Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that the agency head enter a final order permitting the voluntary removal of the entire structure within 30 days of the date of the agency head's final order, and directing employees of the Department of Transportation to remove the structure after the 30-day period without compensation to the owner. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 385 Marianna, Florida 32446
Findings Of Fact Sebastian has applied for a Department permit to open a public at-grade crossing of the Railway's right-of-way near Mile Post 218 + 146'. The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing of the railroad track is part of a planned eastward extension of Barber Street and Stratton Avenue. If completed, this extension will provide a new arterial road connecting the southeast interior section of Sebastian with U.S. Highway 1. (Stip.; P-2 (d); R-1) The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing will have an 80 foot right-of-way and eventually accommodate four lanes. During the permitting process, its alignment has been modified to provide for greater vehicular sight distance. Although the proposed Stratton Avenue extension does not cross the tracks at right angles, which would provide maximum sighting of oncoming trains, it is likely that further improvements in alignment can be made. Nevertheless, the alignment, as proposed, complies with standard engineering criteria contained in the "Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction, and Maintenance for Streets and Highways." (P-2 (d); Testimony of Adair) The alignment of the proposed crossing would allow for a 45 mile-per- hour speed limit. Twenty-four trains currently pass this section of track each day. The train speed limit is 65 miles-per-hour. (R-2) The proposed crossing will be provided with cross-bucks, gates, and flashers. The parties have stipulated that Sebastian will install, at its own expense, active grade crossing traffic control devices meeting the criteria of Rule 14-46.03(3), Florida Administrative Code. (Stipulation) Applications to open public at-grade crossings are measured by three criteria: convenience, safety of rail and vehicle traffic, and necessity. Existing routes must first be utilized when practicable. Damage to a railway's operation and safety must be considered. And when estimated traffic approaches 30,000 vehicles a day on main line tracks, the applicant must perform a cost- benefit analysis to determine if grade separation is warranted. See, Section 14-46.03(2)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. II. CRITERION 1: CONVENIENCE The proposed Stratton Avenue crossing would be convenient and provide several advantages to residents of Sebastian. (A map showing the location of the proposed crossing is attached for easy reference.) Improved Access to Hurricane Shelter. Sebastian Elementary School has recently been built at the intersection of Schumann Drive and south Barber Street. (Stratton Avenue will connect Barber Street with U.S. 1.) This school serves as a hurricane or civil defense fallout shelter for Sebastian and northern Indian River County. The proposed Stratton Avenue extension would provide an additional access route and facilitate evacuation of residents from U.S. 1 to the shelter. (TR-53-55) Improved Access to Sebastian Elementary School. The new school serves students located throughout the northern part of Indian River County. Currently, 42 school buses transport students to and from the school using Powerline Road (a dirt road unsatisfactory for bus traffic) and Schumann Drive (a road which traverses a residential neighborhood). A majority of these buses would use the proposed Stratton Avenue extension since it would be paved and would avoid built-up residential neighborhoods. The latter advantage may be short-lived, however, because Stratton Avenue will traverse a residential area which will eventually be developed. The Stratton Avenue extension would also benefit parents who bus their children to school because it would provide a new access road from U.S. 1. The School Board of Indian River County supports the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing because of the increased access provided to school buses and parents. (Testimony of Solin, Tipton, R-1, P-4) Improved Fire and Police Access to the Elementary School and South Sebastian. The proposed Stratton Avenue extension, with crossing, will enhance fire, police, and emergency service access to the elementary school and residential areas of south Sebastian. Currently, fire and police vehicles reach the south and southwestern portions of the city by proceeding south one and three quarters miles on Schumann Drive (which is one and three quarters miles north of Stratton Avenue), then south on Barber Avenue to the residential areas. The Stratton Avenue extension would provide a shorter and more direct route so emergency vehicles could respond more quickly. (Testimony of Solin) Improved Access to U.S. 1 from South Sebastian Residential Areas. Residents living in south and southwest Sebastian would have improved access to U.S. 1 and coastal areas if the extension, with crossing, is built. Residents traveling east on Barber Street would have a shorter and mode direct route to U.S. 1 and the coast. Two county road improvements planned for completion during the next two years will, however, improve access to and from Sebastian Elementary School and U.S. 1. Powerline Road will be widened and paved; Schumann Drive will be extended to Wobaso Road, as shown on the attached map. 2/ III. CRITERION 2: SAFETY The design and alignment of the proposed crossing meets or exceeds all safety and engineering standards of the Department, and no party asserts otherwise. The design will allow clear, though not optimum, visibility by both vehicle and train traffic. (Testimony of Murray, Adair, Tipton; P-2 (d), R-1) The proposed crossing will, however, provide a new point for potential collision between trains and motor vehicles, with resulting property damage, injury, and loss of life. Currently, 24 of the Railway's trains pass the crossing site each day, with a permissible speed of 65 miles-per-hour. The proposed crossing will increase the potential for collision between motor vehicles and trains. (Testimony of Tipton; P-16) The frequency and seriousness of grade-crossing accidents are cause for concern. In 1978, there were 1,122 grade-crossing fatalities, nationwide. Between 1979 and 1983, there were 177 grade crossing accidents involving the Railway's trains; 18 people were killed and 66 injured. These accidents occurred despite the fact that the Railway's public crossings are equipped with gates, bells, and lights. (Testimony of Tipton) It is generally recognized that, assuming equal volumes of vehicular traffic, the potential for accidents is directly related to the number of crossings. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) IV. CRITERION 3: NECESSITY Although completion of the proposed Stratton Avenue extension, with crossing, would benefit Sebastian residents, there is no genuine need or necessity for the extension. Existing roads and crossings, with minor improvements (many of which are already planned or underway) can safely and adequately accommodate existing vehicular traffic and traffic demands projected for the next five years. