The Issue Whether Proposed Rule 46-4.0081(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, providing that, beginning January 1, 1998, no person shall fish with, set, or place in the water any seine with a mesh size larger than two inches stretched mesh, is a valid exercise of the delegated legislative authority of Respondent, Marine Fisheries Commission, and whether said rule was proposed in accordance with the statutory standards Respondent must follow pursuant to Section 375.025, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Existing rules of the MFC require that the main body of a seine net be constructed of two-inch mesh or smaller. Wings with larger mesh may be used. [Rule 46-4.0081(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code] The challenged rule amendment [Proposed Rule 46-4.0081(2)(d)] deletes the provision that allows a wing with larger mesh to be attached to a two-inch mesh seine. The unrefuted evidence is that the proposed rule amendment will reduce the "catchability rate" of a single such seine net for many types of fish and not be commercially feasible for mullet, except possibly in "roe season,"3 and that a seine net as currently permitted with larger mesh in the wings only is commercially feasible for mullet as well as other fish. "Catchability rate" is defined as "that fraction of a fish stock which is caught by a unit of fishing effort." "Roe season" is that part of the year in which there is greater schooling and movement of adult mullet, approximately two years old and eleven or more inches in length, which hopefully have already reproduced. However, legal size is not a guarantee that a fish has reproduced. See below, Finding of Fact 49. The term "stretched mesh" means that the mesh is measured by pulling it to its maximum length. A two-inch stretched mesh forms approximately a one inch square when fully open. Generally, there are two types of nets used to catch fish: those that corral the fish by concentrating them into any area small enough that they can be easily landed; and those that catch the fish by entangling them in net material. Gill nets fall into the latter category. Gill nets catch fish when a fish enters a mesh opening, finds that it is too large to pass through the mesh opening, and entangles its gills in the mesh when it attempts to back out of the net. The fish then dies due to lack of water or lack of undissolved oxygen, or it can be pulled through the net manually and released. Fish mortality from gill nets is higher in warm months. From a fish's or an environmentalist's viewpoint, pulling the fish through a net is an exercise in futility because pulling the fish through a net removes its natural slime, and without its natural slime, a fish will die soon after release. The size of fish entangled in a gill net is a function of the size of the mesh. Larger mesh nets gill larger fish, while smaller mesh nets gill smaller fish. Which small fish are gilled varies from time to time and place to place, dependent upon many factors, including but not limited to how and where the net is deployed, how rapidly it is hauled in, and which fish are targeted. To some extent, it is fair to say that all nets are gill nets, because all nets entangle some fish of some size, but this is an oversimplification. Mesh size has long been used by Florida's MFC and even by other states as a management tool for limiting the harvest of a variety of fish. "By-catch" is marine life which is not targeted by the fisher deploying the net, but which nonetheless is captured in some manner by the net. For instance, in shrimp nets, the "by- catch" of fin fish typically outnumbers the catch of shrimp (the targeted specie) by four to one. Juvenile (pre-reproductive age) fish of the targeted specie can also be "by-catch" when netted with their elders. All nets capture by-catch to some degree. Depending upon net deployment methodology, any net will also pick up "gumbo," a term employed here to delineate by- catch, undissolved algae, plant debris, and other items which do not contribute to a commercial fish crop. On November 8, 1994, Florida voters approved the adoption of Article X, Section 16, of the Florida Constitution. That amendment, which took effect July 1, 1995, prohibited the use of gill or entangling nets anywhere in state waters, and placed a 500 square foot limitation on "other nets" in nearshore and inshore Florida waters.4 Seine nets constitute "other nets" under the net ban amendment. Landings for mullet are significantly down since the amendment, from more than 16 million pounds per year to five million pounds. This has had a direct and favorable impact on the increase of the "spawning potential ratio" for mullet. "Spawning potential ratio" ("SPR") means egg production per year that is available from a fish stock. It is the ratio of a single specie's eggs available in stock that has been fished, over the eggs that would be available in unfished stock. SPRs are scientifically established for each fish specie by the MFC. The Commission considers that if the stock falls below those levels there is a real risk that the stock specie will decline abruptly to some much lower level and not be able to recover. Once the SPR rises to the targeted level, there is greater assurance of specie recovery and preservation, but there are still many reasons to manage the fishery in an optimal use of that resource. The maximum practicable stock abundance mandated by law might be at a level higher than MFC's threshold. The SPR is basically a minimum reproductive goal for fish, per specie. Some species continue to be in an overfished condition since the net ban amendment took effect. However, without taking into account the proposed two- inch mesh limitation, the SPR for mullet would reach the MFC's minimum goal of 35 percent within one to two years, even though it was originally thought such numbers might only be reached within nine years after the effective date of the constitutional amendment. Although it is important to understand that MFC's SPR goals are thresholds only, it is clear that the so-called "net ban" is beginning to have the desired environmental effect.5 Petitioners maintain that the only feasible place to fish with the proposed 500 square foot, two-inch mesh nets would be inshore where smaller mullet feed, which sets up a situation in which more juvenile fish, particularly juvenile mullet, will die before they have a chance to reproduce, and therefore more non-targeted by-catch will be wasted than would be wasted if the rule is not amended. On this theory, they also contend that the