Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing was entered into evidence and said notice was amended to reflect that the distance of an existing crossing north of the proposed crossing was 2,208' + north rather than 1,500' + north. The application was also changed to reflect that the proposed roadway was to extend the limits of a right of way to 120' instead of 100'. The change would place the mile post at a slightly different location. Upon examination of the area and taking testimony from the three attorneys involved in this hearing, it is the findings of this Hearing Officer that the change in location and the change in the proposed roadway is not of sufficient consequence that the hearing should have been postponed and re- noticed. Inasmuch as the parties directly involved were present, the owners of the railroad were represented, the owners of the Petitioner corporation were represented, there were representatives from the County and from the Florida Department of Transportation. A re-notice with the minor changes in location and in the width of the right of way would have been sent to the same representatives. The Notice of Hearing met the requirements of notice of public hearing. Petitioner Suntree Development Corporation is proposing to construct a connector road between Wickham Road and U.S. 1 approximately 2,208' south of an existing two-lane signalized (warning bells, lights, and gates) road crossing on Pineda Avenue in south Brevard County, Florida. The proposed road is to be four-laned with 120 foot right of way including a 20 foot medium strip. The road would be an access between U.S. 1 and the Suntree Community, a new community on approximately 2,800 acres of land which is predicted to have approximately 35,000 to 40,000 people after total development which is estimated to be completed within a 15 year period. The road would be a limited access with acceleration and deacceleration lines on U.S. 1 with an estimated total anticipated average daily traffic of from 23,000 to 60,000 trips per day. The proposed crossing involves a Type IV cantilevered signalization with bells, flashing lights and gates to be activated by trains. Cost of signalization and maintenance is to be borne by the Suntree Development Corporation. Petitioner is the primary owner of all the lands involved, but does not own all of the right of way needed to construct the crossing. Building is presently limited to a country club, sewage treatment plants, about a mile of roadway and two single family homes under construction and plans for the construction of some forty homes within the next few months. The proposed crossing was approved by the Brevard County Commission with the understanding that the crossing at Pineda Avenue would not be closed. The Florida East Coast Railway track in this area is a single track with 18 through freight trains a day which travel about 60 m.p.h. at the proposed crossing location. Two local freights move at unscheduled times across the railroad tracks. The tracks in the vicinity of the proposed crossing is nearly straight. The Florida East Coast Railway Company owns the right of way over the tracks and opposes the opening of another crossing in such close proximity to the crossing at Pineda Avenue, at this time. Storage capacity or storage area is the area in which cars can stand while awaiting clearance to proceed. The proposed road will contain 1,800' of storage area with 850' on the Wickham Road side and 950' on the U.S. 1 side. Using the average daily traffic figure when the community is developed, as calculated by Petitioner, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 3.28 minutes. Using the average daily traffic figures when the community is developed, as calculated by the Florida Department of Transportation, U.S. 1 would be blocked in 1.27 minutes. The Florida Department of Transportation recommends that an overpass be constructed rather than the at-grade crossing. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Pineda Avenue crossing can serve the vehicular traffic demand at present; Petitioner's plans for development, if realized, will demand another railroad cross- ing to serve the community; The proposed at-grade crossing is in such close proximity to U.S. 1 that it would be hazardous to vehicular traffic on U.S. 1 and the proposed Suntree entry road when the community is developed.
The Issue Whether permits for two public at-grade railroad crossings should be granted.
Findings Of Fact By application the Agrico Chemical Company seeks permits to open two public at-grade railroad crossings by constructing a spur track between the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and Agrico Railroad beginning 1,868 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Mile Post SVC 851 at Agrock, Florida. The application involves opening two public at-grade rail highway crossings by new rail line construction. The local popular name of the road is Fort Green Road and Payne Creek Road. Two tracks were constructed less than two years ago so that the Seaboard Coastline Railroad could come off their main line and come into Agrico and pick up loaded or unloaded cars for transportation to the south, north and west. Agrico now desires to construct a track which more directly ties into what they term their Payne Creek trackage to the southeast. The new crossings would come straight across the Seaboard Coastline mainline into the Fort Green trackage. Agrico would have to spend less time on Seaboard Coastline trackage and the plan is to erect electric signal crossings whereas there are no electric signal crossings in the area at the present time. Such signalization would render the crossings less hazardous. The Petitioner Agrico will pay for the signalization at both crossings. Signalization consists of bells and signal lights. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad will maintain the crossings and signalization at the expense of the Petitioner Agrico. There are twelve trains per day. The Respondent Seaboard Coastline Railroad was not represented at the hearing, but a letter was introduced stating that "Seaboard Coastline will indicate no objections to these crossings when the appropriate public hearing is scheduled". The Respondent Department of Transportation reviewed the subject application and expressed the desire of the district railroad committee that Agrico Chemical Company pay for the installation of flashing lights and that the installation would conform to the manual on uniform traffic control devices pertaining to signalized railroad crossings. It also stated that in the interest of good safety practices, no buildings should be constructed or plantings made that would prevent good sight distance at the crossing. Additionally, the Respondent Department of Transportation suggested that the railroad crossings be maintained by "other than the Department of Transportation". The Hearing Officer further finds: The application for new railroad trackage is in the interest of the Petitioner Agrico Chemical Company and is in the interest of the public using the two railroad crossings. Signalization as planned will increase the safety of vehicular traffic.
