The Issue Whether a permit should be granted by the Florida Department of Transportation for a public-at-grade crossing in the vicinity of Section 55000- 6607, State Road (Laurel Oak Drive) Leon County, Parcel 1 (XS0-H) SCL Railroad MP SPA-809.
Findings Of Fact A railroad grade crossing application was submitted by Henry G. Hanson, County Engineer, Leon County, Florida, for a public-at-grade rail highway opening by new roadway construction. The crossing location is in the unincorporated municipality of Woodville, Florida. The local popular name of the street is Laurel Oak Drive. The railroad company is Seaboard Coastline Railroad and the mile post distance and direction is 1,5534 ft. south of SPA- 809. The application stated that "Prior to construction the Board of County Commissioners will adopt the necessary resolutions for the maintenance of the crossing." The cost estimate as indicated on the application was $20,000.00. The application arose as a result of a proposed low cost or rent subsidy type housing development which is proposed to be constructed in the Woodville area in southern Leon County, Florida. The proposed subdivision is to be called "Woodlands" an area which lies west of the street called Tallahassee Street. Between Tallahasse and the proposed subdivision runs the Seaboard Coastline railroad. The subject land is presently owned by a group of people for whom Mr. John Butler is a representative. The proposed subdivision is a cooperative effort by the landowners represented by Mr. Butler, the Tallahassee Housing Authority represented by Mr. Calvin 0gburn and the Department of Community Affairs, State of Florida. Leon County is involved inasmuch as the subdivision as proposed would be dedicated to Leon County, Florida, whereby Leon County would take over maintenance and ownership of the roadways including that portion of the roadway crossing the railroad. The application for the subject crossing was made by Leon County as the ultimate owner of the crossing. At the date of this hearing there is no subdivision but plans for a subdivision have been submitted. The plans are for a low cost housing which was described as houses that would cost between 20 and 23 thousand dollars ($20,000-$23,000) including the cost of the lot and would be approximately 900 to 1000 square feet. The proposal is for 53 lots each within an approximate 75 foot frontage. The Department of Community Affairs administers the rural land fund which is a 2.5 million dollar fund to provide lost cost lots. This department lends money to local governments, housing authorities or small communities and rural areas to buy land and to cause it to be developed as in the subject cause. The position of the Department of Community Affairs is to approve or deny a loan to the Tallahassee Housing Authority. A plat of the proposed subdivision was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs as part of their application for $199,000.00 which would be used to buy the land and developed it. There is no access to the land on which the proposed subdivision would be built except at the proposed site for the subject crossing. The 75 foot lots would cost approximately $3,760.00 each. There are two trains per day on unscheduled runs using the subject railroad tracks. The estimation is that there would be between 300 to 350 vehicles per day using the crossing. The speed of the train is approximately 25 miles per hour. The two lane rural road with 6 foot shoulders as proposed would cross the railroad track. The recommendations of the District Safety Engineer for the Third District employed by the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, is that a type 3 installation is required. The installation is roadside flashing lights with bells. A representative of the railroad read the following statement from Mr. Tom Hutchinson, Vice President of Maintenance of Seaboard Coastline Railroad, "It will be the railroad's position in this application that there arc no objection to what is proposed with the provision that automatic warning devices are installed and maintained at the expense of the applicant and with further conditions that any changes or alterations or improvements of the cost will be borne by the applicant." The Hearing Officer further finds: That if the proposed subdivision is in fact built and homes sold there would be a need for the proposed railroad crossing. That there would be a need for the proposed railroad crossing prior to the completion of the subdivision inasmuch as there would be a large amount of traffic during the construction of this subdivision. Leon County would maintain the crossing. The safety devices as recommended by the Florida Department of Transportation which is flashing lights and ringing bells is necessary for the safety of those traveling to and from the proposed subdivision. A simple cross buck would be inadequate for the safety of those living or working in the proposed subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit upon approval of the project. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Earl O. Black, Esquire County Engineer's Office Leon County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Henry G. Hanson, County Engineer Leon County Courthouse Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. G. S. Burleson, Sr,, P.E. Assistant State Utility Engineer (RRs) Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue By its Motion to Dismiss, Plant City raised the question of the jurisdiction and authority of the Department of Transportation to close a railroad crossing on its own initiative. In short, Plant City argued that under the Home Rule Provisions of the Constitution of the State of Florida and Chapter 375, Florida Statutes, Plant City had authority to regulate railroad crossings and was the only entity which could initiate the closing of a crossing within the city's corporate limits. The Department of Transportation and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company argued that Section 330.12, Florida Statutes, gave the Department authority to regulate the opening and closing of railroad crossings, and that this authority to open and close crossings anywhere in the state was exclusive. While it was argued that the Department had the authority to initiate such an action on its own initiative without a request from a local government or a railroad, this is not an issue based on the facts presented because the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company initiated the action to close the railroad crossings in question. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on the basis that the Department of Transportation and Plant City had joint authority to regulate railroad crossings in the city; however, the Department had exclusive authority to open and close railroad crossings in the state under Section 338.12(3), Florida Statutes. The remaining issue relates to a factual determination of whether the crossings in question should be closed. It was held that these determinations should be made in light of the criteria for closing railroad crossings and opening crossings as stated in Rule 14-46.03(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. The rule for closing a crossing states that a crossing is a candidate for closing if it does not have active grade crossing devices, has a traffic count of less than 1,000 vehicles per day, and has an access read to an adjacent crossing; however, closing should not be considered if it would increase the traffic on the adjacent crossing to the capacity level, or if the adjacent crossing is already at the capacity level. In addition, the criteria for opening a crossing are necessity, convenience, and safety of rail and vehicular traffic.
