The Issue The granting or denial of permits to open and to close public at-grade railroad crossings as provided by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, 1973.
Findings Of Fact The petitioner is in the process of constructing a major vehicular traffic facility linking U.S. Highways 17 and 92 with Interstate Highway 4. All administrative and legal prerequisites for the project have been accomplished and sanctioned by court order. The project, as designed, requires a realignment of Greenwood Road. It also requires the closing of an existing artery in this portion of Collier County and at present it dead-ends at Goodlette Road. The county's long-range road plans provide for expanding State Road 951A to the west to join U.S. 41, or to connect with a road in the city that would join U.S. 41. Pending the acquisition by the city of the right to cross the railroad track, the county has not obtained any rights-of-way that will be required to connect the proposed Coastland Boulevard with SR 951A from its intersection with Goodlette Road. In Exhibit 2 the connection of these two arteries is indicated in the yellow area on the map, which shows Coastland Boulevard crossing Goodlette Road, and extending in an inverted curve northward to join SR 951A. In the absence of the actual acquisition of the rights-of-way, however, the portion indicated on Exhibit 2 east of Goodlette Road is a general proposal rather than a specific indication of where the road will be placed. The proposed rail grade crossing insofar as the city is concerned and without considering any further action by the county, would result in a road that would cross the railroad track and dead-end on a north-south artery road. Some 700 feet to the north is SR 951A, which presently dead-ends at the eastern right-of-way of Goodlette Road. Some 200 feet to the north of SR 951A and leading to the westward of Goodlette Road is 22nd Avenue North, which also dead- ends at Goodlette Road. Without further action by Collier County to extend the proposed Coastland Boulevard across Goodlette Road there would be three T- intersections on Goodlette Road within a span of less than 1,000 feet. From the foregoing it is concluded that there is an urgent need for the proposed new boulevard and a grade crossing over the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks. It is further concluded, however, that to allow this crossing without extending the proposed Coastland Boulevard to the east of Goodlette Road would not be in the best interest of the safety of vehicular traffic in Use area concerned. It is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the petition of City of Naples, Florida to install a railroad grade crossing in the vicinity of the proposed Coastland Boulevard and 603 feet south of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company mile post AX999 in Naples, Florida be approved subject to Collier County taking official action to extend Coastland Boulevard eastward of Goodlette Road. It is further RECOMMENDED that final approval of this grade crossing be withheld until such time as the City of Naples and Collier County submit to the Department evidence that the necessary rights-of-way have been acquired and money has been appropriated for the construction of that portion of Coastland Boulevard east of Goodlette Road. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of September, 1975 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julian Clarkson, Esquire Philip Bennett, Esquire General Counsel's Office Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether there should be a public at-grade opening and new roadway construction on 54th Avenue North, Section No. 15,000-6619 Pinellas County Parcel No. 1 (XSO-H) 2,088 feet northwest of Mile Post SY-886.
Findings Of Fact The railroad crossing at 59th Avenue North can serve as a single access to the proposed subdivision. Use of the access as the only entrance to the subdivision requires travel through a substandard area and requires the Petitioner to upgrade 1900 feet of a county owned road at its own expense (59th Avenue North). Two accesses would be convenient to the future homeowners and permit better accessibility for emergency vehicles and for service vehicles. If the proposed crossing is not approved, the Petitioner may not be able to obtain private or government subsidized financing (FHA) for the proposed subdivision. With respect to the proposed crossing at 54th Avenue North, the Petitioner has obtained an easement from Pinellas County for an extension of 54th Avenue across the railroad tracks into the subdivision. Pinellas County has accepted responsibility for perpetual maintenance of the crossing if the proper signalization is installed, at no expense to the county. The Respondent Florida Department of Transportation recommends that if the crossing is permitted, the following conditions be met: 54th Avenue North should be constructed with a six inch raised vertical curb on each side of the railroad tracks. 54th Avenue North should be modified to eliminate the dip which presently exists on each side of the railroad tracks in order to improve visibility. Side-mounted flashing lights, gates and bells should be installed at the crossing. That no structures should be built on the small triangular piece of land designated as Parcel B on Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The Respondent recommended and the Petitioner agreed that the signalization and roadway modifications will be installed or constructed without cost to the Florida Department of Transportation. The possible use of the railroad corridor as a mass transit or light rail facility is speculative at this time. The Respondent Seaboard Coastline Railroad had notice of the hearing and made no appearance.