Findings Of Fact Respondent David A. Siegel (Siegel) formed a wholly owned corporation known as Central Florida Investments, Inc., (CFI) in approximately 1970. Thereafter, CFI acquired Investment Industries of Florida, Inc., (IIF) in approximately 1980. Siegel is President of both CFI and IIF and owns one-hundred percent of the stock in both corporations. On or about September 8, 1980, IIF purchased property in Lake County which was divided into Tract A and Tract B. Tract A consisted of approximately 120 acres, was subdivided into 49 lots, and was sold to individual purchasers by Paul W. Cotton and Paul A. Buzzella; real estate salesmen working for Siegel and IIF. Sales in Tract A occurred in 1980 and 1981 to approximately forty purchasers, and only one lot in Tract A was sold after December 1, 1981. The last sale in Tract A took place in February, 1983, was a referral, and did not involve Cotton or Buzzella. Paul W. Cotton formed First Orlando Properties (FOP) on or about September 17, 1981. On or about December 1, 1981 Cotton purchased six lots from IIF and Siegel in Tract B for the purpose of resale to individual purchasers. Tract B consisted of approximately 200 acres, subdivided into 48 lots. Based on the testimony of Cotton and Siegel, it is evident that Siegel had agreed to sell all of Tract B to Cotton in eight, six lot installments. This arrangement was for the financial convenience of Cotton, but an inference is drawn that Respondents benefited from Cotton's sales activity in Tract B through the periodic execution of each additional installment. After his purchase of the first installment consisting of six lots on or about December 1, 1981, Cotton sold no more lots in Tract A. Cotton admits that he "pre-sold" several lots in Tract B prior to FOP acquiring its interest in these lots on December 1, 1981 and while he was still selling lots in Tract A for Siegel and IIF. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale for six lots in Tract B which Cotton received on or about December 1, 1981 incorrectly indicates that CFI was the property owner and seller. Siegel executed the Agreement on behalf of CFI. This was an error which Siegel admits since Tract B was actually owned by his other company, IIF. The same error as to the seller was made in the Agreements for each additional six lot installment executed on or about February 1, 1982, April 1, 1982, August 15, 1982, September 1, 1982, October 6, 1982, December 1, 1982, and April 1, 1983. Siegel has agreed to take whatever action is necessary to correct any title problems which purchasers in Tract B may have as a result of this error. Respondents did not register the land in question located in Lake County with Petitioner at any time material hereto, nor is there evidence that purchasers were afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine a public offering statement concerning such land prior to its sale. There were less than fifty (50) lots each in Tracts A and B at all times material hereto, and these tracts are contiguous. Cotton sold lots in both tracts, and pre-sold approximately thirty-six lots in Tract B while he was selling lots in Tract A and before he acquired any interest in Tract B. There were also several purchasers in common in both tracts. There were less than forty-five (45) purchasers each in Tracts A and B, but combining the purchasers in each tract there were more than forty-five (45) purchasers of the land in question in this case located in Lake County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order which: Dismisses all charges in Case No. 85-0008 against Respondent Central Florida Investments, Inc. Imposes an administrative fine of $5000 each against Respondents Investment Industries of Florida, Inc. and David A. Siegel in Case Nos. 85-0009 and 85-0010 for a total fine of S10, 000. Requires Respondents to correct, within ninety (90) days, any title problems which purchasers in Tract B may have as a result of the matters set forth in Finding of Fact 5. Requires Respondents to cease and desist from offering or disposing of any interest in subdivided land which is subject to this proceeding until a valid order of registration is obtained. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leonard Lubart, Esquire Michael Marder, Esquire 12000 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 204 North Miami, Florida 33181 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Although the evidence is consistent with this proposed finding, it is not adopted since it is unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2, 3. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 2, and adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3, 4, but rejected in part in Finding of Fact 7 and as otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant, not based on competent substantial evidence, and as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 3, 7, 8. Rulings on Respondents' Proposed Finding of Fact: (Respondent has not numbered its proposed findings of fact, and therefore in order to make a ruling on proposed findings of fact paragraphs on pages 3 through 20 under the heading Findings of Fact have been consecutively numbered.) Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as a conclusion of law Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 7, but otherwise rejected as simply a statement of position. 8, 9. Rejected as simply a summary of testimony. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but rejected in part in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as simply a statement of position Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 14, 15. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 3. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2, 3. 17-30. Rejected as simply the party's summation of testimony and evidence, as conclusions of law and otherwise not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 Adopted and rejected in Finding of Fact 8. 33, 34. Rejected as simply an excerpt of testimony. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 8 Rejected as not a proposed finding of fact.
