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.
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 An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Bay County, Florida, through its agent R. M. Myers, Administrative Assistant. The proposed crossing is across the tracks of the U.S. Air Force (C/O Warner Robins Air Force Base) presently leased to the Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railroad Co., railroad mile post N M.P. 2.34. The local popular name of the street as extended is Palo Alto Avenue. Traffic on the railroad as it now exist is two trains per day carrying fuel. The speed of the train is 15 miles per hour. The cost of installation is to be charged to the City of Lynn Haven, Florida and the cost of annual maintenance is to be charged to the City of Lynn Haven, Florida. The opening of the proposed crossing would serve a growing subdivision which at present has only one means of egress and ingress. If a permit is granted and the proposed crossing constructed, the route would carry some 16 school buses and would divert much of the existing northbound traffic on route 77 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A need for the proposed crossing has been established. There is a growing subdivision which would use the crossing as a second exit and entrance; when the proposed roadway crosses the track, school buses will have a more direct access to the school and will use the proposed route; traffic from route 77 will use the proposed road as a convenience; the representatives of both the City of Lynn Haven and the county of Bay state that the area is a fast growing area and that the proposed crossing is needed. The parties at the hearing, which included the City, the County and the Railroad Company, reached an agreement as to the proper signalization of the crossing, the proper road devices necessary to insure safety before the crossing was reached and an assurance that property would be available so that there would be no sight blockage through the growth of vegetation in the future. Plans for the proposed crossing were submitted to the Hearing Officer and marked "A". An easement for visibility purposes at the proposed crossing was submitted to the Hearing Officer and marked "B". These exhibits were approved by the City, the County and the Florida Department of Transportation.
Recommendation Grant the permit. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of February, 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: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Les W. Burke, Esquire Post Office Box 2260 Panama City, Florida J. W. Cunningham, Vice President Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co. Post Office Box 669 Panama City, Florida 32401 Mr. Robert Miller Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City, Florida William V. Kinsaul, City Manager Lynn Haven, Florida Mr. G. S. Burleson, Sr., P.E. Assistant State Utility Engineer Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Recommendation Close existing railroad crossing at Citrus Springs Boulevard and Seaboard Coastline Mile-post 763. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of November, 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: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Gordan S. Burleson, Sr. Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Livingston, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida James L. Shroads, Esquire 2350 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129
The Issue Whether the application of the Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) to close the subject railway crossing should be dismissed for lack of regulatory jurisdiction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates a propane gas distribution facility adjacent and parallel to the FEC railroad track within the Town of Lantana. The railroad track is between Petitioner's facility and U.S. Highway 1. To reach its property from U.S. Highway 1, Petitioner's employees must utilize a railroad crossing commonly known as Gator Culvert. The Gator Culvert is an at-grade railroad crossing. On October 13, 1948, the Town of Lantana acquired a right-of-way for road purposes at the Gator Culvert from Everett Wurtz, Petitioner's predecessor in title. On December 13, 1948, FEC and the Town of Lantana entered into a one-year renewable license to use the crossing for public road crossing purposes contingent upon the Town of Lantana assuming the cost of maintaining the crossing. On June 26, 1979, the Town of Lantana quit-claimed its interest in the right-of-way to Gator Culvert.2 On March 29, 1996, Petitioner filed suit against FEC seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding its rights to use the Gator Culvert crossing. This litigation is pending in Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. On June 28, 1996, FEC filed the subject application with Respondent for authorization to close the Gator Culvert crossing. On October 2, 1996, Petitioner amended the complaint that underpins the Circuit Court litigation to join Respondent and the Town of Lantana as defendants. By Count One of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner (referred to as Plaintiff in the Circuit Court pleadings) requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a way of necessity purusant to F.S. Section 704.01(1) and that Defendants FEC, FDOT, and Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of its way of necessity. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Section 86.071. By Count Two of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . grant a declaratory judgment ruling that Plaintiff has a prescriptive easement and that Defendants FEC and the Town of Lantana may not close the crossing and thereby prevent Plaintiff's use of said easement. Plaintiff further requests a trial by jury pursuant to F.S. Sectioln 86.071. By Count Three of the Amended Complaint, Petitioner requests the Court to: . . . enter a temporary and permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendant, FDOT from granting FEC's application to close the crossing; to restrain and enjoin Defendant FEC from ceasing to maintain and from closing the railroad crossing which provides the only access to Plaintiff's property; and to restrain and enjoin the Town of Lantana form executing the Stipulation for Approval of Closure3 or participating in any way with the attempted closure of said crossing. Count Four of the Amended Complaint pertained only to the Town of Lantana and did not involve Respondent. On August 14, 1998, Respondent published its Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application to close the subject railroad crossing in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This notice set forth Respondent's rationale for dismissing the application to close the Gator Culvert crossing that FEC had filed June 28, 1996, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The history of the crossroad, and its current condition indicate that it is not a public road. In particular, on the 26th day of June 1979, the Town of Lantana quit- claimed its interest to the right of way for public road purposes to Gator Culvert. While the prior status of the road as a public road is in doubt, this transaction effectively abandoned the right of way as a potential public roadway. Because the crossing is not a public railroad-highway grade crossing, the location is not subject to the Department's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 335.141, Florida Statutes. . . . On September 4, 1998, Petitioner timely filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent, the pleading that underpins this proceeding. On September 10, 1997, the Respondent issued a rails inventory that identified the Gator Culvert crossing as a private crossing. Scott Allbritton, Respondent's Rail Programs Engineer, reviewed and assessed the documents in the public record in processing FEC's application that were necessary and appropriate to determine whether the subject crossing was public or private, thereby determining whether Respondent lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing. His investigation revealed that the record title to the subject crossing was private. Based on Mr. Allbritton's investigation, Respondent determined that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate the subject crossing since it was not a public crossing. Respondent did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner in making that determination. Respondent does not attempt to adjudicate real property disputes by its administration of the statutorily mandated railroad/vehicular traffic crossing program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that dismisses this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether an at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Garden Street in Jacksonville, Florida, where point of switch is 2.006 feet northwest of Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company mile post 253 and the crossing is 2,082 feet southwest of mile post 1 off lead track should be opened.