proposed rule would not permit reasonable means and quantities of harvesting of fish, particularly mullet, and is otherwise inadequate for reasons related in Sections 370.025(2)(a), (b), (c), and (g), Florida Statutes. MFC is not a constitutional agency, but Florida's Legislature has mandated its mission, in pertinent part, as: Section 370.027, Florida Statutes. Rulemaking authority with respect to marine life. -- Pursuant to the policy and standards in s. 370.025, the Marine Fisheries Commission is delegated full rulemaking authority over marine life, . . . *** Exclusive rulemaking authority in the following areas relating to marine life, with the exception of endangered species, is vested in the commission; . . . Gear specifications; Prohibited gear; *** In 1997, the Florida Legislature further provided a net ban statute, implementing the constitutional amendment, and clearly authorized its legislatively-created agency, the MFC, to promulgate rules to implement that statute and the constitutional amendment, as follows: Illegal use of nets. -- It is unlawful to take or harvest, or to attempt to take or harvest, any marine life in Florida waters with any net that is not consistent with the provisions of s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution. (2)(a) Beginning July 1, 1998, it is also unlawful to take or harvest, or to attempt to take or harvest, any marine life in Florida waters with any net, as defined in subsection (3) and all attachments to such nets, that combined are larger than 500 square feet and have not been expressly authorized for such use by rule of the Marine Fisheries Commission under s. 370.027. The use of currently legal shrimp trawls and purse seines outside nearshore and inshore Florida waters shall continue to be legal until the commission implements rules regulating those types of gear. The use of gill or entangling nets of any size is prohibited, as such nets are defined in s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution. Any net constructed wholly or partially of monofilament or multifilament material, other than a hand thrown cast net, or a handheld landing or dip net, shall be considered to be an entangling net within the prohibition of s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution unless specifically authorized by rule of the commission. Multifilament material shall not be defined to include nets constructed or braided or twisted nylon, cotton, linen twine, or polypropylene twine. This subsection shall not be construed to apply to aquaculture activities licenses issued pursuant to s. 370.26. As used in s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution and this subsection, the term "net" or "netting" must be broadly construed to include all manner or combination of mesh or webbing or any other solid or semisolid fabric or other material used to comprise a device that is used to take or harvest marine life. Upon the arrest of any person for violation of this subsection, the arresting officer shall seize the nets illegally used. Upon conviction of the offender, the arresting authority shall destroy the nets. Any person who violates this section shall be punished as provided in s. 370.092(4). The Marine Fisheries Commission is granted authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 370.025 and 370.027 implementing the prohibitions and restrictions of s. 16, Article X of the State Constitution. To these ends, the Legislature has also established purpose and standards for the MFC to follow in proposing/enacting rules: Section 370.025 Marine fisheries; policy and standards. The Legislature hereby declares the policy of the state to be management and preservation of its renewable marine fishery resources, based upon the best available information, emphasizing protection and enhancement of the marine and estuarine environment in such a manner as to provide for optimum sustained benefits and use to all the people of this state for present and future generations. All rules relating to saltwater fisheries adopted by the department pursuant to this chapter or adopted by the Marine Fisheries Commission and approved by the Governor and Cabinet as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund shall be consistent with the following standards: The paramount concern of conservation and management measures shall be the continuing health and abundance of the marine fisheries resources of this state. Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best information available, including biological, sociological, economic, and other information deemed relevant by the commission. Conservation and management measures shall permit reasonable means and quantities of annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a continuing basis. When possible and practicable, stocks of fish shall be managed as a biological unit. Conservation and management measures shall assure proper quality control of marine resources that enter commerce. State marine fishery management plans shall be developed to implement management of important marine fishery resources. Conservation and management decisions shall be fair and equitable to all the people of this state and carried out in such a manner that no individual, corporation, or entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. Federal fishery management plans and fishery management plans of other states or interstate commissions should be considered when developing state marine fishery management plans. Inconsistencies should be avoided unless it is determined that it is in the best interest of the fisheries or residents of this state to be inconsistent. The MFC was well aware of the post amendment reduced landings, increased SPRs, and fish recovery rates when it proposed the rule herein. In promulgating the rule herein, the MFC did not conduct or commission any formal economic or sociological studies on the constitutional amendment's impact on wholesale and retail seafood markets, restaurants and consumers to date or on the proposed rule's potential further impact on these elements. It did, however, consider testimony at rule hearings and written presentations on those issues by the Petitioners and others. At the formal hearing herein, Petitioners showed the same information that had been presented to the MFC, that Florida Panhandle coastal restaurant revenues typically have dropped nearly 30 percent since the constitutional amendment, and that revenues in Panhandle wholesale fish houses have typically dropped 75 percent. There is anecdotal, but statistically imprecise, evidence that the