Recommendation The Parties have shown that the crossing is necessary for the safety of the future residents of the area and that when developed, there will be a need for two accesses to the subdivision. Issuance of a permit for the proposed railroad crossing at 54th Avenue North with the conditions set forth in the fifth and sixth Finding of Fact. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Boyd, Esquire Post Office Box 5617 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 G. S. Burleson, Sr. Assistant State Utility Engr. Haydon Burns Building, DOT Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Henry Van Kestern Cambell - Van Kesteren, Inc. 4422 Cantral Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 W. L. Anderson District Utility Engineer, DOT Post Office Box 1249 Bartow, Florida 37516 W. Gray Dunlap, Esquire County Attorney 315 Haven Street Clearwater, Florida 37516 Thomas J. Murphy Post Office Box 1304 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
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
Findings Of Fact By application the Florida East Coast Railway Company seeks a permit to close an existing at-grade public railroad crossing located at Sebastian/Bay Street, Roseland in Indian River County, Florida. There exists a public at-grade railroad crossing 681 feet immediately to the south of the subject crossing at the intersection with Roseland Road. This crossing is protected by a full complement of automatic warning devices, consisting of flashing lights, ringing bells and gate. Roseland Road is a paved highway and well travelled. The subject crossing is an old crossing having been established approximately in 1907. There exists a visibility factor adverse to train and motoring public as a result of an elevation of approximately four (4) feet and of natural growth but there as been no known crossing accident in over some seventy (70) years. Traffic over this railroad crossing is not heavy. There exists a growing residential community to the west and east of this railroad crossing. The Sebastian River Medical Center (hospital) exists on the east. Fire protection for this area exists on the east. Testimony of users and letters oppose the closing of the crossing because the historical value of the railroad crossing, the location of the crossing for fire protection purposes, the location of the crossing for the health and welfare due to the location of the Sebastian River Medical Center, the only hospital located in the north end of the county; and the ease and convenience for the Roseland community reaching the main thoroughfare known as U.S. #1. The public crossing on Roseland Road is a busy crossing serving a much travelled road and is well signalized. In order to use this crossing it is essential to enter a busy highway. The people belonging to the church and the personnel of the medical facility use the Sebastian/Bay Street crossing; school children use it and the residents of the Roseland area, many of whom are elderly, use it.
The Issue The issue in the instant case is whether the Department had notified the owner of the subject sign of the alleged violations as required by Rule 14- 10.05, Florida Administrative Code. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The facts presented show that the Department of Transportation failed to notify the owners of the subject sign. In the absence of notice to the owners of the sign, a final order cannot be entered taking action against the sign because an indispensable party under the Department's rules did not receive notice and therefore was denied due process.