Findings Of Fact By application the Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company seeks a permit to open a public railroad crossing in the vicinity of Garden Street in Jacksonville, Florida, where point of switch is 2.006 feet northwest of Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company mile post 253 and the crossing is 2,082 feet southwest of mile post 1 off lead track. New Duval is a residential and light industrial development which requires the transportation of building materials and equipment for its construction and upon its completion will require transportation services for the light industries and the public in general. There are no practical means of transportation other than railroad services for this development and therefore, there is a need for a railroad crossing at Garden Street to complete the extension of rail services to New Duval. The applicant presently owns the property line adjacent to and on either side of Garden Street and the proposed crossing will not require a change in the course of any street or highway. The conditions and topography of the area are such that the railroad and highway can compatibly cross on the same surface at Garden Street. The applicant is prepared to comply with the design, standards and procedures of the city of Jacksonville as set forth in the Ordinance code of the City of Jacksonville. The applicant has received from the Interstate Commerce Commission a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to construct and operate the line in question. Applicant is authorized to do business in the State of Florida and has pending its application for approval of extending the line with the Department of Environmental Regulation, State of Florida. The Florida Department of Transportation has considered the proposed safety devices as indicated on the application and has concurred that the standard side mount flashing lights and bells signalization is adequately safe as required for the conditions. There is a need for rail transportation in the contemplated industrial park which is a 5200 acre track of land of which some 3,000 acres will be industrialized.
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 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 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a beach house petitioners plan to build in south Walton County was already under construction, within the meaning of Section 161.053(7), Florida Statutes (1981) and Rule 16B-33.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, at the time the current coastal construction control line took effect there.
Findings Of Fact In October of 1982, the petitioners acquired a lot in south Walton County, on the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico. Even before the purchase, Mr. Wiese had been in touch with respondent's personnel, who apprised him of the imminence of the adoption of the new (now current) coastal construction control line, at that time already proposed for Walton County. The former coastal construction control line was considerably seaward of the current line, which became effective on December 29, 1982. Petitioners, who have built some seven houses, drew plans for a house to be built on their Walton County lot one foot landward of the old coastal construction control line. They applied for and obtained the necessary county building permit. They contracted for grading on site, which took place on November 27, 1982. In the course of this work, the landward face of the sand dune was disturbed and petitioners realized that, if they were to build so close to the water, a wall or something like a wall would have to be erected and buttressed to keep the sand dune from migrating under or into their beach house. They determined that the plans were inadequate as drawn. Mr. Wiese nevertheless arranged for one Al Christopher to bring two poles to the site and place one of them upright in the sand. When asked at hearing how long the two poles Mr. Christopher delivered to the site were, Mr. Wiese said he did not know. After Mr. Christopher began, petitioners did not ask him to desist either with bringing pilings to the site or with placing them in the ground. Mr. Christopher evidently did what he was asked to do, before he ever began working with the poles. Before the single pile was placed, batter boards were used to locate the perimeters planned for the building. Batter boards are temporary markers which are removed once the foundation is in place. In constructing piling foundations for beach houses along the gulf coast, in this part of Florida if not elsewhere, the ordinary sequence is to bring all foundation piles to the site before bringing the equipment necessary to install all the piles at once. This makes for efficient use of expensive machinery, and is virtually always done. One of the Wieses' neighbors, fearing that the new coastal construction control line would take effect last fall arranged for a single pile to be driven, but his project was well underway by the time the new coastal construction control line did in fact take effect. As late as March of this year, Mr. Wiese checked with a Texas supplier to see if foundation piles would be available for the project. The plans drawn before the grading of November 27, 1982, called for a foundation of 37 piles, each of which was to be 45 feet long. No horizontal members nor bracing of any kind was contemplated for the foundation. The foundation piles were to be put so close together that it would have been impractical to bring heavy equipment in to do the grading after they were in place. The idea in leveling the ground was to prepare it so a concrete slab could be poured to serve as a parking surface underneath the beach house. Under both the plans originally drawn and the plans under which petitioners now hope to proceed the parking surface itself is not expected to have a structural function, Mr. Wiese's testimony to the contrary notwithstanding. Once petitioners were persuaded that the project needed "reengineering," they diligently sought out expert assistance and new foundation plans were eventually drawn to their satisfaction. Petitioners' efforts took place on a regular, if not a daily basis, but consisted in large part of finding the right people for the "reengineering" job. The plans which petitioners propose to use were stamped with the final engineer's seal on March 3, 1983, more than two months after the current coastal construction control line took effect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioners' beach house project grandfathered status, and apply the coastal construction control line adopted for Walton County on December 29, 1982, in any agency action regarding the project. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1983, Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 ApA1Achee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Jacobs, Esquire John C. Pelham, Esquire and Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire ERVIN, VARN, ODOM & KITCHEN Post Office Box 1770 Tallahassee, Florida 32322-1170 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Suite 1003 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303