The Issue Whether a public at-grade railroad crossing in the vicinity of the Florida East Coast Railway Company Mile Post 16.58 and Southwest 66th Street in Miami, Florida should be closed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner filed an application to close a crossing at the intersection of the Florida East Coast Railway Company tracks and S.W. 66th Street, Miami, Florida. The Respondents, Metropolitan Dade County and the Department of Transportation, concurred that the crossing was unsafe and that it could be closed without undue convenience to the public. The Hearing Officer finds: That there were no letters of objection to the closing of the subject crossing and no one appeared at the public hearing opposing the closing; That the crossing is relatively unsafe because of the general location among trees and other shrubs in the vicinity; and That the public may use alternative routes which are convenient and less hazardous.
Conclusions An Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings has entered an Order Closing File in this proceeding. A copy of the Order is attached to this Final Order as Exhibit A. Filed January 21, 2011 10:24 AM Division of Administrative Hearings DCA Order No. DCA11-GM-007
Other Judicial Opinions OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030(b)(1)(C) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies haye been furnished by U.S. Mail or Electronic May to each of the persons listed below on this day of January, 2011. / a Paula Ford Agency Clerk By U.S. Mail The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 By Electronic Mail Amy Taylor Petrick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County 300 North Dixie Highway, Suite 359 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Gary K. Hunter, Esquire Vinette D. Godelia, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 33301 Richard Grosso, Esquire Robert N. Hartsell, Esquire Everglades Law Center, Inc. Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 DCA Order No. DCA11-GM-007
The Issue Whether a railroad crossing located at Florida East Coast Line Railroad Mile Post 175.49 should be closed.
Findings Of Fact The City of Rockledge, Florida is constructing a road in the incorporated limits of the city, known as Rovac Parkway. The road has not been completed, but when completed, it will consist of two ten foot driving lanes running east and two ten foot driving lanes running west with a twelve foot median strip and fourteen foot shoulders. This road is scheduled to intersect the Florida East Coast Line Railroad at Mile Post 175.57, and would cross the railroad with the same given dimensions as described above. After crossing the railroad, the Rovac Parkway would intersect with U.S. 1, also known as State Road 5. There is pending with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, an application far driveway permit from the Rovac Parkway into U.S.1 (State Road 5), and a copy of the application for permit is found in the City's Exhibit #4 entered into evidence in this hearing. The area for which the application for at-grade crossing pertains is zoned R-2. In the general area of the proposed crossing it is intended that a industrial plant be built by Rovac, Inc., a firm from Maitland, Florida. The Florida East Coast Line Railroad which runs through the City of Rockledge is a single track line which runs roughly north and south and 66 percent of the population of the City of Rockledge, is located west of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad, with the remaining 34 percent found east of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad. The population in the City of Rockledge at the time of the hearing was 11,467 people. If the subject railroad crossing was open and the Rovac Parkway completed, approximately 35 percent of the 66 percent of the population lying west of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad would be using the at-grade crossing. The nearest at-grade crossing with signalization is found 1/2 mile north of the proposed crossing at Barton Road, and the implementation of an at-grade crossing at the subject location would releave the traffic at Barton Road and promote safe crossing of the Florida East Coast Line Railroad found in the City of Rockledge. Immediately north of the proposed at-grade cressing and identified as Nile Post 175.49 is an unprotected at-grade crossing. This crossing services a roofing company which services the public and also services a number of homes in the immediate vicinity of the existing crossing. If the new at-grade crossing at Mile Post 175.57 were permitted, the people who utilize the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 would be serviced by the new crossing. This service would be affected by an extension of an existing road known as Edwards Drive, from its present location to intersect with Rovac Parkway at right angles immediately west of the intersection of the proposed crossing with the Florida East Coast Line Railroad. The land that is necessary for the extension of Edwards Drive has been deeded to the City of Rockledge but has not been dedicated, A and public hearings have been held on the question of the service of those persons in the vicinity at