Findings Of Fact Gordon Street Crossing The traffic count on the Gordon Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest one-day count recorded was 732 crossings, while the lowest number of crossings for one day was 200. Traffic across this crossing is less than 1,000 crossings per day. The Gordon Street Crossing lacks active grade crossing devices. The most accessible crossing adjacent to the Gordon Street Crossing is located 340 feet west at Warnell Street. Warnell Street is accessible from Gordon Street north of the railroad track via Baker Street and Reynolds Street, a paired one-way system. Warnell Street is accessible from Gordon Street south of the railroad track via Jenkins Street. The next crossing east of Gordon Street is Maryland Avenue, located 1,345 feet to the east. It is accessible north of the railroad track on the Reynolds/Baker Street system, and south of the railroad track on Jenkins Street. The highest traffic count recorded on the Maryland Avenue Crossing for a 24-hour period was 2,784 crossings. This is well below the capacity of this crossing, which is signalized with flashing lights and gates. The highest count recorded on the Warnell Street Crossing was 1,700 crossings in a 24-hour period. This is also well below the maximum traffic count which this crossing can handle. The Warnell Street Crossing has no active signaling devices at this time. Closing of the Gordon Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. Public safety would be enhanced only slightly by the elimination of the Gordon Street Crossing. Most of the benefit of closing this crossing would be derived from the shift of traffic from the Gordon Street Crossing to the signalized Maryland Avenue Crossing. However, the Warnell Street Crossing, which is not signalized and is only 230 feet east, will probably receive the majority of the diverted traffic. This will negate to a degree the benefit of the closing. The inconvenience to the public from closing the Gordon Street Crossing will be minimal because of the Warnell Street route which is very close at hand. Thomas Street Crossing The traffic count on the Thomas Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest one-day count recorded was 640 crossings, while the lowest was 113 crossings. Traffic over the crossing was less than 1,000 vehicles per day. The Thomas Street Crossing is located in the very center of Plant City and is signalized with flashing lights without gates. There are several crossings which provide alternatives to the Thomas Street Crossing. Moving to the east, the next four streets cross the railroad track: Wheeler Street, 230 feet away; Evens Street, 510 feet away; Collins Street, 780 feet away; and Palmer Street, 1,060 feet away. To the west there are two crossings: Walker Street, 270 feet away; and Howard Street, 800 feet away. North of the railroad track these crossings may be reached by the Baker/Reynolds Street paired one-way system or by Mahoney Street, a two-way street. To the south of the railroad track the crossings may be reached on South Drane/Arden Mays. The Thomas Street Crossing is the only one of these crossings which dead-ends immediately south of the railroad track. The highest traffic count recorded on Wheeler Street in one day was 11,760 crossings. The highest count recorded on Walker Street in one day was 1,237 crossings. Traffic capacity at either crossing immediately adjacent to the Thomas Street Crossing would not be pushed to or beyond its designed capacity by the closing of the Thomas Street Crossing. Tie closing of the Thomas Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. The accessibility to multiple alternative crossings east and west of the Thomas Street Crossing would prevent any substantial inconvenience to the public, particularly in light of the fact that the Thomas Street Crossing is the only one of these crossings which is not a through street south of the railroad track. Public safety would be only minimally enhanced by the elimination of this crossing because of the close proximity of the remaining crossings. While it is argued that elimination of any crossing reduces the risk of an auto/train collision, it is the act of crossing the track that creates the risk. The closing of this crossing will not affect the number of crossings but only divert the traffic. The benefit of greater distance between the remaining crossings is nullified by the number of crossings existing so closely to both the east and west of the Thomas Street Crossing. Davis Street Crossing The traffic count on the Davis Street Crossing was taken on several occasions. The highest traffic count recorded was 1,700 cars per day, and the lowest 486. On one other occasion it exceeded 1,000 cars per 24-hour period by 39 crossings. It had a five-day average of 856.4 crossings. The Davis Street Crossing does not have active grade crossing devices. The closest alternative crossing is Howard Street, located east 1,190 feet. The next alternative crossing to the west is Alexander Street, 2,100 feet away. The Howard Street Crossing and the Alexander Street Crossing can be reached south of the railroad track on Haines Street. The Howard Street Crossing can be reached north of the railroad track on the Bakers Reynolds Street paired one-way system or on Mahoney Street. Although north of the railroad track one can travel west from Davis Street to Alexander Street, the routes can only be described as circuitous. Reynolds Street is one-way the wrong way, Mahoney Street is not a through street west of Carey Street, and Baker Street begins to run northwest at Carey Street. The highest traffic count recorded on the Howard Street Crossing was 1,030 crossings per day. The highest traffic count recorded on the Alexander Street Crossing was 18,288 per day. Traffic capacity at either crossing immediately adjacent to the Thomas Street Crossing would not be pushed to or beyond its designed capacity by closing of the Davis Street Crossing. Closing of the Davis Street Crossing would not deny access to any real property, and therefore maintaining the crossing is not necessary to the use and enjoyment of any real property by its owner. Public safety would be enhanced only slightly by the closure of the Davis Street Crossing because of the remaining multiple crossings. The small benefit to public safety would be primarily from the diversion of traffic to the Alexander Street Crossing which is fully signalized with flashing lights and gates. The Davis Street Crossing is essentially flat with good visibility afforded to both train and vehicular traffic. Train traffic would be traveling at reduced speed at the Davis Street Crossing, having entered the city limits of Plant City. Convenience of the public would be adversely affected by the closing of the Davis Street Crossing. The crossing in question carries on some days more than 1,000 cars per day. The average daily traffic count (ADTC) of 856 crossings exceeds