retail market for mullet has been drastically depressed and consumer prices therefor drastically increased in the Panhandle and Jacksonville areas since the amendment, that this situation creates a greater burden on low- income consumers, particularly those low-income consumers who have, for economic or ethnic reasons, traditionally made mullet a staple of their diets, and that this situation may worsen with implementation of the proposed rule if the proposed rule further drastically reduces the availability of mullet. For the reasons set out infra., further drastic reduction in the availability of mullet is not anticipated by the MFC. MFC prepared a statement of regulatory impact or estimated regulatory costs for the proposed rule as part of its 1997 rule amendment package, based on all the evidence it had gathered. Even seine nets produce some by-catch, and some of the by-catch produced by seine nets results from small fish being gilled in the mesh of the net. Admittedly, small mesh sizes result in gilled by-catch that is pre-reproductive and smaller in size. However, seine nets, other than "purse seines," which were banned before the constitutional amendment, operate by "corralling" fish with a net that functions as a wall that captures the fish by confining them inside the net without entangling any more of them than absolutely necessary. For that reason, beach seine nets and haul seine nets, for instance, have not historically been considered to be gill or entangling nets. The MFC has historically managed seine nets differently than gill nets because of the better possibility of releasing by-catch from seine nets. The MFC's Executive Director, and expert, Dr. Russell Nelson, testified that the Agency believes the constitutional amendment does not require that there be no legitimate by-catch and further, that a complete absence of by-catch would be impossible. (TR-346). One purpose of proposed Rule 46-4.0081(2)(d) is to clarify what is a "gill net" subject to the constitutional prohibition as contrasted to a "seine net," which is not prohibited. The proposed rule also should be easier to administer and enforce because the net mesh and square footage will be easily ascertainable without regard to what specie or size fish is caught. In formulating this proposed rule, the MFC decided that the allowance for small seine nets in Article X, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution implied a functional definition. Therefore, the proposed rule amendment was designed to effectively remove existing Rule 46-4.0081(1)(g)'s exception for a larger wing mesh size from the two-inch mesh size required of the seine panel, because that exception is obsolete in light of the constitutional amendment. The functional definition of "seine nets" utilized by the MFC was nets that functioned to guide, herd, gather, or corral fish, rather than gill or entangle them. This definition had been previously codified in an existing rule.6 Based upon its interpretation of the constitutional amendment, statute, and existing rule, and based upon common historical net usage, the MFC concluded that nets designed to function primarily to gill or entangle fish could not be considered to be seine nets. Petitioners are correct that between the date of the constitutional net ban and the date of formal hearing on this rule challenge, the MFC did not conduct or cause to be conducted any tests with a 500 square foot two-inch mesh seine net. However, in formulating the proposed rule, the Commission was presented with extensive comments, technical information, and post-amendment updates of earlier surveys. Prior to first publishing its proposed rule and since, the MFC has examined the historical functions of seine and gill nets. The competent, substantial, credible evidence adduced at formal hearing is substantially the same as MFC's collected data. Historically, seine nets were very large and some were even thousands of yards in area. Prior to the passage of the constitutional amendment, commercially licensed fishermen used seine nets of many sizes and meshes. Most were approximately 600 yards long. Historically, seine nets had wings on one or both sides of the main body, which was sometimes called a "panel," "bag," "pouch," or "pocket." The "wings" were the portion of the net used to herd the fish into the main body. The wings contained larger mesh size than the main body. The fish were actually captured in the main body, not the wing portion. Historically, in Florida, the mesh size of gill nets was significantly larger than the mesh size of seine nets. Gill nets historically used to catch mullet employed stretch mesh three inches or greater. Currently, the constitutional amendment, the statute, and existing rules limit seine nets to a total of 500 square feet. Existing Rule 46-4.0081(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, sought to be repealed, permits seines of a two-inch stretch mesh or less in the main body of the seine, and up to three-inch mesh in its wings. Due to the 500 square foot restriction, the MFC believes that a mesh size exception permitting three-inch mesh in seine wings is obsolete. Three-inch mesh in the wings of seine nets would gill larger, commercially viable mullet. There is no practical way to construct a seine with wings and a workable pocket since the entire seine net is now limited to a total of 500 square feet, but if the three-inch mesh continues to be permitted for the wings, fishermen will be able to construct 500 square foot seine nets that are 90 percent wing and 10 percent panel, thus converting what is technically a seine net into one which actually gills or entangles fish over 90 percent of the net's surface. Such a result would be contrary to any common historical understanding of what constitutes a "seine net," and contrary to the intent of the constitutional amendment and subsequent legislation. Agency staff advocated drafting the proposed rule more stringently so as to reduce the permissible stretched mesh size to a one- and one-half-inch size, but in formulating the proposed rule under challenge, the MFC ultimately proposed the two-inch stretched mesh rule based on its review of historical mesh sizes which were already in legal use. This decision was reasonable and may serve to lessen the impact of the rule change on commercial fishermen. Different species of fish behave differently, and the credible, competent evidence herein permits no blanket pronouncement on running patterns of juveniles and adult (reproductive) fish in every fish specie. There is direct conflict between