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) The Railway contracted for an in-depth traffic engineering study to determine whether the proposed at-grade crossing is needed for transportation purposes. That study, which is credible and accepted as persuasive, concludes that the existing roads and crossings serving the area north and south of Stratton Avenue can, with minor improvements, safely and adequately accommodate traffic demands reasonably projected for the next five years. (R-1) In conducting the study, William E. Tipton, an expert traffic transportation engineer, collected and analyzed four kinds of data: 1) Population growth projected in the area of the proposed crossing within the next five years; 2) Traffic characteristics at intersections and crossings near the proposed crossing; 3) Daily traffic counts at those intersections; and 4) Roadway improvements planned for the near future. (R-1, Testimony of Tipton) Existing traffic on the nearby intersections was counted and adjusted to derive peak season and peak hour conditions. Applying standard capacity measurements, the study indicates that, currently, 52 percent of the existing capacity of State Road 510 is used during peak conditions; 20 percent of the capacity of 87th Street is used; and 26 percent of Vickers Road. It is apparent that these roads currently have excess capacity and are underutilized. As Mr. Tipton stated: "I could have laid down in the road for a while while we were out there counting traffic, because the traffic was that low." (TR-119; Testimony of Tipton; R-1) The impacts of traffic generated by additional residential development projects planned for completion during the next five years was then analyzed. Traffic from these particular developments, assumed to be 100 percent occupied, was then assigned to nearby roads and a critical movement analysis was performed for each intersection. Level of Service "D" is the design standard which is normally deemed acceptable for peak hour, peak season traffic conditions. With the following minor improvements, the nearby intersections can provide "D" service or better during the next five years, without construction of the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing: 1) installing a signal at the intersection of U. S. 1 and 510, which is already underway; 2) adding a right turn lane on the south leg of U.S. 1 at this same intersection; 3) installing a traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Schumann Drive to allow a left turn-out; 4) adding a left turn lane on the south leg of State Road 5A at the intersection of 510 and 5A. (TR 122-123) The cost of the proposed Stratton Avenue extension will exceed, many times over, the cost of these relatively minor intersection improvements. (Testimony of Tipton; R-1) Although the south Sebastian area was extensively platted for residential development during the 1960s, it remains sparsely populated today. It is projected fifty percent "build-out" will occur in 15 years, and full "build-out" in 30 years. At some point in the future the proposed Stratton Avenue extension will, undoubtedly, be needed but it is reasonably certain that it will not be needed for transportation purposes for at least five years. (Testimony of Tipton) V. NO DAMAGE TO RAILWAY OPERATIONS AND NO NEED FOR A GRADE SEPARATION COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS There is no evidence that the proposed extension and crossing will damage or interfere with operations of the Railway. Should the Stratton Avenue extension and crossing be built, it is estimated that traffic use will ultimately approach 31,830 vehicles, but this will not occur within 20 years, the period considered to be a reasonable planning cycle for road improvements. No cost-benefit analysis was performed by Sebastian (to determine whether a grade separation is required) because the traffic projections did not approach 30,000 within a 20-year period. Further, there is no evidence that either the Department or the Railway ever requested that such an analysis be done. The parties' prehearing stipulation fails to indicate that the requirement of a cost-benefit analysis is at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Sebastian's application for a permit to open the Stratton Avenue at- grade public railroad crossing be denied, without prejudice to its right to reapply in the future should circumstances warrant it. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 23rd day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for regulating vehicular access and connections to or from the State Highway System in accordance with Sections 335.18 through 335.188, Florida Statutes, known as the State Highway System Access Management Act. The property which Petitioner filed an application for an access connection to US Highway 17 (SR 35) is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of SR 35 and Sixth Street in Fort Meade, Polk County, Florida. Petitioner's property abuts the east right-of-way of SR 35, with frontage of approximately 235 feet and the south right-of-way of Sixth Street, with frontage of approximately 235 feet. SR 35 has been designated as an intrastate system route. The segment of SR 35 involved in this proceeding has been assigned an Access Management Classification of Four with a design speed of 50 miles per hour and a posted speed of 40 miles per hour . Also, this segment of SR 35 has a "non-restrictive median" as that term is defined in Rule 14-97.002(23), Florida Administrative Code. The distance between all cross streets running east and west which intersect SR 35 within Fort Meade, Florida, including Sixth Street, is approximately 440 feet. (See Petitioner's exhibit 2, Department's aerial photo of the area) Petitioner's application proposes a full movement access connection to be located south of Sixth Street on SR 35 with a connection spacing between Sixth Street and the proposed connection of 190 feet. This distance was determined by measuring from the south edge of the pavement of Sixth Street to the north edge of pavement of proposed access in accordance with Rule 14- 97.002(19), Florida Administrative Code. The centerline of the proposed connection on SR 35 is located approximately 220 feet south of the centerline of Sixth Street. Petitioner's application also proposes an access connection to Sixth Street which would give Petitioner indirect access to SR 35 through Sixth Street. The centerline of the proposed connection on Sixth Street is located approximately 135 feet east of the east curb of SR 35 presently in place. Petitioner's proposed access connection to SR 35 is located immediately north of a crest of a rise over which SR 35 traverses. Both south and north of the crest is a depression through which SR 35 traverses. The point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35 is located approximately at the bottom of the depression north of the crest. A motorist attempting to enter SR 35 from the proposed access connection would have a full view of any vehicle moving north through the depression to the south of the crest or moving south through the depression to the north of the crest. A motorist attempting to enter SR 35 from the east on Sixth Street would have only a partial view of a vehicle moving north through the depression to the south of the crest but a full view of any vehicle moving north through the depression north of the crest. Both Dennis Wood and Michael Tako testified that each had viewed the traffic moving north through the depression south of the crest from a point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35. They also testified that each had, from a point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35, at least a partial view at all times of the vehicles moving north through the depression south of the crest. Based on the above and their assumption that the distance between cross streets along SR 35 was 600 to 700 feet rather than approximately 440 feet as indicated in Petitioner's exhibit 2, Department's aerial photo of the area, Wood believed and Tako concluded that there was minimum clear sight distance that would allow a motorist exiting Sixth Street to cross SR 35 safely, or turn left to enter the southbound lane of SR 35 safely or turn right to enter the northbound land of SR 35 safely. Because of the continuous partial view of the vehicles moving north through the depression south of the crest from a point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35 it may appear that there was minimum clear sight distance in that area. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that a minimum clear sight distance was established because the height of the originating clear sight line above the pavement or the height of the clear sight line above the pavement at the vehicle observed, which are required to establish a minimum clear sight distance (See Department's exhibit 10), were not established. Also, the estimate of the distance between the originating point of the clear sight line and the ending point of the clear sight line at the vehicle observed was flawed due to the use of incorrect distances between the cross streets. There is insufficient evidence to show that a motorist looking south from the point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35 would have the required minimum clear sight distance as calculated by Department, as shown in Department's exhibit 10, to allow a motorist to cross SR 35 safely or turn left to enter the southbound lane of SR 35 safely or turn right to enter the northbound lane of SR 35. Presently, there are three access connections of approximately 20 feet in width on SR 35 where Petitioner's property abuts SR 35. These access connections where constructed before Petitioner had ownership of the property. However, since there will be a change in land use, these access connections will be closed if the site is developed whether this access permit is granted or denied. Petitioner plans to close two of these access connections and extend the opening to the third one if the application is approved. SR 35 is a moderate volume road with approximately 17,000 average daily trips (ADT's), increasing approximately 500 ADT's annually over the past five years. Sixth Street has approximately 100 to 150 ADT's at present with the ADT's projected to increase to approximately 300 if the site is developed and Petitioner's application for the access connection to SR 35 is denied. However, the number of vehicles entering SR 35 which constitutes traffic utilizing Petitioner's establishment will be the same no matter where this traffic enters SR 35. Without the direct access connection to SR 35 there will be problems with internal customer traffic flow and with the movement of semi-tractor trailers that Petitioner uses to make deliveries to its store. Although the present site plan design may be modified so as to utilize the indirect access to SR 35 through Sixth Street, the modification of the site plan design would create problems that would most likely result in the City of Fort Meade not approving the modified site plan design. Although using Sixth Street as an indirect access to SR 35 from the site may provide a safe ingress and egress to and from SR 35, the lack of a minimum clear sight distance notwithstanding, the Petitioner's proposed access connection would provide a much safer ingress and egress to and from SR 35 because of a better clear sightdistance. Although the indirect access to SR 35 through Sixth Street may provide safe ingress and egress to and from SR 35, the indirect access does not provide reasonable access to the site as the term "reasonable access" is defined in Rule 14-96.002(22), Florida Administrative Code. The primary purpose of limiting access to SR 35 is to provide safer conditions for vehicles utilizing SR 35.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order granting Petitioner's Connection Application Number C-16-010-90 and issuing Petitioner a nonconforming permit for the construction of the access connection to SR 35 as designed and shown in the site plan attached to the application with conditions deemed appropriate by the Department and provided for under Rule 14.96.009, Florida Administrative Code. RECOMMENDED this day 30th of October, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2794 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 16 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 21. The Respondent elected not file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Diedre Grubbs Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 695 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Douglas E. Polk, Jr., Esquire BROWN CLARK & WALTERS, P.A. 1819 Main Street, Suite 1100 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Six signs were described in a violation notice to Respondent Dandy Signs from Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation dated July 7, 1977. The notice stated the signs were alleged to be in violation of Chapter 479 and rules 14-10.04; rule 14-10.03. By stipulation of the parties the charges on the signs listed were dropped except for the following two signs: a sign located one mile west of U.S. 1, State Road 44, Mile Post 28.25 with copy "Bob's Sandpiper Restaurant" and a sign located at Junction 17-92 Deland, U.S. Highway 17 (Section 35 Mile Post .02) with copy "Buddy Sheats". The foregoing signs have no permit and evidence was presented to show that each sign is nearer to a permitted sign than 500 feet. The Respondent admits that neither sign has been permitted and that both signs violate the spacing requirements. Respondent was given time to submit evidence that the signs had at one time been permitted, but no evidence was submitted to this hearing officer although the hearing was held in excess of three months before this order is being entered.
Recommendation Remove the subject signs and invoke penalty under Section 479.18, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1978. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dan Richardson, Owner Dandy Signs 324 Flagler Street New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation, State of Florida, was the state agency responsible for the promulgation, within the limits of its delegated legislative authority, of administrative rules governing the construction and operation of public highways within the state. The Department's Notice of Rulemaking to amend Chapter 14-96, F.A.C., was published in the November 10, 1994 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Department proposed to substantially amend the provisions of Rules 14-96.001, .0011, .002, .003, .004, .005, .007, .008, .009, .011, .012, .015; to adopt new Rules 14-96.0121 and 14-96.016; and to repeal Rules 14-96.0031, .006, .010, .013, and .014. Forms were also to be incorporated into the rules by reference. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., (Racetrac), which, by stipulation, the Respondent agrees has standing in general to contest this rule, operates 41 properties in Florida. Approximately 90 percent of these are located on the state highway system. There were, at the time of the hearing, two sites under construction and eight more in the permitting process. Future plans call for further development with as many as one hundred sites under consideration. Factors considered by Racetrac when it looks at property during site acquisition include traffic counts and access to major thoroughfares and to the roads which abut the property. There are also factors considered in determining the continued development of a specific site. These include the risk to investment capital, and the potential for future reduction in access to the property. Any reduction in or change to access to and from the property changes the risk factor. The Department has two primary objectives in designing highways. These are planning for a reasonable lifetime for the highway as initially constructed, and controlling vehicle conflicts. The latter relates directly to the capacity and safety of the highway. When it designs the highways for this state, the Department relys on principles of traffic engineering to address their safety and operation efficiency. These principles are based upon an understanding of driver behavior. It is better to anticipate future safety and operational conditions and design for them, than to have to address a problem after it occurs. Driver behavior is an integral part of the information considered by traffic engineers in analyzing safety and operations of the state highway system. Other information considered includes the Department's highway construction and expansion plans. Of great importance in highway design is the need to minimize vehicle conflicts