that of Howard Street (450 ADTC) and Walker Street (529 ADTC), both of which would be retained. The distances to the alternative crossings are greater than the distances to alternative crossings of the other crossings proposed for closing. The lack of accessibility is compounded north of the railroad track by the lack of through streets running east and west. As pointed out at hearing, the area immediately south of the Davis Street Crossing is primarily a black neighborhood, while the area immediately north is predominantly white. The principal recreational facilities are located northwest of the Davis Street Crossing. Closing this crossing would create a physical barrier between these neighborhoods and residents and limit accessibility of the recreational facilities in the northwest area of town. The police chief testified that closure of the Davis Street Crossing would make transfers of vehicles between the southwest and northwest parts of town more difficult. The fire chief pointed out that the area along Haines Street between Davis Street and Alexander Street immediately south of the railroad track is an industrialized area containing large warehouses. In fighting a fire in this area, a crossing at each end of the area would be helpful. Three alternative routes of travel between the southwest and northwest areas are possible if the Davis Street Crossing were closed. Using the map, Exhibit 10, which lacks any scale reference, the street distances between the center of the southwest area to the hospital (H) and recreational facilities (A & P) were measured. Alternative I was via Howard Street. Alternative II was via Alsobrook Street and Alexander Street, and Alternative III was via Haines Street and Alexander Street. The following measurements were taken from the dot (.) in the intersection of Ball Street and the third street west of Franklin Street, which is unlabeled: A P H Alternative I 17.0" 17.75" 20.0" Alternative II 15.5 15.50 13.5 Alternative III 14.5 14.50 13.5 Warnell Street 12.5 13.50 16.0 The existing crossing clearly provides the shortest distance to the recreational facilities, which is a prime concern to persons in the southwest section of town. Alternative III would require traffic to detour through an industrialized area of town, and Alternatives I and II are circuitous.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head enter a final order closing the Gordon Street and Thomas Street Crossings and leaving the Davis Street Crossing open. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronae B. Keiser, Esquire Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Paul S. Buchman, Esquire Buckman Building 212 North Collins Street Post Office Box 5 Plant City, Florida 33566 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 79-663T 79-964T PLANT CITY, 79-1910T Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact After receiving evidence, hearing testimony and personally visiting the site of the subject railroad crossing and the area the crossing serves, I find: The subject of this hearing is a railroad crossing located 2,423 North of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company Mile Post SPA-803 in an area designated Four Points Way on the west side of South Adams Street, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, contends that the crossing is now a public crossing and should be closed or appropriate safety equipment should be installed. The safety engineer for Petitioner recommends flashing lights and gates. Respondent contends that the present signalization is adequate and the crossing should not be closed; that the railroad should maintain the current safety signalization at the existing crossing and that appropriate markings should be made at the highway and street approach to the crossing. Public use has increased from a few crossings per day to a 24-hour count of 1,186 vehicles on an average day in July, 1978. The increase in traffic has been generated by the number of business establishments in the industrial area and increased business. A large business catering to home owners has generated a large amount of business in recent years. The railroad crossings and streets make a complicated and congested traffic pattern: The subject crossing is located West of South Adams Street (State Road 363) on a paved but privately owned paved and curbed street which serves the industrial area. There is a short street connecting South Adams Street and South Monroe Street (State Road 61) directly across South Adams Street from the subject crossing. The area intersection has two major highways, South Adams and South Monroe, crossing each other with several exits and entrances. There have been many reported traffic accidents. The Panhandle Concrete Industry, Inc., is a concrete plant which has an entrance intersecting with the private paved road in the industrial park area West of the railroad. It uses the subject railroad crossing. Directly to the East and South of the subject crossing is a public generated unimproved road intersecting with South Adams Street, a short distance from the crossing. Approximately 600 feet North of the subject crossing is a paved but non-signalized crossing that is used by the general public doing business with Carpet City, The Canoe Shop, Home of Fibercell Manufacturing, Inc., Signs by Matlock, and a Department of Education warehouse. It appears that said crossing is subject to regulation by petitioner under Section 338.21(3), Florida Statutes. Approximately 1,000 feet North of the subject crossing is a public crossing on Bragg Drive. This crossing is marked by railroad cross bucks. There is an entrance to Bragg Drive from the Department of Education warehouse and also from the foregoing named businesses primarily served by the paved but non-signalized crossing. Respondent, Albritton-Williams, requested a permit for the opening of an at-grade public crossing on October 22, 1973. Thereafter, at a public hearing on July 15, 1974, it moved to amend the application so it could pave the subject crossing and contended that the crossing was in fact a private crossing. On November 6, 1974, the Recommended Order, which was adopted as the Petitioner's Final Order, concluded that the crossing was a private crossing and that the Florida Department of Transportation had no jurisdiction. Thereafter, the owners of the industrial area paved the street to serve the private business interests of the industrial park. Subsequent to the issuance of the Recommended Order, and subsequent to the paving of the street, the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, determined that the formerly designated private crossing is in fact a public crossing and that the Petitioner has and should exert regulatory authority over the crossing as required by Section 338.21, Florida Statutes. It petitioned for subject hearing. There are a number of owners and lessees of the area including: Panhandle Concrete