Petitioners' and MFC's experts, most notably Messrs. Rudloe and Winner, on whether or not juvenile mullet, or fish generally, run with schools of adults. After consideration, Mr. Winner's opinion that juvenile mullet typically do not run with their elders, at least in roe season, is accepted.7 Also, the greater weight of the credible evidence is that all types of fish small enough to be entangled in a two-inch mesh would not generally be found with adult mullet. Petitioners contend they cannot determine what other types of fish are running with the adult mullet they target and cannot guarantee that some juvenile mullet and other fish would not be among the inadvertent by-catch netted when they target adult mullet. Only fifty percent of 11-inch (legal size) mullet are sexually mature, anyway. Upon the testimony of MFC's experts, Mr. Winner and Dr. Nelson, and upon testimony by various commercial fishermen, it is found that fishermen can target adult mullet based on the way adult mullet move, jump, and make wakes. It is not commercially feasible to target any illegal, juvenile fish. In 1993, MFC promulgated rules which varied mesh size for mullet and other species. These rules were intended to harvest targeted species of only appropriate age and size. Studies before the 1993 rule amendments showed that the vast preponderance of mullet taken in a two-to two-and-a- quarter-inch mesh seine were 13 inches and 95 to 98 percent were legal size. In 1993, the two-inch mesh for the seine panel/pouch was created by rule, and has remained in effect since then.8 In 1997, in formulating the proposed rule here challenged, the MFC concluded, on the basis of updated studies and testimony and presentations before it, that although the proposed rule may result in more juvenile fish being caught in the smaller mesh, or even gilled therein, the proposed rule amendment will ultimately result in fewer total fish being gilled. The MFC is prepared to accept this result because only a small proportion of juvenile mullet or other fish encountered will actually be gilled, no dangerous level of unnecessary killing or waste will occur, and the rule will enhance the overall fish population recovery effects already in progress. Even with a small increase in the number of juveniles being gilled under the proposed rule, the MFC expects landings of legal-size mullet to increase due to the recovery of fish populations in progress and due to fishermen acquiring even more skill with the 500 square foot nets, which size is still relatively new. Some commercial fishermen testified that it is the existing reduced square footage (500 square feet) factor alone which causes adult mullet to jump the net, not the proposed mesh size reduction. However, the MFC has no authority to alter this constitutional requirement. Some commercial fishermen testified that they could fish mullet commercially with the existing five hundred square foot nets as long as the nets still had three inches or larger mesh in their wings. A video tape showing several sets (strikes) or parts of sets of a net was introduced in evidence. It showed some fish jumping the net and other fish gilled in the net. It purportedly showed use of a net which would be legal under the proposed rule, but testimony to that effect was contradicted by one of the same witnesses when he gave specific dimensions of the net showing it to actually be considerably larger than the 500 square foot requirement which the MFC has no authority to alter. (TR-270) The video tape was not made in roe season. Its net's deployment in some sets was arguably unusual for this type of fishing. The number of fish gilled was low. Accordingly, although the video tape might support the theory that size of mesh is one factor in causing legal-size mullet to jump a net, it does not present credible evidence that legal-size mullet cannot be caught with a 500 square foot net which would be legal under the proposed two-inch rule or even that legal mullet can now be caught with a larger net. It certainly does not establish that the proposed rule will waste more juvenile fish than are being wasted under the existing rules. However, upon the evidence of current landings, it is found that legal-size mullet can be caught with the nets now legal. It is further found, upon the evidence as a whole including that of Dr. Nelson and Mr. Winner, that use of a single seine net which would be legal under the proposed rule, that is, one which is made of only two-inch mesh throughout its total 500 square foot surface, is not commercially feasible for fishing mullet, except possibly in roe season. Nonetheless, there are at least two ways the new net could be used commercially. It is possible for two fishermen working together to deploy two separate 500 square foot, two-inch mesh seine nets to capture and corral legal size mullet. It is possible to use two legal seine nets in the same way with a third person manning a cast net. The seine nets would be channeling, or herding, the fish, and the cast net would be gathering or dipping them out of the water. Under this type of operation, neither type of net would entangle or gill fish. According to MFC's Director Nelson, the MFC considered these two methodologies of fishing for mullet with more than one net to be both legal and commercially feasible when it proposed the challenged rule.9 Use of a single seine net which would be legal under the proposed rule is commercially feasible for catching fish other than mullet. This proposed gear rule applies equally to all unit stocks of fish and affects all fisheries, some of which are still overfished and some for which there is incomplete data to determine the status. The proposed rule compliments previously adopted fishery management plans and will help recovery of unmanaged species. The rule does not conflict with any federal management plan. The proposed rule has no relationship to quality control for fish coming to market. The proposed rule applies to everyone and provides no individual or corporation an excessive share of fishery resources.