as there is a demonstrated relationship between highway safety and the number of vehicle conflicts on that highway. In designing highways, the Department engineers rely on design manuals which outline the geometric design of the road and provide for such control devices as pavement markings and the like. Safety is also affected by the various decisions that a driver must make in any given time. The larger number of decisions to be made, the greater the safety problem. In order to reduce the number of conflicts, the Department must either separate the drivers or separate in time the opportunity for conflict. Separating conflicts in time allows the driver to make separate decisions for each conflict, and in so doing, improves the safety of the highway. Access regulation is an inherent factor in highway operation to insure the safety and efficiency of the highway. Access management includes four basic principles. These are (1) reducing the number of vehicle conflicts on a highway segment; (2) separating conflict points; (3) limiting deceleration in through traffic lanes; and (4) taking turning vehicles from through traffic lanes. Access connections may be in the form of private driveways and public streets which intersect with a state highway. Management of access through those connections includes the placement and design of those connections while maintaining the right of the abutting property owner to access to the State Highway System. Proposed Rule Chapter 14-96, F.A.C. is the Department's guideline for access management. It addresses the process by which an abutting property owner may secure a permit for a connection to the State Highway System and provides the means for the closure or modification, by the Department, of existing connections. The existing Rule 14-96 was adopted in April, 1990, prior to the amendment of the Access Management Act in 1992. The rule under consideration here is the Department's attempt to amend Rule 14-96 in response to the provisions of the 1992 Act amendments and to treat matters not addressed in the 1990 rule. The proposed rule in issue here seeks to control a technical operation - the management of connections between private driveways and the State Highway System. Inherent therein is the use of numerous terms, the definition of which must be understood if the rule is to be effective and accomplish its purpose. Proposed Rule 14.96.002(6) defines the relocation, alteration or closure of a connection. An "alteration" of a connection is defined as agency action which would "substantially reduce the width" of a connection. "Relocation" of a connection is described as action to "substantially relocate" a connection. In each case, the terms "substantially reduce the width" and "substantially relocate" have meanings which are generally understood within the transportation engineering community. The former is generally recognized as a narrowing of a connection by one lane or a narrowing which affects the ability of vehicles to make a turning movement through the connection. The latter is generally understood to mean a lateral movement of the connection by one lane width. These definitions, however, do not necessarily answer the question of whether a change adversely affects the property owner. In most situations, the change is fact specific. What may be a small change may well have a significant impact on a connected property owner. What may be a physically significant change to a connection may yet have little impact on the property owner served by it. Some reductive changes may have a positive and beneficial impact on the operation of the connection. Petitioner seeks to show that the Department does not provide notice to property owners before it engages in either relocating, modifying, closing or altering a connection. It is true that the Department's current rules regarding access management do not provide for written notice to property owners when minor changes to driveway connections are made. However, the evidence introduced at hearing indicates that as a general practice, the Department does make contact with property owners to discuss such changes before they are made. It is further clear that when driveway connections are changed, the Department issues notices of intended agency action along with a notice of appeal rights, and there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the proposed rule would, in any way, deny a property owner's right to an administrative hearing when a proposed Departmental action would adversely affect those substantial interests. Another issue in contest is whether a raised median can constitute a traffic control device, and what procedures are required to change median openings. Proposed Rule 14-96.003(6) classifies medians and median openings as traffic control devices or features, and provides that the Department may install, remove or otherwise modify such features to promote traffic safety and efficient traffic operations. The use of raised medians is designed to correct safety problems on state roads as they prevent unlimited left turns. Traffic engineering studies have shown that when raised medians are installed on highways, the crash rate goes down and the Department's standard for installing or modifying traffic control features to promote traffic safety and operations is consistent with the Department's other safety and operational enhancement practices, such as separating conflicts. To do so, the Department must have flexibility in the design of its roads. Since they provide guidance and direction to vehicles travelling on the highway, raised medians are recognized as traffic control devices. The openings in such medians are also considered traffic control devices because they are an integral part of the median design. Raised medians are safety devices constructed on multi-laned roads. Ordinarily there are two lanes on each side of the median to the edge of the road. Median openings are designed to allow a vehicle proceeding one side of the median to cross to the opposite of the road without proceeding to an intersection. A median opening is not, however, a method of ingress or egress for property abutting the highway. A vehicle exiting from a piece of abutting property can enter onto the highway and proceed in one direction without crossing the median. In order to get to the opposite side of the road, or into the traffic proceeding in the opposite direction, however, a driver must go through a median opening or an intersection on a road divided by a raised median. A median opening does not give access to the private property abutting the highway. Though it facilitates access from the opposite side of the road, it is not a part of the connection as a vehicle passing through a median opening toward property on the opposite side of the highway must traverse two or more lanes of the highway before it can reach the juncture between the property and the highway. Petitioner attempted to establish that median openings are a part of the connection to a state highway, and there is some evidence to support that position. However, the better weight of the evidence indicates that median openings which are aligned with driveways are generally not considered connections to state highways, but are merely a convenience to the property owner. By themselves, and with the driveway, they permit opportunity to use the driveway but are not considered access features. They do not connect private property to the highway, but merely allow traffic to cross from one side of the highway to the other. As was stated, a raised median with openings placed at appropriate places thereon, is a safety device promoting the safe and efficient operation of the highway. The design of raised medians and the location of the median openings is determined through a study and evaluation of the needs of that section of the highway, including the need to provide for left turn movements. Highway traffic engineers must have the latitude to design and place medians where they will have the most salutary effect on the