Industries, Inc.; Scottie's; Eli-Witt Company; Four Points Industrial Park and Albritton-Williams, Inc. These owners and lessees are all businesses which invite the public to their doors and presently require the crossing of subject railroad both to and from the businesses. There is no other improved exit or entrance to the industrial and business area. The roadways within the park have not been dedicated to the City, County or State. The Seaboard Coastline Railroad uses the three tracks enroute Lo St. Marks, Florida, three days a week, twice each day, travelling between ten and twenty miles per hour. The three to eight car train runs in the afternoons between 3:00 o'clock and 4:00 o'clock to St. Marks and returns. The tracks run North and South and the road runs East and West. The testimony elicited stated that the train takes about five minutes per crossing, six times each week, twice each day on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The rail highway grade crossing index introduced into evidence placed the crossing at 2,848 on a priority rating the highest being 8 and the lowest being 5,639 for corrective action at public railroad crossings in the State of Florida. The accident potential of subject crossing is 06 on a scale of 40.19. There have been no reported accidents at the subject crossing. The vehicular traffic at the crossing can back up on South Adams Street at the time of the crossing of the train for the reason that the area between the closest railroad track and the outer edge of the travel lane going South on Adams Street is approximately 90 to 95 feet with storage for about three vehicles. Highway and street approach markings although helpful would not solve the problem of congested traffic. The property that the existing crossing serves is within the cite limits of Tallahassee, Florida. The proposed order of the Respondent has been examined and each proposed fact has been treated in this Order. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject crossing is a public crossing and there has been a crossing in said general area which had been used by the public in excess of twenty years. There is a need for a railroad crossing to serve the industrial area that stretches from the privately paved road of Respondent North to Bragg Street and South of the concrete plant. A crossing in the area is required for the convenience of the business interest in the area. The subject crossing creates a hazard because of its location directly West of South Adams Street and across from the short cross-connection between South Adams Street and South Monroe Street. This hazard is increased by other cross-connections between these major streets and by a public railroad crossing on State Road 61, South Monroe Street approximately 400 feet South of the subject crossing. The hazard is caused by the location of the crossing rather than the crossing itself.
Recommendation Close the crossing in not less than 90 days or more than 100 days from date hereof. Upon petition by the respondent or other interested parties, open a crossing to serve the needs and convenience of the owners and lessees at the closing of the subject crossing at a location that will not cause a traffic hazard and will meet standards required by the Petitioner, Department of Transportation. Consideration should be given to directing all traffic crossing the railroad to one crossing serving the entire commercial area which includes interests in addition to respondents. The non-signalized crossing should be scrutinized. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank King, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Roy T. Rhodes, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jesse F. Warren, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 612 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 E. Eugene Buzard Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida Rhett Miller, City Engineer City Hall Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: Petition of State of Florida, Department of Transportation for closing of, or in the alternative, installation of appropriate safety equipment at, CASE NO. 77-1751 a public at-grade railroad crossing 2,423 feet north of Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company Mile Post SPA-803 and a proposed street at Four Points Industrial Park in Tallahassee, Florida. /
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing and new rail line construction on Jones Road and Georgia Southern and Florida Railroad - MP 243.
Findings Of Fact The following stipulation was agreed upon and written by the parties: "1. As to the necessity of the opening of the said crossing. Westlake is a develop- ment where in excess of $25,000,000 has been spent in a project of the Georgia Southern & Florida Railway, of which $15,000,000 has al- ready been spent to date. Such project has been reviewed and approved by the Jacksonville Planning Board and the public need has been recognized and determined for this residential and light industrial development. As to the facility. The track will be an extension of existing lead track that was originally considered and approved by the De- partment of Transportation crossing Garden Street and is an extension south to the Appli- cant's property lime. Said extension is to serve the need of said development and must be extended across Jones Road to facilitate the services of light industrial purposes. Said track is an extension being two miles in length. Safety and signalization. To meet the required safety standards of the State of Florida, Applicant agrees to install cantalevered flashing lights and bells, side mounted, which are referred to as Type 2 installation. Applicant also agrees to provide sign and pavement markings as specified in MUTCD. The parties agree that said construction of signal device will provide the required public safety. The present anticipated need of such crossing of the Applicant are for one train per day rail traffic in and out. Jones Road is a two-lane rural road with posted speed limits of 45 miles an hour. As to the construction. Said plans have been presented and approved by the City Engineer, Jacksonville, Florida. Applicant agrees to pay for the installation and maintenance of signalization. Approximately $35,000 for the installation and $3,000 per year maintenance. Applicant agrees that it is a quasi-public corporation existing in perpetuity. Applicant agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation and laws of the State of Florida, as well as the ordinance code of the City of Jacksonville." The facts as outlined in the stipulation of the parties are the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Issue the required permit. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1977, 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 Julie H. Kuntz, Esquire American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida
The Issue Whether there should be an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction at the intersection of Berryhill Road and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad SYA 877-1610' South, Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/ highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Robert K. Reese of Pasco County, County Commission District IV, Florida. The crossing location is in the municipality of Holiday. The local popular name of the street or roadway is Berryhill Roadway. The crossing is across the tracks of the Seaboard Coast Line railroad. The railroad mile post distance and direction is SYA 877-1610' south. The crossing would serve a subdivision known as Forest Hills East. The only entrance into the Forest Hills East Subdivision is a crossing by way of Elizabeth Avenue. This crossing is unsignalized and requires vehicular traffic to cross two spur line railroad tracks. There is a third possible entrance into the subdivision through a crossing known as Tumbleweeds but this entrance is undeveloped and is not now being utilized. The Forest Hills East Subdivision projects 250 single family dwellings in the development. There are no current plans to build condominium or apartment structures. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad previously approved water and sewer crossings underneath the railroad tracks at the Berryhill proposed crossing. There are deceleration and acceleration lanes and paving on the state road S-595 which leads up to the subdivision. There is an estimated three trains per week which would utilize the crossing and there is an unobstructed field of view from the center of the railroad track 1500 feet to the south and 700 feet to the north. On the proposed crossing proceeding in the western direction there is am available visibility of 89 feet south and 120 feet north with a train proceeding at 15 miles per hour. After public hearing in 1974 involving this same proposed crossing in which Dreher Construction Company, the developer of the subdivision, was the applicant, the Respondent, Department of Transportation, directed an issuance of the permit finding need but the issuance of the permit was conditioned upon the installation and maintenance of automatically operated signals consisting of flashing lights and ringing bells at the proposed crossing as the required safety measure. No permit was granted. The roadway has been built and access to the subdivision across the tracks is now complete except for signalization. Because of no signalization the entrance is now blocked for ingress or egress although at least two new homes have been constructed in the subdivision. The cost of the installation of the signalization which had been recommended by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, in 1974 and is still recommended, is between $30,000 and $40,000 with additional maintenance costs. The cost of the signalization of wooden cross bucks, stop signs and speed bumps with minimal maintenance costs is obviously much less although no evidence was submitted as to actual cost. The present applicant for the Berryhill crossing, the Pasco County Commission, District IV, represented by its Transportation-chairman Robert K. Reese requests that the permit for the proposed Berryhill crossing be granted without the requirement that electronic signalization be required. A need was cited for an additional crossing to serve the residents of the subdivision in addition to normal travel. Additional needs were cited by the fire department and hospital emergency vehicles. It was noted that many of the residents are retirees and that at times the one existing crossing is blocked by trains across the track. The applicant states that it is unwilling to expend county monies for the recommended electronic signalization. The developer of the subdivision is unwilling to install and maintain the electronic signalization. A large number of the residents of the subdivision want the proposed crossing opened immediately and at the hearing indicated that they felt that the roadside flashing lights were unnecessary and that they thought the cross buck and stop signs were all that is necessary. From a personal viewing of the Forest Hills East Subdivision and the crossing available to the residents therein, together with the evidence submitted, the testimony of parties who have substantial interest in the proposed crossing and after listening to the oral arguments of counsels at the hearing and the briefs submitted thereafter, the Hearing Officer further finds: There is an undisputed need for a crossing in addition to the present crossing to serve the subdivision. The present crossing is less safe than the proposed railroad crossing would be although both crossings are needed to serve the subdivision. The normal number of trains trafficking at the proposed Berryhill crossing is three times a week with a maximum scheduled speed of the train at 20 miles per hour. The crossing is needed and signalization of wooden cross arms and stop signs and speed zones would serve the public interest adequately although manual flagging of the train and the installation of flashing lights and ringing bells might be required at a future time. The need to the subdivision and the residents therein would be better served by opening the proposed Berryhill crossing inasmuch as it would give two entrances into the subdivision.
Recommendation Grant the permit for a period of one (1) year with wooden cross arms, a stop sign and traffic bumps as signalization and safety measures. Reevaluate after one year from date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: H. James Parker, Esquire Delzer, Edwards, Martin, Coulter & Parker Post Office Box 279 Port Richey, Florida 33568 Jeffrey H. Savlov, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coast Lime Railroad 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.008(4)(d) should be determined to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? The Rule requires that an application for a permit for construction seaward of a coastal construction control line ("CCCL") contain "written evidence, provided by the appropriate local government agency . . ., that the proposed activity . . . does not contravene local setback requirements, zoning, or building codes and is consistent with the State approved Local Comprehensive Plan." Whether a statement alleged to have been made by an employee of the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources in the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or "the Department") violated Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes? The alleged statement is to the effect that in determining if structures littoral to the coast have established a continuous construction line closer to the mean high water line than the CCCL, the Department uses a 1000-foot distance to structures on either side of the proposed project.