Findings Of Fact Subject sign was a nonconforming sign which had been allowed to remain in place as provided by Rule 14-10.07. The sign was replaced with a completely new structure. The name of the owner was not affixed to the sign. AGENCY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Complete reconstruction of the sign removed its status as a nonconforming sign under Rule 14-10.07. The sign is subject to removal as violating the spacing requirements of Rule 14-10.06 adopted pursuant to Section 479.02, Florida Statutes. Section 479.17, Florida Statutes, requires that the Department remove, obliterate, or abate the sign. No prior notice of Department action need be given the sign owner in the absence of the owner's name being affixed to the sign. Section 479.17, Florida Statutes. It is accordingly, ORDERED that the subject sign be removed forthwith. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1981. JACOB D. VARN SECRETARY STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen F. Dean, Esquire Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jay D. Schwartz, Esquire 901 NE 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick D. Calvin, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions . . . In the absence of notice to the owners of the subject sign, the Department has not complied with the requirements of Rule 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code. Without notice to the owners there is no jurisdiction to enter a final order in this cause taking action against the sign. To take action without the required notice would vio- late the rights of the owners of the sign to pro- cedural due process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head of the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing this cause for lack of jurisdiction over the owner(s) of the sign. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 3rd day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jay D. Schwartz, Esquire 901 NE 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-1704T COURTELIS COMPANY, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether the application for an at grade vehicle railroad crossing permit should be issued to the City of Holly Hill by the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact The City of Holly Hill, Florida, filed an application with DOT for an at grade railroad crossing permit on Tenth Street at Milepost 107+1513', in the city of Holly Hill. The DOT denied the City's application by letter dated November 27, 1991, which enclosed the Department's intent to deny the permit. The City petitioned and received a hearing to consider its application. The City of Holly Hill is located due north of the City of Daytona Beach on the east coast of the state of Florida. It stretches west approximately a mile from the Halifax River, and runs north for approximately two miles from the northern boundaries of the City of Daytona Beach. Tenth Street, where the proposed railroad crossing would be located, is a local street running east and west in the City of Holly Hill, Florida. West of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street connects with Center Avenue and continues further west to connect with Nova Road, both of which are major north/south connectors. To the east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, Tenth Street runs less than one block and terminates at its intersection with US 1, the major north/south arterial road in Holly Hill. Immediately east of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks in the vicinity of Tenth Street, the City of Holly Hill maintains Holly Land Park, a major recreational area in downtown Holly Hill. Immediately to the west of the Florida East Coast Railroad tracks, the City of Holly Hill maintains a nature trail and facilities related to its public works department. The City seeks the permit for an at grade crossing alleging that (1) a large number of pedestrians are illegally crossing the track and have persisted in doing so notwithstanding warnings and citations; and (2) the City feels that opening a crossing at Tenth Street would relieve bad traffic congestion existing on Eleventh Street just north of Tenth at Eleventh's intersection with US 1. Video tapes and the observations of police officers of the City of Holly Hill establish a significant level of pedestrian traffic by adults and children over the railroad tracks between the western and eastern ends of Tenth Street. This practice is very dangerous. Some of the pedestrians walk their bicycles over the railroad tracks at this location. The majority of the young people crossing the tracks in this vicinity are moving east to utilize the facilities in Holly Land Park or moving west to go to the middle school and grammar school located respectively at the intersections of Center Avenue and Walker Street and Center Avenue and Fifteenth Street. This is a popular route because of the heavy vehicle traffic on Eleventh Street and Eighth Street. Warnings, citations, and patrols have not halted the illegal crossing of the tracks. Eleventh Street is located 1300 feet to the north of Tenth Street and also runs east and west from the Halifax River westward to beyond Interstate 95. Plans call for the development of an interchange at the intersection of Interstate 95 and Eleventh Street. Eleventh Street appears to be the only street in downtown Holly Hill which moves directly west in this manner. From Nova Road east to US 1, Eleventh Street runs parallel to and north of a large drainage canal. Two shopping centers are located at the intersection of Eleventh Street and Nova Road. Eleventh Street is so close to this drainage feature that pedestrian walks on the southern side of Eleventh Street were removed. Because of this drainage structure, Eleventh Street cannot be inexpensively widened. To the south of Tenth Street 1320 feet, Eighth Street runs east and west from the Halifax River to Nova Road. Both Eleventh and Eighth Streets are two-way streets along their entire length. The City bases it petition to open the crossing upon traffic congestion caused by east bound traffic on Eleventh Street seeking to turn left on US 1, and by north bound traffic on US 1 seeking to turn left onto Eleventh Street when Eleventh Street is blocked by rail traffic. The I-95/Eleventh Street interchange will increase traffic congestion on Eleventh Street. The City asserts that opening the proposed crossing would alleviate this