traffic on that highway. The ultimate consideration of highway designers is to design a highway meeting the current and anticipated traffic needs in the area in such a way that promotes traffic safety and efficiency on the state highways. The term, "promote", is understood and used by transportation engineers, some of whom may, however, prefer to use the term "improve." In either case, however, whichever term is used in connection with traffic safety and efficiency, they are generally understood as meaning the creation of a driving environment that would minimize or reduce crashes. Whereas those terms are ordinarily used as criteria supporting highway construction and design, they also afford abutting property owners the opportunity to challenge a Department decision to close a median opening on the basis that neither traffic safety nor efficient traffic operations would be promoted by the closure. There are frequently solid bases for maintaining a median opening. Closing it may overload an intersection with traffic that would otherwise turn at the median opening. In addition, certain types of abutting properties, such as high volume or specialized vehicle operations, might justify maintaining a median opening. The current version of Chapter 14-96 does not require the Department to give notice to abutting property owners when a median opening is to be closed. Proposed Rule 14-96.003(5) also does not specifically provide for a written notice to an abutting property owner. However, it has historically been Department practice to provide such notice to property owners prior to taking closure action, and it is the intention of the Department, as evidenced by the testimony at hearing, to continue the practice of addressing the issue of notice on a case by case basis. Petitioner seeks to challenge the Department's definition of certain terms used within the proposed rule and outlined in Proposed Rule 14-96.002. One of these is the term, "connection permit" which is defined in subparagraph (5). This provision defines a connection permit as: "a written authorization issued by the Department allowing the initiation of construction of a specifically designed connection and any specific conditions related to the subject connection to the State Highway system at a specific location generating an estimated volume of traffic. Petitioner alleges this definition allows the Department to expand its control by specifically limiting a volume of traffic through a given connection in violation of the statute which permits limitations on vehicle use only on "non-conforming" access points. The Department rejects this assertion, claiming the phrase was included only to refer to the connection category applied for. The Department's position is a reasonable reading of the language in issue, and it is so found. Proposed Rule 14-96.002(13), challenged by the Petitioners as being arbitrary, seeks to list those organizations whose publications are considered "generally accepted professional practice", another term challenged by the Petitioner. This rule includes the Department as one of those agencies whose publications fall within that category. Petitioner claims it is inappropriate for the Department to list itself as an authority for determining what constitutes generally accepted professional practice when that is considered as a standard by which the Department will take action. At first glance it would seem that the practice is questionable. However, evidence at the hearing, from experts with national reputations in the fields of traffic engineering and traffic management, indicates that the Florida Department of Transportation is recognized as a national authority in the area of access management, the subject matter with which the rule in question deals. Some Department publications in this area, and that of transportation engineering, have been recognized nationally. It should also be noted that the proposed rule does not prioritize by way of use preference any of the publications listed, nor does it require applicants to use Department publications. By the same token, it does not make Department studies which have been based on Department publications, any more authoritative than those based on publications by others. It would appear, also, that including the Department as an authority in the proposed rule is consistent with "generally accepted professional practice" in transportation engineering, and the evidence also indicates it is generally accepted professional practice in engineering to use local publications in making engineering decisions for the local area. Some experts even suggest it would be improper to disregard local publications and give credence only to national publications. Another term used by the Department in the Proposed Rule at 14- 96.002(19), and challenged here by Petitioner is "non-restrictive median." Petitioner contends this definition contravenes the Manual and Uniform Traffic Control Devices, (MUTCD), (Rule 14-15.010) as it, allegedly, includes any painted center line as a non-restrictive median. It appears the Department has taken this definition directly from Rule 14-94.002(23). The MUTCD does not refer to "restrictive" as opposed to "non-restrictive" medians. It was the intent of the Department, in drafting this provision, to simplify the application of its spacing standards, and in doing so, has reduced the relevant categories of connections from twelve to six. "Reasonable access" is defined in Proposed Rule 14-96.002(22) as: ... the minimum number of connections, direct or indirect, necessary to provide safe ingress and egress to the State Highway System based on Section 335.18, Florida Statutes, the Access Management Classification, projected connection and roadway traffic volumes, and the type and intensity of the land use. Petitioner claims that the use of the word, "indirect" in this definition attempts to nullify the amendments to the Access Management Act, (AMA), which, according to Petitioner, eliminated the authority of the Department to consider either alternate or joint access as reasonable access. The term "reasonable access" in its definition, requires the consideration of varying factors. The Department has a concern for the safety of the traveling public as well as a recognition of the statutory mandate encompassed in the AMA that every owner of property which abuts a road on the State Highway System has a right to reasonable access to the abutting state highway. These countervailing forces have to be maintained in balance. The determination of what constitutes reasonable access requires the evaluation of several factors pertinent to the specific instance. Factors to be considered include traffic volume, safety, operational efficiency, highway characteristics, growth potential and the impact of the proposed connection on all of the above. Also to be considered is the basic statutory right of a property owner to reasonable access and the impact on him of denial of that access. No firm and fast formula for determining the reasonableness of access has been devised. Direct access is easy to determine. It is a connection which joins the highway directly. However, there are other means of providing access. These may include access gained by connection to a side street which directly connects with the highway, or the use of a joint easement or a service road and are called indirect access. In determining whether indirect access can constitute reasonable access, many factors, including those cited above, must be considered. Another definition challenged is that of "significant change", as defined in Proposed Rule 14-96.