The Issue The issues in this case are those announced by the Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against Respondent claiming that the dirt drive entrance to the Ugly Duckling Rent-A-Car at 2555 U.S. 1 South, St. Augustine, Florida, is an unpermitted drive connection used for commercial purposes. It is further alleged that it is, by its nature, a residential driveway that is used in a commercial endeavor and that it does not meet design standards. The stated authority for these accusations are Sections 335.187 and 335.1825, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On October 2, 1979, Leroy E. Wall, Jr., and his wife Freda purchased the property which is in dispute in this case from Alex Hein and Virginia Hein, his wife. That property is located in St. Johns County, Florida, and its dimensions include approximately 300 feet of frontage on U.S. 1, also known as State Road 5. The frontage runs roughly north and south. The east-west depth of the property is approximately 350 to 360 feet. U.S. 1, for about 20 years, has been a four-lane road at this location with a median separating the northbound and southbound lanes. The property in question is on the western side of U.S. 1 and the southbound lane of that highway passes in front of the property. Petitioner holds a right-of-way from the white line on the shoulder of the road 38 feet inward. It has maintenance responsibility for a five foot strip inward from that white line. At the time Mr. Wall and his wife purchased the property in question, there was a residence located on the property with a free standing garage. Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the warranty deed from the Heins to Mr. Wall and his wife. It also shows a description of the property through a survey done on November 14, 1984. It was the intention of Mr. Wall to have the property rezoned from residential to commercial. In addition, he had intended to build a commercial building and to seek approval of Petitioner for a driveway permit associated with that commercial venture. That driveway permit was approved on November 1, 1979. A copy of the driveway permit may be found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. The date of approval of that permit is November 1, 1979. The driveway permit and a small drawing reflect the two paved driveways associated with the intended commercial building. It shows frontage in the amount of 165 feet as opposed to the 300 foot expanse that constituted the entire parcel which Mr. Walk and his wife had bought from the Heins. Nonetheless, Mr. Wall is confident that the Petitioner was made aware of the entire 300-foot expanse when he sought the permit. His recollection of those events is credited. As reflected in Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1, a report and recommendation was made by the zoning board suggesting to the Board of County Commissioners that they approve the rezoning of the subject property. That recommendation dates from December 10, 1979. The zoning change was effected. The residential building and detached garage was used by a tenant of Mr. Wall's who was in the import business. Subsequent to that time Vernard W. Fletcher, Jr., who owns Ugly Duckling Rent-A-Car became a tenant at that location on July 1, 1983. The commercial building that had the two paved drives permitted on November 1, 1979 has four tenants. The dirt driveway which enters U.S. 1 from the residence with the detached garage has been there from the time of the purchase by the Walls from the Heins until the present. Mr. Fletcher has described the peak usage of that driveway as 20 trips per day in 1987. In the period July 1, 1988, through June 15, 1989, the number of trips has dropped to 15 cars a day. Mr. Fletcher's explanation of the number of trips is accepted. July 1, 1988, through June 15, 1989, describes the period from the advent of Section 335.187, Florida Statutes, (1988), until the Administrative Complaint was brought against the Respondent on June 15, 1989, as described in the statement of the issues. As Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Wall both explain, the dirt drive is used mostly for ingress. One of the paved drives associated with the commercial building is used for egress onto U.S. 1. On March 16, 1989, Respondent received notice from the Petitioner that the dirt driveway was an unacceptable access point onto U.S. 1. This correspondence was received by Mr. Fletcher on March 17, 1989. It sets forth the same basis of concern as announced in the Administrative Complaint which was prepared on June 15, 1989. Marshall Sander who is a permit engineer for the Lake City District of the Petitioner testified at the hearing. Although he did not confirm in absolute terms the expectation of the Petitioner as to the type driveway that it would accept for permitting, it is clear that some other form of driveway than the present type is contemplated. Mr. Sander's remarks to Mr. Wall made it obvious that the Petitioner is more likely to look with favor on a paved driveway with deceleration lane than any other form of improvement. This would cost as much as $15,000. A not-to-scale drawing of the immediate area is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. It depicts the commercial building with its two paved driveways and the Respondent's site with its dirt driveway. It also shows the approximate location of a shopping plaza which was under construction and expected to open in October 1989, which is 500 feet north of the property in question. That shopping center is located on the same side of the road as the property that is at issue. There is a traffic signal at Lewis Point Road and U.S. 1, the location of the new shopping center. That traffic control device protects automobiles which are exiting the location of the Respondent and the commercial properties adjacent to that location which are leased by Mr. Wall. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 is a series of photographs which depict the site in question with descriptions of the exact nature of those photographs specifically set out. Petitioner's Exhibit 8 also contains a series of photographs. The first photograph is one of Moultrie Plaza which has a Publix food store and 14 other tenants with the possibility of 8 additional tenants in the future. This shopping plaza opened in January 1989 and is approximately two miles south of the Respondent's business location. The shopping plaza which is immediately north of the location in question has a Food Lion grocery store, a McDonald's restaurant, a bank and several other retail shops. It is located on the same side of U.S. 1. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9 contains other pictures associated with the basic location of the business in question. Mr. Sander's concern about the use of the dirt driveway in a commercial application relates to the edge of pavement drop-off and the formation of ruts that develop with the kick-out by wheels that spin as cars are leaving or pulling into the location and under braking, and the fact that they slide and move the gravel material in the dirt driveway. In his analysis this creates a possible safety hazard. There is no evidence that any accidents have ever occurred because of the use of this dirt driveway or any safety problem associated with its use. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Wall have no recollection of such events and the Petitioner presented no indication that accidents or other safety problems had occurred. Mr. Sander also was of the opinion that Mr. Wall should have revealed the existence of the additional 135 feet of frontage when the 165 feet of frontage associated with the commercial building was set out in the attachment to the permit for the two paved driveways that have been mentioned before. Again, the facts are found that the 300 foot frontage was made known to the Petitioner based upon the testimony given by Mr. Wall. Section 385.187(1), Florida Statutes (1988), provides that unpermitted connections to the state highway system, to include U.S. 1, in existence before July 1, 1988, which had been in continuous use for a period of one year or more do not require permits. The dirt driveway was in existence before July 1, 1988, and was in continuous use for a period of one year or more. However, that same section speaks in terms of the ability of the Petitioner to require a permit in those instances where the connection undergoes a significant change in the use, design, or traffic flow of the connection or of the state highway that provides access. Beyond July 1, 1988, the use, design, or traffic flow of the driveway connection has not significantly changed. The use and design of the state highway has not significantly changed. The point of dispute is whether the traffic flow on that state highway has changed in a significant way. Notwithstanding the existence of two residential developments known as St. Augustine South and St. Augustine Shores, the two shopping plazas that have been described and other activities in the general vicinity, it was not shown that the traffic flow had increased in a significant way beyond July 1, 1988, up until June 15, 1989, the point at which the administrative complaint was brought or for that matter up until the time of the final hearing. Moreover, as stated, there is no suggestion that the driveway has presented a safety hazard in that time frame, particularly not when taking into account the preference to use the paved drives associated with the commercial building in the egress. That usage is facilitated by the fact that some of the equipment that is being rented is brought up one of the paved driveway exits from an area behind the commercial building. This set of circumstances is considered in light of the fact that the traffic signalization at Lewis Point Road and U.S. 1 protects a person entering U.S. 1 southbound.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 19th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-3898 Petitioner's Facts Petitioner's facts in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 6 is accepted but it is not essential that it be found as a fact. Paragraph 7 is subordinate to facts found. Respondent's Facts Respondent has described facts it wishes to have found in two categories. Those categories are a preliminary statement of facts not in dispute and a category associated with the issues deemed to be in dispute. These suggested facts are subordinate too the facts found in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Frederick L. Rice, Esquire 5611 St. Augustine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Ben Watts, Interim Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact In 1982 Petitioner erected a stilt home on the beachfront lot located at 926 Eldorado Avenue. The property is zoned RS-50. Prior thereto the property had been vacant and fenced with a four-foot chain link fence to keep trespassers off the property. The original fence was erected before the zoning regulations were passed, and upon passage of these regulations the fence became nonconforming. This fence was removed to facilitate construction of the residence and, when Petitioner applied for a permit to replace the fence, he was told he needed a variance and the proceedings leading to this appeal were started. His application for a permit came within less than one year from the time the fence was removed. Property in the vicinity is characterized by the use of four-foot chain link fences. The property immediately to the north of Petitioner's property has a four-foot chain link fence across the front of the property. Most of the other fences in the area are located on the sides of the property. Although there is a public access to the beach in the near vicinity of Petitioner's property, people cross Petitioner's property to get to the beach, park in his driveway, discard litter on his property, and even use the private outdoor shower on his mother's adjacent property. The regulations would allow Petitioner to erect a 30-inch fence on the front of his property. This would not contain the large dog Petitioner has. If the front fence were set back to the front of Petitioner's house and from each corner thereof run to the fence at each side of his property, this would not keep trespassers off his property, because people could walk up his driveway and under the stilt house.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Gateway Farms, LLC, is entitled to payment from Landscape Service Professionals, Inc., and the Gray Insurance Company, as Surety, pursuant to sections 604.15 through 604.34, Florida Statutes (2015), for the purchase of trees; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Gateway is a producer and seller of agricultural products, including slash pine trees. Gateway operates tree farms on 200 acres in five different locations in Columbia, Alachua, and Suwannee Counties. David Hajos is the owner and principal operator of Gateway. Mr. Hajos has 17 years of experience in growing, harvesting, and selling pine and other species of trees in Florida. Respondent Landscape is a Florida licensed dealer in agricultural products, pursuant to chapter 604. Landscape is a full-service landscape business located in Tamarac, Florida. Sandy Benton has been the president of Landscape for 18 years. Respondent, Insurance Company, filed a denial of the claim and was represented at hearing by Landscape’s counsel. Gateway has been doing business with Landscape for many years, with no indication of prior problems relating to the quality of trees provided. Lynn Griffith, Landscape’s plant and soil expert, considers Gateway to be a competent and professional