congestion because traffic using Eleventh Street would then use Tenth Street. The traffic count on Eleventh, Tenth, and Eighth Streets was measured by the county. The traffic on Eleventh Street was 10,744; on Tenth Street was 1,019; and on Sixth Street was 6,153. According to a traffic projection run by the county traffic operations supervisor, 1,000 vehicles would be diverted from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street if a vehicle at grade crossing were opened at Tenth Street. Although this projection is suspect because it was made without any origin and destination surveys being done, the shift of 1,000 vehicles from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street is negligible in terms of its present and projected impact on Eleventh Street. It was uncontraverted that a ground level pedestrian crossing with adequate gates and signals would permit pedestrians to cross the railroad tracks quickly and therefore reduce their exposure to train/bicycle accidents. (T- 81,135.) Opening an at grade crossing on Tenth Street would create a greater potential for car/train accidents by increasing the exposure of vehicle traffic to railroad traffic. This was also uncontraverted. The fire station is currently located in the back of City Hall which is located immediately across US 1 from Holly Land Park. Plans exist to move the fire station from its present current location to a location in the vicinity of the Public Works Department along Tenth Avenue. The public library which is currently located at Holly Land Park affronting on US 1 may be relocated to the old school building located south of the city hall. Movement from the fire- station at its proposed location would be no better or worse than it is now because Tenth Street does not extend east across US 1. Emergency equipment will have to use Eighth Street or Eleventh Street to go east, and these streets are also the best routes west. The proposed crossing is not necessary based upon the traffic studies prepared by the City. Assuming the shift of 1,000 cars from Eleventh Street to Tenth Street, this would not warrant the expense and the potential hazard generated by permitting the proposed railroad crossing. It was uncontraverted that the best way to solve the congestion problem on Eleventh Street would be to widen it. However, it was universally acknowledged that this would be very expensive. While evidence is contradictory, the most credible testimony supports using one-way pairs on Eleventh and Eighth Streets as a low cost interim measure to improve traffic flow along the arterial routes. (T-112,145 et seq., and 173.) In addition to the crossings located at Eleventh and Eighth Streets, there are also crossing located at next to through streets south of Eighth, and at Fromich Street north of Eleventh. There would be more than five public crossings located within one mile of railroad track if a crossing were opened at Tenth Street.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered approving a pedestrian at grade crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida; and That the Petition for a public at grade vehicular railroad crossing at Tenth Street in the City of Holly Hill, Volusia County, Florida be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX CASE NO. 92-0942 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner's Recommended Order Paragraphs 1, 2, 8 Recommended order paragraph no. 4 Paragraph 3, 5, 7, 10 Recommended order paragraph no. 7 Paragraph 4 Recommended order paragraph no. 8 Paragraph 6 Rejected, Data in Paragraph is more credible Paragraph 9 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 11 Immaterial Paragraph 12 Cumulative Paragraphs 13, 14 Immaterial Paragraph 15 Contrary to the fact that Tenth Street ends at US 1 Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 Contrary to more credible evidence Paragraph 19 .027 represents one train/car collision every four years. If you are in the car, that is significant. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 All these improvements do not establish the necessity for the proposed crossing and appear to be counter to good land use and traffic planning. Paragraph 26 No credible evidence to support this. Paragraph 27 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 28 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 29 Immaterial Paragraph 30 "de facto" crossings don't exist Paragraph 31 Immaterial Paragraph 32, 33, 34, 35 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 36 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 37 Speculative Paragraph 38 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 39 Paragraph 9 Respondent's Recommended Order Paragraph 1 Paragraph 1, 2 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 6, 10, 11 Paragraph 4 Paragraph 12 Paragraph 5 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 13, 14 COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Edward F. Simpson, Jr., Esquire Randal A. Hayes, Esquire Moore, Wood, Simpson, Correy, McKinnon and Vulkeja Post Office Box 305 Ormond Beach, FL 32175 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact In June, 1982, Florida East Coast Railway Company filed an Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact to be called "F.E.C. Park of Industry and Commerce" to be located in Dade County, Florida. On June 23, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County adopted Resolution Z-114-83, a Development Order approving with conditions the development proposed by Florida East Coast Railway Company. A copy of the Development Order was transmitted to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners on July 7, 1983. By letter dated July 8, 1983, and received by the Department of Community Affairs on July 11, 1983, the Assistant Director of the Building and Zoning Department of Dade County advised that: In compliance with Section 380, Florida Statutes, we are enclosing , herewith, a copy of Resolution No. Z-114-83, adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 23, 1983, approving a development of regional impact applied for by Florida East Coast Railway Company to permit the development of the above-described property for an industrial park complex involving a district boundary change from GU (interim) to IU-C (Industry-Controlled) and an Unusual Use to permit two lake excavations. By letter dated July 19, 1983, the Department of Community Affairs responded to receipt of the copy of