-002(27)as: ... a change in the use of the property, including land, structure or facilities, or an expansion of the size of the structures or facilities causing an increase in the trip generation of the property exceeding 25 percent more trip generation (either peak hour or daily) and exceeding 100 vehicles per day more than the existing use. If the Department determines that the increased traffic generated by the property does not require modifications to the existing permitted connections, a new permit application shall not be required. Petitioners claim that this provision tries to modify the definition of significant change as found in the AMA by giving the Department the authority to determine what is a significant change. Comparison to the AMA, (at Section 335.182(3)(b)), Florida Statutes, reveals that the first sentence of the rule definition is identical to the statutory definition of significant change. In the rule, however, the last sentence is added. It does not change the meaning or effect of the statutory definition but merely advises the public that a significant change need not necessarily require a new permit application. Proposed Rule 14-96.003(4), as it relates to the cost of alterations to a permitted connection, provides that the cost of all construction related to the permit shall be the responsibility of the permittee, with certain exceptions. If an existing permit requires alteration to meet current standards, the alteration will be done at no cost to the permittee, unless the permittee requests modifications beyond those required by the Department. In that case, the change shall be subject to Departmental approval and shall be the responsibility of the permittee. Petitioner claims this provision conflicts with the AMA where it grants authority to modify existing permitted or grandfathered connections. Petitioner reads into this provision authority which is not there. This provision deals particularly with the cost of any modification or alteration and does not purport to grant to the Department any authority not already within its charter. Petitioners claim that Proposed Rule 14-96.003(7) exceeds the authority granted to the Department by attempting to place a burden on a connection permit applicant to demonstrate that the proposed connection will create a benefit to the State Highway System. This provision states: If the requirements of rule chapter 14-97 or other adopted Department access management standards cannot be reasonably complied with, or if the standards can be met but the applicant desires to submit an alternative plan, the applicant may submit alternative plans which will require the approval of the Department's District Secretary or designee. The acceptance of any alternative plans shall be based upon maximum achievement of the purpose of Rule chapter 14-97 F.A.C. and Section 335.181, Florida Statutes. Any alternative access plan proposed under this section will need to provide document- ation, in a traffic study, signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, how the plan better serves the driving public and not just the applicant's clients or customers. The Department will also consider the transportation conditions stated in Section 335.184(3)(a), Florida Statutes. This provision provides for an applicant, who can meet the Department's standards but who prefers to submit a non-conforming proposal, to do so. The rule thereafter requires that applicant to show, by use of a professionally accomplished traffic study, where the alternative proposal serves the public better than the conforming plan. Once the applicant identifies the specifics of his alternative plan, the Department and the applicant discuss the alternative and the Department has the opportunity to stipulate any conditions pertinent to the alternative. If there is no agreement, though not specifically provided for in the rule, the Department claims the applicant has an opportunity to challenge any condition felt to be improper. The forum for or method of that challenge is not stipulated. Petitioner also challenges Proposed Rule 14-96.005(3)(a)&(b) on much the same grounds, but also alleges that these provisions require notice and a new application for any modification to an existing permit even when no significant change occurs. Petitioners claim there is no specific statutory authority for the Department to require this. Subsection (a) of the proposed rule merely requires, in the event of a significant change, an abutting property owner to seek of the Department a determination as to whether a permit application must be filed and whether changes to existing connections are required. If no significant change exists, no action is required by the property owner, and even should there be a significant change, if no modification to the connection is necessary, no new permit application is required. Subsection (b) of the proposed rule calls for the Department to issue notice to a property owner when a significant change has occurred and the property owner has not filed a required permit application. In any case, the Department claims, the property owner is granted opportunity to contest either or both the determination of significant change and the need to modify the connection in a hearing conducted under the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Proposed Rule does not so provide, however. Petitioner contends that Proposed Rule 14-96.007(4)(c) & (d) constitute an unlawful indexing and creates an unlawful presumption of reasonable access in cases of joint or alternate access. To be sure, the proposed rule does establish a presumption that existing access is reasonable but it also provides an applicant seeking additional access with an opportunity to rebut this presumption. The presumption in subsection (d), that existing "grandfathered" access connections are reasonable, carries with it the opportunity for the applicant to show that it is not. In short, the presumptions created by the rule are rebuttable. Petitioner also claims that the requirement in Proposed Rule 14- 96.007(9) for recording of access permit conditions is not supported by any statutory authority. As noted in the rule requirement, the conditions are limited to only those contained in the access permit, and the recording requirement is no more than an effort to insure compliance and avoid the possibility of future misunderstanding. Another proposed provision in Proposed Rule 14-96.007(10) is contested by Petitioner who alleges there is no statutory authority to attempt to eliminate expansion of highway right of way through the acquisition of abandoned transportation corridors for access to state highways by abutting landowners. The rule in question states that abandoned rail corridors which are adjacent to state highways are considered intervening properties. This applies, however, only to those properties acquired for non-highway uses, not to that acquired for highway expansion. Petitioner also claims that through Proposed Rule 14-96.011(1)(d) the Department, without statutory authority, tries to make "potential" safety or operational problems grounds for revoking or modifying an existing connection. Section 335.187, Florida Statutes, which governs the revocation or modification of connections does not refer to "potential" problems. The proposed rule allows the Department to close or modify a permitted connection if it determines the connection poses a current or potential safety problem which is documented by an engineering study. There is no quarrel with action to close or modify a connection which is unsafe when that condition can be shown through existing factors. It is not enough to only react to existing problems, however. Department engineers must be able to predict those areas which can reasonably be expected to pose future safety problems. In doing so, they may use information which indicates the potential problem by expected changes to the conditions creating traffic on the highway. Petitioner contests Proposed Rule 14-96.012(2)(b) and (3)(b)3. Its challenge to the former is based on its contention that the proposed rules ignore the statutory mandate regarding closure or modification of unpermitted connections since they are applicable only to new connections. Petitioner also asserts that the latter unlawfully allows the Department to determine that a property owner's request for hearing was filed for purposes of delay and is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious. The