Findings Of Fact The CCCL and Continuous Lines of Construction The CCCL The Legislature has declared it in the public interest to preserve and protect Florida's beaches and the coastal barrier dunes adjacent to them. See § 161.053(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In furtherance of this intent, the Department is empowered to "establish coastal construction control lines on a county basis along the sand beaches of the state fronting the Atlantic Ocean . . .". id., "after it has been determined from a comprehensive engineering study and topographic study that the establishment of such control lines is necessary for the protection of upland properties and the control of beach erosion." § 161.053(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The Department defines "Coastal Construction Control Line" or "CCCL" as "the line established pursuant to the provisions of Section 161.053, F.S., and recorded in the official records of the county, which [delineates] that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(12). Brevard County's CCCL bisects property along the Atlantic Ocean owned by Petitioner and her husband. Continuous Lines of Construction The Department is mandated to exempt from some regulation certain construction that is seaward of a CCCL. See, e.g., Section 161.053(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes, which relates to construction landward of beach armoring. In addition, the Department is granted discretion to permit construction seaward of a CCCL in other instances. One such instance relates to construction landward of "a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes (a "Continuous Line of Construction") that is seaward of the CCCL. Subsection 161.053(5)(b): (5) Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to sub-section (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: * * * (b) If in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area a number of existing structures have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line closer to the line of mean high water than the foregoing [the coastal construction control lines], and if the existing structures have not been unduly affected by erosion, a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line on written authorization from the department. However, the department shall not contravene setback requirements or zoning or building codes established by a county or municipality which are equal to, or more strict than, those requirements provided herein . . . This proceeding involves a permit for construction seaward of the CCCL and landward or on a Continuous Line of Construction. The lines are in Brevard County where property is owned by both Petitioner and Intervenors, who, together with DEP, comprise the parties to this proceeding. The Parties Petitioner Carol C. Pope resides part-time in a duplex along Wilson Avenue on Cape Canaveral in Brevard County. She owns this oceanfront property, littoral to the Atlantic Ocean, with her husband James M. Pope. Although the property has a Cocoa Beach mailing address, it is not within the city limits of Cocoa Beach. The pre-hearing stipulation filed by all of the parties offers this account of the property's location: "The Pope's property is Lot 11, Block 101, Avon by the Sea, as described in Plat Book 3 page 7, [presumably in the Official Records of Brevard County] and east to Ocean, except the west 13 feet of Lot 11." Ms. Pope is the Petitioner in both of the consolidated cases that comprise this proceeding. The Department Among many duties related to environmental protection, the Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for the administration of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, Parts I and II, the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act." § 161.011, Fla. Stat. The Act confers on the Department the authority "to adopt rules related to the following provisions of this section [§ 161.053]: establishment of coastal construction control lines; activities seaward of the coastal construction control line; exemptions; property owner agreements; delegation of the program; permitting programs; and violations and penalties." § 161.053(21), Fla. Stat. Pursuant to its rule-making authority in Section 161.053 (together with other specific authority), the Department promulgated Rule Chapter 62B-33: "Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems - Rules and Procedures for Coastal Construction and Excavation (Permits for Construction Seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and Fifty-Foot Setback)." Two employees of the Department Tony McNeal, P.E., and Srivinas Tammisetti, P.E., testified at hearing. Both are engineers and both are involved with the Coastal Construction Control Line Program. Mr. McNeal is the program administrator. Mr. Tammisetti is a Professional Engineer II with the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources (the "Bureau"). He is responsible for "coastal armoring projects for the entire state" (tr. 52) and he is the head engineer for Lee County. In his capacity with the Bureau, Mr. Tammisetti reviews applications for activities seaward of the coastal construction control line. The Rays Clifford and Maria Ray are the owners of the property adjacent to Petitioner's property and the holders of Permit No. BE-1083 (the "Permit") issued by the Department in its order filed September 19, 2003. The Permit is the subject of the administrative proceeding initiated by Ms. Pope in DOAH Case No. 03-3981. Events Preceding the Permit's Issuance The Rays applied to DEP for a permit to conduct activities seaward of the CCCL, including construction of an eight-story, multi-family dwelling, a swimming pool and deck, a wooden beach/dune walkway, a parking area, masonry walls, and an exfiltration system. The Department approved the application. The Department's order issuing the Permit is titled "Permit for Construction or Other Activities Pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes." Intervenor's Ex. 1, Tab 6, pg. 1. The Permit acknowledges the application is for "authorization to conduct . . . activities seaward of the coastal construction line" and describes the location of the proposed project as "landward of the 30-year erosion projection and the existing line of construction established by major structures in the immediate area [the Continuous Line of Construction]." Id. While the application was pending before DEP, Ms. Pope visited the offices of the Department in Tallahassee several times. During the first visit (June 23, 2003), Ms. Pope reviewed the permit file and met with Mr. Tamisetti. At one point in the meeting, Ms. Pope asked Mr. Tamisetti how he determines the existence of Continuous Construction Lines. Ms. Pope testified at hearing that Mr. Tamisetti's answer was to the effect that "we look at a thousand feet on either side of the proposed structure." (Tr. 20). These were not necessarily Mr. Tamisetti's exact words but it is clear from the record that the substance of Ms. Pope's claim of what was said is correct; Mr. Tamisetti told Ms. Pope that the Department uses a thousand-foot distance on either side of a proposed structure in order to determine whether existing structures have established a Continuous Line of Construction seaward of the CCCL. The Rule Among the rules in the chapter for which Section 161.053 served as the sole specific authority is Rule 62B-33.008 (the "Rule"). It bears the catchline "Permit Application Requirements and Procedures." The Petition of Ms. Pope in Case No. 03-3860RX challenges subsection (d) of Section (4) of the Rule: (4) Any person desiring to obtain a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL) . . . from the Department . . . shall submit two copies of a completed application form. * * * The application form shall contain the following specific information: * * * (d) Written evidence, provided by the appropriate local governmental agency having jurisdiction over the activity, that the proposed activity, as submitted to the Office, does not contravene local setback requirements, zoning, or building codes and is consistent with the state approved Local Comprehensive Plan. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(4)(d). The Rule implements Section 161.052, "Coastal construction and excavation; regulation" as well as Section 161.053. Petitioner contends that the quoted portion of the Rule should be determined to be invalid because, while the statute directs that DEP in issuing permits of the kind obtained by the Rays "shall not contravene" local setbacks and building and zoning codes, it does not authorize DEP "to rely upon a letter mailed to an applicant from someone employed by an "appropriate" local government to prove that an activity would comply with the statutory directive." Proposed Final Order submitted by Petitioner, p. 18. As pointed out by Ms. Pope in her Proposed Final Order, DEP does not maintain nor does it require applicants for permits related to activity seaward of a CCCL to submit comprehensive land use plans, local setback requirements, zoning or building codes of counties and municipalities along Florida's coast. Instead, as sanctioned (in fact, required) by the Rule, DEP allows applicants to submit written evidence provided by the local government that the proposed activity does not contravene the enumerated regulations and is consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The parties have stipulated that the Department has not delegated its permitting authority under Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to Brevard County. The Statement The statement made by Mr. Tamisetti (the "Statement") is similar to one he has made many times over the course of his employment with the Department. Without reservation, Mr. Tamisetti testified as much at hearing. The Statement has been interpreted as DEP's common method of prescribing lines of continuous construction by at least one member of the public. A professional engineer who conducts coastal engineering analysis, opined in writing to one of his clients that: The DEP has commonly prescribed the "line of continuous construction" by the line established by the average seaward limits of the foundations of the structures within 1000? feet north and 1000? feet south of the subject property or the seaward limits of the most seaward structures within 1000? feet north and south of the subject property Petitioner's Ex. 14, p. 1 following the cover letter. Mr. Tamisetti maintained at hearing, however, that the statement he made to Ms. Pope was not a common method for determining a Continuous Construction Line. Rather, the Statement constituted a starting point for those who inquired about how such lines were determined to exist. The Department does not contend otherwise. In the Pre-hearing Stipulation executed by all parties, the Department's position with regard to the Statement of Mr. Tamisetti is found on page 4: "The statement [that DEP uses a 1000-foot distance on either side of a proposed structure to establish a Continuous Line of Construction] is merely a guideline to allow applicants and their engineers a starting place for providing the Department information regarding the line of construction." The reason for the Statement was discussed by Mr. Tamisetti in his testimony. When a concerned party poses the question of how DEP would determine a Continuous Line of Construction as to a certain site, the question can only be definitively answered by asking questions of that party, in turn, and requesting sufficient data. Responding might entail costs prohibitive to the party. "A thousand feet" is offered as "a starting point . . . to give them something" (tr. 61) as an estimate for whether to pursue the effort to have such a line established. In one project, Mr. Tamisetti offered, the distance from a proposed structure to an existing structure might be "500 feet"; in another "2000 feet." (Tr. 61, 62). Ultimately, Mr. Tamisetti insisted the determination is site specific and cannot be made across the board on the basis of a measurement of 1000 feet. The Permit's Relationship to the Statement Ms. Pope produced evidence of the location of a Continuous Line of Construction determined by DEP to exist for purposes of the Ray's permit, DEP Permit No. BE-1083. She concludes in her proposed final order: [T]he line that DEP depicted approximates the line that would be derived by drawing a line from existing structures within 1000 feet on either side of the structure proposed in BE-1083. (citation to record omitted) The derivation of the line of continuous construction can only be a result of using the foundations of building within 1000-feet on either side of the proposed Michelina Condominium, as readily seen on the DEP April 2002 aerial photograph . . . Proposed Final Order, submitted by Petitioner, p. 8. Furthermore, Ms. Pope points out DEP has two rules relevant to the interrelationship between the permit and her claim that the Statement is a rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(4), in her view, requires that applications for permits to conduct activity seaward of a CCCL "be 'clearly justified' by the applicant." Id. "Secondly," she asserts, DEP has an existing rule that requires applications to include surveys that depict accurate dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures in the immediate contiguous or adjacent areas that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line. Rule 62B- 33.008(4)(f)15, F.A.C. Id., at 8-9. These rules relate, obviously, to the Permit Case. Coupled with the location of the Continuous Line of Construction determined by DEP with regard to the Rays' application for purpose of the un-promulgated rule challenge, however, they do not overcome other evidence as to how the Bureau determines the existence of Continuous Lines of Construction seaward of CCCLs. That evidence is the testimony of Mr. McNeal, the head of DEP's Coastal Construction Control Line Program. The Testimony of Mr. McNeal Ms. Pope's claim that the only credible evidence in the case demonstrates that the Statement is an un-promulgated rule overlooks convincing credible evidence provided by Mr. McNeal. Mr. McNeal's testimony shows that the Statement is not reflective of a policy followed by DEP that creates rights or imposes duties upon the regulated. It is not reflective of a policy of the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources that does so either. Nor is it reflective of such a policy of the Bureau's Coastal Construction Control Line Program. As explained by Mr. McNeal, if an applicant would like to build on a Continuous Construction Line seaward of the CCCL, the applicant typically must demonstrate that the Continuous Construction Line exists by data provided with the application. Petitioner's Exhibit 7, entitled "Request for Additional Information" was identified by Mr. McNeal at hearing as "a template for our standard information package that comes with the application." (Tr. 40). "The items of information listed [on the request] are numbered to correspond with the item numbers on the application form." Petitioner's Ex. 7, p. 1. The following appears under Item 9: Two copies of a topographic survey drawing of the subject property. The topographic information depicted in the drawing shall be from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of application. The topographic survey drawing shall include the following specific information: * * * - Accurate dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures in the immediate contiguous or adjacent areas that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line if the permit is requested under the provisions of 161.053(5)(b), . . . Florida Statutes . . . (Id., pps. 2-3). There is no reference to the "1000 feet" measurement in the Bureau's Request for Additional Information. Furthermore, when an application is submitted that is incomplete with regard to the location of existing structures, the Department does not always resort to a request for additional information. The Department has an extensive database that includes aerial photographs, GIS images, and topographic information collected with regard to DEP reference monuments spaced along the shoreline. On occasion, the DEP database is sufficient to determine whether such a line exists without additional information provided by the applicant. When a determination of a Continuous Line of Construction is made by DEP, it is made specific to the site of proposed construction on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant or on the basis of publicly held data. The determination is not made on the basis of Mr. Tamisetti's statement to Ms. Pope or on the basis of unwritten policy related to existing structures within 1000 feet of the proposed structures. A Rule of Thumb for Prospective Applicants Mr. McNeal's testimony sheds direct light on the actual practice of DEP and the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources in determining the existence and location of Continuous Lines of Construction. When the Petitioner's case is measured against the Department's, the best for Petitioner that can be said of the Statement is that it is precisely what Mr. Tamisetti claims. It is a "rule of thumb," and a rough one at that, for whether it is worthwhile for a party to pursue the establishment of a Continuous Construction Line in order to conduct activity, including construction, seaward of an established CCCL. It does not constitute an agency statement of general applicability that meets the definition of a "rule" in the Administrative Procedure Act and that is subject to the Act's rule-making requirements.
