossings deemed to have a higher statewide priority. The Applicant has agreed to provide two flagmen to be located at each of the paved entranceways to the proposed at-grade crossing to prevent traffic from entering or leaving the shopping center during train movements. Said persons shall be on duty between the hours of 2:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. or dusk, whichever occurs first, which are the hours of train movement across the proposed public at-grade crossing, there being at this time 3 trains per week, resulting in 6 movements over the proposed new public at-grade railroad crossing, with no night train movements and a train speed of 30 miles per hour. Further, said guards or flagmen shall have available to them a manual switch to control the vehicular traffic light on State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. 441, to prevent traffic movement while trains are crossing. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad has stipulated that they will flag the proposed public at-grade crossing on any train movements other than during the times set forth above; Stipulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Petitioner's Exhibit 1(a) and (b). The responsibility for the watchmen or flagmen at said crossing would end when the railroad active grade crossing advance warning devices become operational. The Applicant has further agreed to the Department of Transportation's recommendation to install, at the Applicant's cost, Class 4 signal devices with preemption of the vehicular traffic signal on State Road 500, also known as Old U.S. 441. The parties herein have agreed that there is a need for the proposed crossing and have no objection to the proposed crossing and signalization. The City of Mount Dora contends that a second public crossing is needed to serve the public.
Findings Of Fact After receiving evidence, hearing testimony and personally visiting the site of the subject railroad crossing and the area the crossing serves, I find: The subject of this hearing is a railroad crossing located 2,423 North of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post SPA-803 in an area designated Four Points Way on the west side of South Adams Street, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, contends that the crossing is now a public crossing and should be closed or appropriate safety equipment should be installed. The safety engineer for Petitioner recommends flashing lights and gates. Respondent contends that the present signalization is adequate and the crossing should not be closed; that the railroad should maintain the current safety signalization at the existing crossing and that appropriate markings should be made at the highway and street approach to the crossing. Public use has increased from a few crossings per day to a 24-hour count of 1,186 vehicles on an average day in July, 1978. The increase in traffic has been generated by the number of business establishments in the industrial area and increased business. A large business catering to home owners has generated a large amount of business in recent years. The railroad crossings and streets make a complicated and congested traffic pattern: The subject crossing is located West of South Adams Street (State Road 363) on a paved but privately owned paved and curbed street which serves the industrial area. There is a short street connecting South Adams Street and South Monroe Street (State Road 61) directly across South Adams Street from the subject crossing. The area intersection has two major highways, South Adams and South Monroe, crossing each other with several exits and entrances. There have been many reported traffic accidents. The Panhandle Concrete Industry, Inc., is a concrete plant which has an entrance intersecting with the private paved road in the industrial park area West of the railroad. It uses the subject railroad crossing. Directly to the East and South of the subject crossing is a public generated unimproved road intersecting with South Adams Street, a short distance from the crossing. Approximately 600 feet North of the subject crossing is a paved but non-signalized crossing that is used by the general public doing business with Carpet City, The Canoe Shop, Home of Fibercell Manufacturing, Inc., Signs by Matlock, and a Department of Education warehouse. It appears that said crossing is subject to regulation by petitioner under Section 338.21(3), Florida Statutes. Approximately 1,000 feet North of the subject crossing is a public crossing on Bragg Drive. This crossing is marked by railroad cross bucks. There is an entrance to Bragg Drive from the Department of Education warehouse and also from the foregoing named businesses primarily served by the paved but non-signalized crossing. Respondent, Albritton-Williams, requested a permit for the opening of an at-grade public crossing on October 22, 1973. Thereafter, at a public hearing on July 15, 1974, it moved to amend the application so it could pave the subject crossing and contended that the crossing was in fact a private crossing. On November 6, 1974, the Recommended Order, which was adopted as the Petitioner's Final Order, concluded that the crossing was a private crossing and that the Florida Department of Transportation had no jurisdiction. Thereafter, the owners of the industrial area paved the street to serve the private business interests of the industrial park. Subsequent to the issuance of the Recommended Order, and subsequent to the paving of the street, the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, determined that the formerly designated private crossing is in fact a public crossing and that the Petitioner has and should exert regulatory authority over the crossing as required by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes. It petitioned for subject hearing. There are a number of owners and lessees of the area including: Panhandle Concrete Industries, Inc.; Scottie's; Eli-Witt Company; Four Points Industrial Park and Albritton-Williams, Inc. These owners and lessees are all businesses which invite the public to their doors and presently require the crossing of subject railroad both to and from the businesses. There is no other improved exit or entrance to the industrial and business area. The roadways within the park have not been dedicated to the City, County or State. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad uses the three tracks enroute Lo St. Marks, Florida, three days a week, twice each day, travelling between ten and twenty miles per hour. The three to eight car train runs in the afternoons between 3:00 o'clock and 4:00 o'clock to St. Marks and returns. The tracks run North and South and the road runs East and West. The testimony elicited stated that the train takes about five minutes per crossing, six times each week, twice each day on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The rail highway grade crossing index introduced into evidence placed the crossing at 2,848 on a priority rating the highest being 8 and the lowest being 5,639 for corrective action at public railroad crossings in the State of Florida. The accident potential of subject crossing is 06 on a scale of 40.19. There have been no reported accidents at the subject crossing. The vehicular traffic at the crossing can back up on South Adams Street at the time of the crossing of the train for the reason that the area between the closest railroad track and the outer edge of the travel lane going South on Adams Street is approximately 90 to 95 feet with storage for about three vehicles. Highway and street approach markings although helpful would not solve the problem of congested traffic. The property that the existing crossing serves is within the cite limits of Tallahassee, Florida. The proposed order of the Respondent has been examined and each proposed fact has been treated in this Order. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject crossing is a public crossing and there has been a crossing in said general area which had been used by the public in excess of twenty years. There is a need for a railroad crossing to serve the industrial area that stretches from the privately paved road of Respondent North to Bragg Street and South of the concrete plant. A crossing in the area is required for the convenience of the business interest in the area. The subject crossing creates a hazard because of its location directly West of South Adams Street and across from the short cross-connection between South Adams Street and South Monroe Street. This hazard is increased by other cross-connections between these major streets and by a public railroad crossing on State Road 61, South Monroe Street approximately 400 feet South of the subject crossing. The hazard is caused by the location of the crossing rather than the crossing itself.
Recommendation Close the crossing in not less than 90 days or more than 100 days from date hereof. Upon petition by the respondent or other interested parties, open a crossing to serve the needs and convenience of the owners and lessees at the closing of the subject crossing at a location that will not cause a traffic hazard and will meet standards required by the Petitioner, Department of Transportation. Consideration should be given to directing all traffic crossing the railroad to one crossing serving the entire commercial area which includes interests in addition to respondents. The non-signalized crossing should be scrutinized. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Roy T. Rhodes, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jesse F. Warren, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 E. Eugene Buzard Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida Rhett Miller, City Engineer City Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: Petition of State of Florida, Department of Transportation for closing of, or in the alternative, installation of appropriate safety equipment at, CASE NO. 77-1751 a public at-grade railroad crossing 2,423 feet north of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company Mile Post SPA-803 and a proposed street at Four Points Industrial Park in Tallahassee, Florida. /