proposed rule allows the Department to close or modify unpermitted connections for a variety of reasons. Included are: (1) that significant changes have occurred; (2) the safety or operational characteristics of the highway would be negatively impacted; and (3) the connection is not grandfathered. Notwithstanding the rule permits a property owner with an illegal connection to maintain that connection pending hearing or issuance of the permit, the Department may nonetheless close the connection if it can determine the owner's actions are for the purpose of delaying the Department's exercise of its jurisdiction. Further, though the Proposed Rule 14-96.012(2)(b) refers to conditions which "jeopardize the public safety", the Department considers that language to be operationally similar to the "current or potential safety problem" standard, as used elsewhere in the rule chapter, and it contends it does not intend to treat the two types of connections differently in regard to modifications or closures based on safety considerations. Petitioner also contends that the Department has no authority to modify existing permitted or unpermitted legal connections during construction projects as is provided for in Proposed Rule 14-96.015. While changes may be made, the rule does not permit changes to be made indiscriminately. Modifications may be made consistent with the Department's access management standards as outlined in Rule 14-96 and with the Standard Index. Further, the Proposed Rule provides for property owners to be given notice of proposed Departmental actions, except for eminent domain situations, which would afford the property owner the opportunity to challenge the propriety or necessity of the proposed modification. Notice is currently given in these situations even though the current rule does not require it.
The Issue Whether Relocation Assistance Appeal of Petitioner should be granted. Petitioner was not represented by legal counsel or other representative at the hearing. After an explanation of her rights in administrative hearings conducted under the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, Petitioner stated that she wished to proceed in her own behalf.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner moved into an apartment located at 1013 West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida on June 9, 1977. (Testimony of Petitioner, supplemented by Exhibit 2) On August 3, 1977, Petitioner acknowledged receipt of a letter from Respondent which notified her that Respondent was in the process of acquiring right-of-way for a state road project located where she lived and that negotiations for the purchase of the property had begun on June 23, 1977. The letter enclosed an informational brochure entitled "YOUR RELOCATION" and expressed the desire of Respondent to assist in Petitioner's relocation necessitated by the property acquisition. (Exhibit 1) In late November or early December, 1977, Petitioner vacated her apartment upon the request of the landlord for non-payment of the rent. (Testimony of Petitioner, supplemented by Exhibit 2) Respondent purchased the property where Petitioner had resided from the West Broward Land Corporation on February 8, 1978. The purchase was accomplished pursuant to the Federal Highway Aid Program (PL 91-646) and involved the widening of Broward Boulevard (SR 842). Guidelines under the federally funded program are implemented by the Federal Aid Highway Program Manual and by Chapter 14-14.05, F.A.C., which incorporates by reference Respondent's Right-of-way Bureau Operating Procedures. These procedures include eligibility criteria for receipt of monetary payments by individuals who have been displaced from real property as a result of its acquisition by the state. (Testimony of Moon, Exhibit 3) On February 15, 1978, Petitioner was present at the residence of another tenant of the apartment building at the time Respondent's right-of-way agent was explaining relocation benefits to that individual. Petitioner asked the agent if she could return to her former apartment and resume occupancy, but he explained that he had no authority to grant such permission. Thereafter, Petitioner moved back into the apartment. She testified at the hearing that one of Respondent's employees named Bill Barnette had told her she could occupy the premises. This alleged authorization however, took place at the time Petitioner was given a check for $320 for moving expenses by Barnette sometime in March, 1978. (Testimony of Way, Petitioner, Crawford, Johnson, supplemented by Exhibits 2, 5) Thereafter, Petitioner made application with Respondent for rent supplement payments, but by letter of October 2, 1978, Respondent denied any such payment on the ground that Petitioner was not living on Broward Boulevard when the state obtained legal possession of the property. (Testimony of Moon, Case File)
Recommendation That Petitioner's appeal be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Sallie Mae Ray 429 1/2 North West 7th Terrace Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Also mailed to Ms. Ray at: Apartment 14 North West 10th Avenue and 7th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owned property including structures used for his dwelling and for his business which was located within the right-of-way of an interstate highway being constructed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation. The Petitioner and the Department negotiated with respect to the amount of compensation that Petitioner was entitled to receive. The Department located a residential dwelling which it contended was comparable to Petitioner's. Petitioner accepted the dwelling located by the Department as comparable for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation that Petitioner was entitled to receive. Petitioner elected, however, to construct a new dwelling on other property that he owned. Petitioner was compensated as if he had purchased the comparable dwelling and was compensated an additional $829 for "incidental expenses" beyond the replacement value as established by the comparable dwelling. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to be compensated for the cost of a "origination fee" which resulted from Petitioner's having to arrange financing. Although improperly labeled, it appears that Petitioner did receive adequate compensation for the loan origination fee. Petitioner received a check from the Department for a "replacement housing payment" which included the origination fee which Petitioner contends he was entitled to receive. While the replacement housing payment was not broken up so as to reflect these fees, it was calculated to include them. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to receive incidental expenses beyond those that he has already received in the amount of $2,068.23. Petitioner has received a payment for incidental expenses in the amount of $829, which includes expenses for a survey, sketch and description, loan application fee, title insurance, attorney's fees, and recording fees. Petitioner actually incurred incidental expenses beyond those for which he was compensated. These additional fees resulted, however, from the fact that Petitioner elected to construct a new residence rather than to accept the comparable residence located by the Department. Because Petitioner was constructing a new residence, it was necessary for him to incur some expenses which would not have been incurred had he accepted the comparable dwelling located by the Department. These expenses included costs of obtaining a rezoning of his property, costs of various construction permits, the cost of obtaining a construction loan, and the cost of a builder's risk insurance policy. While the Petitioner actually incurred these costs, they were costs that he would not have incurred if he had elected to accept the comparable dwelling located by the Department. Petitioner did accept the comparable dwelling for the purpose of setting the amount of benefits that he was entitled to receive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation denying the application of the Petitioner, John D. Lawrence, for additional relocation assistance benefits. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 2nd day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John D. Lawrence c/o Manatee Tropical Foliage Post Office Box 206 Parrish, Florida 33564 Charles G. Gardner Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Paul N. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On March 26, 1979, the Department filed an application for the closing of two railroad grade crossings known as Orange Street at Milepost A-825.48 and Murphy Street at Milepost A-830.30. Both crossings are located within the corporate limits of Davenport, Florida. The track which intersects the crossings services four passenger and ten freight-trains each day. The speed limit over the crossings is restricted by city ordinance to fifty miles per hour. Neither of the crossings is equipped with active grade crossing traffic control devices. Prior to recommending the closing of a crossing, a Railroad Committee within the Department meets and reviews petitions for closure. The committees primary concern in deciding whether to close a crossing is public safety and a secondary concern is public necessity. Additionally, convenience of the local population Is considered. The Orange Street crossing is utilized primarily by passenger cars and small trucks. In the twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 696 vehicles used this crossing. The profile of the Orange Street crossing is very poor because the road is approximately seven feet higher than the railroad tracks, thus requiring a motorist to stop on a steep downhill grade when approaching the crossing. Cross-bucks are the only signalization at the crossing. The Department has proposed two alternate routes, Magnolia and Bay Streets, for the traffic presently utilizing the Orange Street crossing. Magnolia Street has recently been renovated and is scheduled for installation of flashing lights and gates in October, 1980. Because of the renovation and installation of lights, Magnolia can accommodate the expected added traffic. Bay Street currently has flashing lights and can accommodate the anticipated added traffic since it had a traffic count of 547 vehicles in a twenty-four hour period. There would be no substantive difference in adverse travel time for a motorist using either Magnolia or Bay Streets as opposed to Orange. Both crossings are safer than Orange Street. The Department does not propose to close sidewalks which cross the tracks at Orange Street and are utilized primarily by residents of a nearby retirement home. In regard to the other crossing which the Department seeks to close, Murphy Street, two alternate crossings are suggested, Magnolia Street and Bargain Barn Road. During a twenty-four hour period in which traffic was counted, 256 vehicles used the Murphy Street crossing. This crossing is inherently dangerous for long trucks or tractor-trailer vehicles due to its abrupt vertical profile or "hump." The Murphy Street crossing ends in a "T" intersection and its closing would not hinder police or emergency services. The Magnolia Street crossing can accommodate the increased traffic which will result from the closing of Murphy Street. This crossing is almost level and is approximately 1,600 feet from Murphy Street crossing. Bargain Barn Road or State Road 547, is another alternate crossing. This crossing is safer than Murphy Street in that lights and gates were installed in March, 1980. It is 1,200-1,300 feet or a quarter of a mile away from the proposed closed crossing and would not cause adverse travel for local motorists presently using Murphy Street. The current traffic count at Bargain Barn is approximately 732 cars per day which would increase to approximately 860 if Murphy Street were closed.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated August 20, 1987, the County requested that DOT reclassify various roads within the county from county jurisdiction to the state highway system. The request was filed under Rule 14-12.016, Florida Administrative Code. On October 21, 1988 DOT advised the County by letter that the County's request to "add 17 miles to the State Highway System in Broward County" had been denied on the ground the proposed routes did not meet DOT's road classification criteria. In its petition, the County maintains that the subject roads meet all functional classification criteria for inclusion in the state highway system as established in Section 335.04, Florida Statutes and Rule 14-12.016. The County alleges further that DOT's decision "affects the County's duty to maintain and oversee the subject roads, unfairly burdening the County with the maintenance of roads which meet the criteria for inclusion in the State Highway System."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion to dismiss the petition is hereby GRANTED, with prejudice, and that a Final Order be entered dismissing the same. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara A. Hall, Esquire 115 South Andrews Avenue Suite 423 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact An application for an opening of a public at-grade rail/highway crossing by new roadway construction was submitted by Bay County, Florida, through its agent R. M. Myers, Administrative Assistant. The proposed crossing is across the tracks of the U.S. Air Force (C/O Warner Robins Air Force Base) presently leased to the Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railroad Co., railroad mile post N M.P. 2.34. The local popular name of the street as extended is Palo Alto Avenue. Traffic on the railroad as it now exist is two trains per day carrying fuel. The speed of the train is 15 miles per hour. The cost of installation is to be charged to the City of Lynn Haven, Florida and the cost of annual maintenance is to be charged to the City of Lynn Haven, Florida. The opening of the proposed crossing would serve a growing subdivision which at present has only one means of egress and ingress. If a permit is granted and the proposed crossing constructed, the route would carry some 16 school buses and would divert much of the existing northbound traffic on route 77 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A need for the proposed crossing has been established. There is a growing subdivision which would use the crossing as a second exit and entrance; when the proposed roadway crosses the track, school buses will have a more direct access to the school and will use the proposed route; traffic from route 77 will use the proposed road as a convenience; the representatives of both the City of Lynn Haven and the county of Bay state that the area is a fast growing area and that the proposed crossing is needed. The parties at the hearing, which included the City, the County and the Railroad Company, reached an agreement as to the proper signalization of the crossing, the proper road devices necessary to insure safety before the crossing was reached and an assurance that property would be available so that there would be no sight blockage through the growth of vegetation in the future. Plans for the proposed crossing were submitted to the Hearing Officer and marked "A". An easement for visibility purposes at the proposed crossing was submitted to the Hearing Officer and marked "B". These exhibits were approved by the City, the County and the Florida Department of Transportation.
Recommendation Grant the permit. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Les W. Burke, Esquire Post Office Box 2260 Panama City, Florida J. W. Cunningham, Vice President Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Railway Co. Post Office Box 669 Panama City, Florida 32401 Mr. Robert Miller Tyndall Air Force Base Panama City, Florida William V. Kinsaul, City Manager Lynn Haven, Florida Mr. G. S. Burleson, Sr., P.E. Assistant State Utility Engineer Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