the Development Order as follows: We have received the copy of the Florida East Coast Railway Development Order you sent on July 8 in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statues[sic]. However, to fulfill the requirements of the law, the Development Order must he signed and include all exhibits. Therefore would you please he kind enough to provide the Department with a signed copy of Resolution #Z-114-83. . . . By letter dated July 27, 1983, and received by the Department of Community Affairs on August 1, 1983, Dade County advised that: In accordance with your letter of July 19, 1983, and our telephone conversation of this date, I am enclosing, herewith, a certified copy of Resolution Z-114-83; as I explained to you on the telephone, the Board of County Commissioners does not sign its resolutions. The only significant difference between the copy of the Development Order received by the Department of Community Affairs on July 11, 1983, and the one received on August 1, 1983, is a certificate signed by a Deputy Clerk in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Dade County certifying that the latter copy of Resolution No. Z-114-83 was a true and correct copy of the original of that document. Since at least 1946, Dade County has adopted and codified its zoning actions in the following manner. After the Board of County Commissioners acts on zoning applications at a regularly scheduled zoning meeting, zoning resolutions are prepared by Mr. Chester C. Czebrinski, who is in attendance at the meetings. Mr. Czebrinski is an attorney and is the Assistant Director of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department. He is also legal counsel to the Department and is a Deputy Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. He has performed the functions described herein since 1946. While in attendance at the zoning meeting, Mr. Czebrinski records the action of the Board of County Commissioners on zoning applications noting any conditions adopted by the Board. In preparing the zoning resolution, he uses information obtained from the Clerk of the County Commission as to the resolution number, the names of the Commissioners who made and seconded the motion, and the vote on the resolution. When such resolutions are prepared, they are never re-submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for any further action or review. Copies of final zoning resolutions prepared by Mr. Czebrinski are sent to the Clerk of the County Commission (two original copies), other county departments, to the applicant, and to the attorneys of record. The purpose of transmitting the resolution to those departments and persons is to notify them of the official final action taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Additional copies of resolutions are also placed in the zoning hearing file. All such resolutions transmitted contain a transmittal date on the face of the resolution. The purpose of the transmittal date is to commence the appeal period within which an appeal may be taken to circuit court from the action of the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. All such resolutions transmitted by Mr. Czebrinski are unstamped, uncertified copies of the final zoning resolution. Upon receipt of the transmittal of two copies of the resolution from Mr. Czebrinski, the office of the Clerk of the Board stamps both with the name of the deputy clerk, who for the past eleven years has been Raymond Reid. The letters on one stamp (the large stamp) are larger than the letters on the other, smaller stamp. The copies stamped with the large stamp are also stamped with the county seal. This copy is retained by the Clerk and is never certified. The other copy, stamped with a small stamp, is not stamped with the county seal. This copy is sent to Mr. Czebrinski with a separate certification by the Clerk on a separate page attached to the back of the resolution. Upon request, the Clerk's office will provide a copy of the zoning resolution retained by it. Such a copy is never certified, even for a state agency, unless a specific request for certification is made. An individual requesting certification is required to pay the Clerk a fee of one dollar. Section 2-1, Rule 1.05, Dade County Code, is interpreted and applied by Dade County not to require certification of the resolution physically retained by the Clerk and not to require certification of any copies of that resolution unless a specific request for certification is made. If Mr. Czebrinski receives a request for a copy of a zoning resolution, he provides one of the additional unstamped copies made prior to transmittal of the Clerk. If a certified copy of the resolution is requested, Mr. Czebrinski would make a copy of the resolution with the certification and then place a further certificate on it indicating that it was a copy on file with his office. The above procedures are for normal zoning actions of the Board of County Commissioners and differ from untypical procedures utilized for Zoning Appeals Board (ZAB) resolutions (which are certified by the Building and Zoning Director) and for resolutions pertaining to county airport matters, which are prepared by the County Attorney's office. Where a resolution encompasses an order of the Board of County Commissioners for a Development of Regional Impact, Mr. Czebrinski prepares a resolution in the manner described above and distributes it to all of the previously mentioned parties, and in addition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and to the South Florida Regional Planning Council. Mr. Czebrinski has had responsibility for transmitting copies to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, since the adoption of the state law. The resolutions transmitted have been blank, uncertified copies. Each copy is accompanied by a transmittal letter which is signed by Mr. Czebrinski. Although in a few instances the files of the Department of Community Affairs contain items where the typical County Commission zoning procedure was not applicable, this was because either the special procedure of the ZAB or airport zoning applied, because the Department has specifically requested a certified copy in an isolated case, or because the Department had received a transmittal from a non-county source. On September 12, 1983, the Department of Community Affairs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission objecting to various portions of the Development Order.