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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: On March 31, 1978, Okaloosa County submitted its application for the opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction at Berry Street in Holt, Florida. The crossing is proposed to be furnished with flashing lights. Eight regularly scheduled trains, and an occasional unscheduled train, travel through Holt on a daily basis at an approximate speed of 40 miles per hour. Located approximately 600 feet to the west of the proposed Berry Street crossing is the Main Street crossing, which receives the majority of the traffic in the area -- about 600 crossings per day. No evidence was adduced which illustrated that there was any problem with traffic flow on or near the Main Street crossing. Beyond the Main Street crossing, about 400 feet to the west, is the Johnson Street, also known as the Post Office Road, crossing, which has only about 175 crossings per day. Log trucks, industrial vehicles and school buses currently utilize the Johnson Street crossing, which has been in existence for about 58 years. Berry Street, a partly paved road, provides direct access to the Holt school and the Holt Assembly of God Church. The proposed Berry Street crossing would be within the school's warning zone. School buses presently utilize the Johnson Street crossing, located approximately 1,000 feet west of the proposed crossing. The community of Holt and nearby communities have experienced two derailments of trains with accompanying explosions or leaks of toxic chemicals in the past two years. These accidents necessitated the immediate evacuation of the citizens of Holt for several days.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Okaloosa County to open a rail/highway crossing at Berry Street be DENIED. Done and entered this 24th day of October, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Dowd Post Office Box 1964 207 Florida Place Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Philip S. Bennett Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dawn E. Welch Beggs and Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Secretary William N. Rose Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether a permit should be granted for a public at-grade crossing over Seaboard Coast Line Railroad tracts near its Milepost AX-892.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Mitchell Hope and Hardee County, Florida, by application to the Department of Transportation, sought to open a public railroad-highway grade crossing at a location where a proposed road would intersect the tracks and right of way of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company near its Milepost AX-892. The property to be reached by the proposed at-grade crossing is owned by Applicant Hope and other private individuals. Other access to the property would be by crossing the Peace River to the south and east, or industrial property to the north, or by a grade separation over the railroad. The property consists of approximately 77 acres, of which 25 acres could be developed for residential purposes consisting of one-acre plots. The nearest crossing to the south is a public crossing in Zolfo Springs, approximately one-half mile; the nearest crossing to the north is a private crossing, approximately one mile. The scheduled train speed is thirty-five (35) miles per hour. Two freight trains each weekday and one each weekend day are scheduled to pass the proposed crossing. Applicant Hope is willing to close the crossing to the public by means of a gate. The Board of County Commissioners of Hardee County is willing to accept the road and crossing into the County Road System provided the road meets engineering standards. Representatives of both Applicants are unwilling to provide or maintain automatic grade crossing traffic control devices. The roadway approaches to the proposed crossing are as follows: From the west the sight distances between the roadway and the tracks are good provided the foliage and underbrush are kept cut near the ground. From the east the sight distance to the northeast quadrant is obstructed by trees and underbrush and complicated by the track curvature to the northeast; the sight distance to the southeast quadrant is somewhat less obscured but could be blocked by the growth of trees and underbrush. The track approaches to the proposed crossing from the north are complicated by the curvature of the track which tends to prevent a view of the crossing until the train is within one-third of a mile from the crossing; the track view of the northeast quadrant is blocked by trees. The track approaches from the south are good. The Department of Transportation has recommended the installation of automatic grade crossing traffic control devices consisting of flashing lights, bells and gates at such location if a crossing is found to be necessary.
Recommendation Dismiss the application to open a public railroad-highway grade crossing at a location near Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Milepost AX-892, but retain jurisdiction for some future time when the facts may indicate the necessity for the crossing at which time the type of traffic control devices can be determined. Hold each of the other proposed findings of fact and requests to be without merit. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1977 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 Brian J. Pappas, Esquire Attorney at Law 305 North Sixth Avenue Wauchula, Florida 33873 G. S. Burlesen, Sr. Assistant State Utility Engr. (RRS) Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 R. Earl Collins, Esquire Attorney, Hardee County Wauchula, Florida 33873 Eugene R. Buzard, Esquire Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co. 500 Water Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Recommendation Dismiss the application to open a public at-grade crossing at Country Club Boulevard in the Citrus Springs Community in Citrus County, Florida without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd 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: James L. Shroads, Esquire 3250 S. W. 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 George L. Waas, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 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