the present at-grade crossing, in addition to public hearings on the extension of Edwards Drive. The location of the proposed crossing and the existing crossing at Mile Post 175.49, and their relationship to other landmarks in the area can be seen through the City's Exhibit #13, admitted into evidence. At the time of hearing, eight north and south bound freight trains and two local freight trains operated in the vicinity of the present crossing at Mile Post 175.49 and the contemplated crossing at Mile Post 175.57. The time schedule for the northbound freight trains is 3:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., 5:00 A.M., 9:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M., 3:00 P.M., 4:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. The time schedule for the south bound freight trains is 10:45 A.M., 3:45 P.M., 7:00 P.M., 8:00 P.M. 9:00 P.M., 10:45 P.M., 11:45 P.M. and 6:30 A.M. The two local freight trains run at approximately 4:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon. The speed limit in the area of the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 and the proposed crossing at Mile Post 175.57 is 60 WH for the railroad. There is a left curve approximately 1,550 feet south of the proposed crossing. All parties to the hearing feel that it is necessary to have signalization at the proposed at-grade crossing. The witness for the City acknowledged the need for such an arrangement. The spokesman for the Railroad felt that the crossing should be controlled by an automatic system with flashing lights, ringing bells, and gates, which was train activated, and the witness of the Department of Transportation felt that the safety equipment at the proposed at-grade crossing should be a Type IV, with cantilevered flashing lights, ringing bells and gates. The some witnesses stressed that the existing crossing at Mile Post 175.49 was not signalized and therefore was much more dangerous than a signalized crossing, such as the proposed crossing at Mile Post 175.57. Exhibits which were offered in the course of the bearing which address the propriety of opening a crossing at Mile Post 175.57 and closing the crossing at Mile Post 175.49 were as follows: Exhibit #1, by the City, is a map of the City of Rockledge; Exhibit #2, by the City, is a comprehensive land use plan of the City; Exhibit #3, by the City, is a resolution of the City Council, City of Rockledge, proposing the opening of the crossing at Mile Post 175.57; Exhibit #6, by the City, a traffic count at the Barton crossing; Exhibit #11, by the City, a resolution of the Brevard Economic Development Commission concerning the impact of such a development; and Exhibit #12, by the City, a drawing of the extension of Edwards Drive and the construction of the Rovac Parkway, together with the present crossing and the proposed crossing.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application for closing the Florida East Coast Line Railroad crossing at Mile Post 175.49 be granted, contingent upon the opening of a signalized railroad crossing at Florida East Coast Line Railroad Mile Post 175.57. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Walter C. Sheppard, Esquire City Attorney, for Rockledge 115 Harrison Street Cocoa, Florida 32922 Charles B. Evans, Esquire Florida East Coast Line Railroad One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Philip Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operation Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for a public-at-grade rail/highway crossing by new rail construction 50 feet north of Seaboard Coast Line MP SVC 855, Ft. Green Springs Road, Hardee County, Florida, Section 0600-6605, State Road 663.
Findings Of Fact After the hearing was called to order the parties called for a recess and after the recess the following stipulation was agreed to: There is a need for the subject crossing to serve the applicant's mining operation. The new rail construction is needed to move rock from the mine to applicant's other plants. It was further agreed that the applicant, C. F. Mining Corporation, will Provide the installation of side mounted flashing lights and ringing bells, and advance warning disks with flashers and pavement markings as outlined in Part 8 of the Manual of Traffic Control Devices. The applicant, Hardee County, as a part of its overall road program will police the crossing and notify the applicant's mining corporation of any defective operation in the signalization. The permit would provide a way for an industrial spurline to come off the main track of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad across Fort Green Springs Road into the C. F. Mining Corporation plant. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad did not appear at the hearing and made no objection to the granting of the permit. The need for the crossing has been established and proper precautions for public safety are planned.
Recommendation Grant the permit as Requested. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Philip S. Bennet, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 David Ashby, Chief Engineer C. F. Mining Corporation Post Office Box 1849 Bartow, Florida 33830 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