The Issue The parties stipulated that the denial of the proposed crossing was based solely upon the type of signal or warning devices the applicant had proposed to install. The issue presented is limited to the type of warning or signaling devices which should be installed at the proposed crossing.
Findings Of Fact The proposed crossing would be created by the extension of Thomas Road over the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. Thomas Road runs northeast at approximately a 90-degree angle off the road known as Old 41 or Old Tamiami Trail, and its extension would cross the railroad approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Old 41. The Thomas Road/Old 41 intersection is located one-quarter mile southeast from the dead end of Old 41 in Lee County. Old 41 and Thomas Road are improved two-lane roads. Old 41 runs southeast for several miles and intersects US Highway 41. The extension of Thomas Road would terminate shortly after crossing the entrances to two proposed industrial parks. The proposed crossing will be the sole access to the 22-acre tract zoned for the heaviest industrial use permitted by Lee County. The tract has been sold in two sections of approximately equal size. The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad at the point of the proposed crossing consists of a mainline track and a spur, or storage track, which run parallel to Old 41 at the site of the proposed crossing. The mainline track runs from Tampa to Naples through the Fort Myers area in which the crossing will be located. The storage track runs 690 feet to the north of the proposed crossing and 1,400 feet to the south of the proposed crossing. The mainline track carries one train per day, and a speed limit of 35 miles per hour is imposed upon mainline traffic. The one train using the mainline track drops cars off onto and picks cars up from the storage track. These switching movements could entail multiple movements of rail traffic through the proposed crossing one time per day. Typically, cars would be dropped off onto the storage track as the train moved south on one day, and would be picked up as the train moved north on the following day. The number of cars dropped off onto the storage track would vary but would not exceed 60 cars, and there would generally be no more than 20 to 25 cars on the storage track at any one time. Each such car is 50 feet long. The mainline train is not run on Sundays. The projected vehicular traffic on Thomas Road is 791 vehicles per day over the crossing based on projected planning data developed by the Department of Transportation. Based on an assumed speed limit for Thomas Road of 35 miles per hour, a driver approaching the proposed crossing from Old 41 could see to the left of the crossing 85 feet and to the right of the crossing 92 feet from a point 200 feet from the crossing. Similarly, leaving the proposed industrial park, a driver could see 76 feet to the right and 46 feet to the left from a point 200 feet from the crossing. The 200-foot distance is derived from the distance it would take a driver to stop his vehicle while traveling at 35 miles per hour without going onto the track. There are existing railroad crossings in incorporated Fort Myers that carry ten to 20 times as much traffic as the proposed crossing which are not signalized. Although the Department of Transportation has emphasized signalization of existing railroad crossings since 1973, it has only completed the construction of or planning for the construction of signalized crossings on 750 existing crossings. The Department has established a numerical priority of signalizing existing crossings based upon the speed of vehicular traffic, the speed of railway traffic, the number of trains, the number of vehicles, the type of signalization or warning devices existing at the crossing, the number of lanes, minimum sighting distances, minimum clear quadrant sight distances, parallel roads, and school bus usage. Under the Department's system, the lower the number assigned to the crossing the higher its priority. Planning for signalization of existing railroad crossings is currently in the 800's. The Department's Safety Engineer identified the Townsend Street crossing in Wauchula as an existing railway crossing comparable to the proposed crossing. The Townsend Street crossing had a traffic count of 425 vehicles per day, two trains per day, 20-mile-per-hour train speed, traffic speed limit of 25 miles per hour, and minimum visibility in its worst quadrant of 57 feet. The Townsend Street crossing is not signalized and has a priority number of 3,250. Electrical signal and warning devices at railway crossings may be bypassed and turned off by railway personnel during switching operations. No evidence was introduced that the opening of the proposed crossing would endanger or damage the railroad operation. Opening of this crossing is necessary for the development of a major industrial property in Lee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend approval of the proposed crossing with the required roadside flashing lights and bells on all roadway approaches to the crossing, with the following additional conditions: The speed limit on Thomas Road be set at 20 miles per hour; 1/ The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be required to use a flagman at the crossing when switching cars onto the storage track over the crossing; The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company be required to store cars at the southern-most end of the storage track and not leave cars on the northern end of the storage track when a flagman is not present; 1/ and The obstructions to vision be removed from the area surrounding the crossing to permit a driver approaching the crossing at 25 miles per hour to see a train in sufficient time to stop before moving onto the track. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 10th day of January, 1980.
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 The railroad crossing which is the subject of this proceeding is crossing number 272859-B, in the City of Florida City, Florida. Its location at N.W. 14th Street is approximately 700 feet north of an existing crossing located at Lucy Street, and roughly 1900 feet south of a present crossing located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway. The Railway's rationale for closing the N.W. 14th Street crossing is that these other two nearby crossings offer practical alternate routes to the N.W. 14th Street crossing, and can provide public access and emergency services to the area. The City's opposition is based on its contention that closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing would affect emergency access to the area. The principal justification for the closure of the N.W. 14th Street crossing is its proximity to the other crossings located at Arthur Vining Davis Parkway and Lucy Street, and the resulting improvement in safety for vehicular traffic and railroad equipment. Removal of the subject crossing would eliminate vehicular accidents on the tracks, and eliminate upkeep and maintenance expenses caused by frequent vandalism at the N.W 14th Street crossing location. In addition, closure would eliminate the need to sound the train whistle at the N.W. 14th Street crossing which is located near a residential housing area. The Railway receives an average of two calls per week to report incidents of vandalism in the area of the N.W. 14th street crossing. This number of calls is above average compared to other crossings in the area. Moreover, closure of the subject crossing would permit the relocation of the signal devices now in use there to one of forty-four other crossings in or near Florida City. The traffic count taken in the vicinity of N.W. 14th Street, which is a local service road providing access to a single neighborhood, showed that about 600 vehicles per day use the crossing. Traffic counts taken at Lucy Street, a through street which provides service beyond any specific residential area, resulted in approximately 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles per day. The Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway crossings have sufficient capability to handle all traffic diverted to them if the 14th Street crossing should be closed. The N.W. 14th Street crossing also allows outside traffic to enter the residential area, contrary to good urban planning. By removal of the crossing, such through traffic would be eliminated. The alternate crossings at Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis parkway provide reasonable alternate routes, and removal of the subject crossing will not unduly inhibit access by emergency vehicles into the affected area. Although 75 percent of the calls the Florida City police receive originate from Cuban village, a heavily populated area surrounding N.W. 14th Street, if the subject crossing were closed, Lucy Street and Arthur Vining Davis Parkway could be used to respond to emergency police calls in the Cuban Village. Therefore, alternate routes are available for emergency access to the affected area. In addition, from a pedestrian safety standpoint, there is sufficient space along Lucy Street to allow pedestrians to walk there without being affected by vehicular traffic.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Florida East Coast Railway Company to close the at-grade railroad crossing at N.W. 14th Street in Florida City, Florida, be granted. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15 day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 15 day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles B. Evans, Esquire One Malaga Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Thomas Tomassi, Esquire 137 N.W. 10th Street Homestead, Florida 33030 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