grower. The Setting At all relevant times, Landscape was a contractor responsible for installing landscaping at the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (SWA) site on Jog Road in Palm Beach County, Florida. Pursuant to orders placed by Landscape, Gateway sold a total of 148 slash pines for use at the SWA site. The invoices for those pines are dated January 22 and 23, and February 9 and 16, 2015. Upon their arrival at the site, authorized personnel of Landscape received, inspected, and accepted the 148 slash pine trees. No problems or concerns were expressed regarding the delivery or condition of the slash pines. The Dispute Giving Rise to this Proceeding Between 20 and 30 of the trees ordered from Gateway were intended as replacement trees for the approximately 150 slash pines provided by six other vendors that had been planted by Landscape, and then died. When the dead trees were removed by Landscape, pine beetles were observed infesting the trees. Within several weeks of planting, 58 of the slash pines purchased from Gateway began to show signs of decline, resulting in their eventual death. Landscape consulted with the Palm Beach County Extension Service and industry professionals as to the cause of the death and decline of the slash pine trees, who undertook an investigation into the same. Slash pine trees are very sensitive and can be easily stressed. Stress can be caused by a variety of factors including: transplanting; harsh handling; bark exposure to sunlight, including superficial wounds to the bark; too much or too little water; or planting too deeply. The stress will cause a tree to emit chemicals that attract beetles, which inhabit the trees and may kill a stressed tree within a week or two of the infestation. In March 2015, Lynn Griffith, an agricultural consultant, conducted an SWA site visit. Mr. Griffith noted that a majority of the planted pines were healthy, but there were some that were not doing well; some had holes in them indicative of a pine beetle infestation. In his report dated March 12, 2015, Mr. Griffith opined on the impact of the ambrosia (pine) beetle infestation on the slash pines: The quantities of boreholes in some of the dead or declining pines would lead me to conclude that borers could be a primary cause of death, but in other cases the number of holes was low, indicating the pine decline was initiated by other factors. In an e-mail dated April 24, 2015, Ms. Benton advised Gateway (and JWD Trees, another supplier of slash pines to the SWA site) that the cause of the death and decline of the slash pine trees were because the two suppliers failed to properly prepare them in the nursery, and had sold them to Landscape with root systems inadequate to support the normal performance of the plant. At hearing, Ms. Benton’s opinion regarding the cause of death of the pines was echoed by John Harris, accepted as an expert in landscape economics and arborism. Mr. Harris’s opinion centered on only one possible explanation for the trees’ demise: a failure to have an adequate root system or an inability of the roots to generate new growth. Typically, this is caused by improper “hardening off” of the root system by the grower. However, on cross-examination, Mr. Harris acknowledged that while pine beetles typically infest stressed trees, if the beetle population builds up enough in an area they will attack otherwise healthy trees. At hearing, Mr. Hajos testified that the pine trees he supplied to Landscape had been properly hardened off for a period of six weeks: Hardened off is a process when you dig a tree and you hold it until it starts to regenerate new roots, so instead of just digging it up and selling it we dig it up and hold it under optimal irrigation and nursery conditions before we ship the tree. Mr. Hajos further testified that any trees that are going to die due to the stress of being dug out of the ground will die during the hardening off process. Mr. Hajos attributed the death of the Gateway trees to several factors, including stress caused by improper lifting of the trees during loading and unloading, stress caused by a delay in planting the trees after they arrived at the SWA site, and the pre-existing pine beetle infestation. Mr. Hajos examined a photograph received in evidence and explained that it showed a tree being improperly lifted by Landscape personnel during unloading. The photograph showed the strap around the tree trunk doing the primary lifting. The result is that rather than distributing the pressure between the trunk and the strap on the root ball, the root ball will be loosened, which will stress the tree. Mr. Hajos testified that he was aware that the Gateway trees that had been delivered to the SWA site were left on the ground for days before being planted. This testimony was corroborated by Landscape’s Daily Job Report log which reflected the delivery of the first load of Gateway pines to the SWA site on January 23 and 24, 2015, but that planting of those trees did not begin until January 29, 2015. On one occasion, a Landscape truck that had picked up trees from Gateway, broke down in Ocala on its return trip to Palm Beach County and had to return to the Gateway site in High Springs. There, the trees were unloaded, and then reloaded onto a different truck where they were delivered two days later to the SWA job site. This inordinate delay and additional loading and unloading further stressed the trees. Once Landscape became aware that it had a beetle infestation at the SWA site, it began a preventative spray program. However, once a pine beetle has entered the bark of a pine tree preventative spraying will be ineffective at eradicating the pest. Newly planted pine trees at the SWA site were not sprayed on the day of planting, thereby providing the pine beetles an opportunity to infest the new trees. Guy Michaud was Landscape’s job foreman at the SWA site. Mr. Michaud has been in the business of planting trees since 1983, and has worked for Landscape for 14 years. Mr. Michaud could not testify with certainty that the Gateway trees died of inadequate roots, as opposed to a beetle infestation. None of the other species of trees sold by Gateway for use at the SWA site experienced problems. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is more likely than not that a combination of factors contributed to the SWA slash pine deterioration, including delays in planting the trees after delivery, rough handling, and the beetles. None of these causes are attributable to the actions of Gateway. Likewise, the greater weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the trees sold by Gateway to Landscape were non- viable nursery stock. Subsequent to filing its claim in the amount of $13,462.30 with the Department, Gateway received a payment of $5,528.84 from Landscape. Thus, the unpaid balance due Gateway for the 58 slash pines is $7,933.46. Gateway is entitled to payment in the amount of $7,933.46 for the slash pine trees it provided to Landscape. Besides the amount set forth above, Gateway claims the sum of $50.00 paid for the filing of the claim against Landscape and its bond. The total sum owed to Gateway by Landscape is $7,983.46.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services approving the claim of Gateway Farms, LLC, against Landscape Professional Services, Inc., in the total amount of $7,983.46 ($7,933.46 plus $50 filing fee); and if Landscape Professionals Services, Inc., fails to timely pay Gateway Farms, LLC, as ordered, that Respondent, The Gray Insurance Company, as Surety, be ordered to pay the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as required by section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and the Department reimburse the Petitioner as set out in section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2016.
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1988 Harry B. Williams made application to the Department of Natural Resources for permission to construct a single-family dwelling with appurtenant structures at 2831 Ponte Verda Boulevard South, South Ponte Verda Beach, Florida. The permit sought was a coastal construction control line permit which would allow construction seaward of that line in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of that permit application may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 2. Associated with the permit application was a description of the plans related to the dwelling and other structures. This application was received by the Department February 11, 1988. Following a review of the permit application the Department deemed it complete as of February 22, 1988. A site inspection was made of the property and a report was prepared by an employee with the Department, a Mr. Partel. The report may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 4, which includes photographs of the prospective building site, together with the surrounding property to include dwellings to the north and south of the lot where the Williams home would be built. As commented on by Mr. Partel the applicant had intended at that time to construct a single-family dwelling a maximum of 75 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although this evaluator, Mr. Partel, felt that the applicant had requested the right to construct a dwelling which was in line with existing construction, he felt that it could be moved further landward and that it could be limited in deck size and that a cantilevened form of construction was preferable to the concrete called for in the plans set out in the application information. It was also suggested that the sea oats that were in the way of the construction should be relocated seaward on a dune face slope where a denuded area is found. In this connection, the Department is empowered to make suggestions to the applicant concerning the minimization of the adverse impacts on the beach-dune system. Following the site visit of February 26, 1988 the Department wrote the applicant on March 11, 1988 and indicated concerns about the proximity of the dwelling to the crest of the dune. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 5. In the correspondence the Department asked the applicant to move the proposed dwelling 10 feet landward and that the 10 foot wide concrete patio, on the seaward side, be modified to a 10 foot wide wooden deck. The letter told the applicant that the approval would be conditioned on the sea oats and other dune grasses that would be disturbed by the proposed structures being replanted seaward of the project in the denuded areas of the dune. The applicant agreed to these changes. The relocation of the structure 10 feet landward took it away from the beach- dune system. The modified site plan that was brought about by the suggested changes is found Department's Exhibit Number 6, a copy of that amended site plan. With the relocation the construction would be 66 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. An aerial photograph of the site location reference the basic design of the dwelling and the proximity to the relevant or existing coastal construction control line is found as Department's Exhibit Number 3. In responding to the suggestions to the change in location the modified site plan which moved the dwelling 10 feet landward was received by the Department on August 1, 1988. Under this arrangement the applicant had agreed to waive the requirements of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes pertaining to the obligation by the Department to review and decide its action of grant or denial within 90 days of date of receipt of the application. With the changes being made to the location of the proposed dwelling and associated structures and the type of construction materials used in the patio on the seaward side, together with the relocation of the plant life, the impact on the beach-dune system and adjacent property is acceptable. There is no adverse impact on the beach-dune system or on the adjacent properties. The location of the proposed dwelling and its associated structures as it relates to the 30-year erosion projection under the terms of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, in this instance, shows that the dwelling would be approximately 55 feet landward of the 30-year erosion projection and not at risk. Calculations related to this finding may be found within Department's Exhibit Number 7. The existing coastal construction control line dates from January 28, 1988. Although the original application referred to the previous line of 1978 in describing the site plan and survey, the reason for this was that the site plan and survey were prepared prior to the establishment of the January 28, 1988 line, as allowed. In the course of the hearing appropriate reference was made to the January 28, 1988 line as it relates to the anticipated location of the dwelling and other structures as modified at the instigation of the Department. As contemplated by Section 161.053(5)(f), the Department required the applicant to provide mitigation of the- effects of the construction as a condition to a grant of the permit. Those permit conditions may be found in the Department's Exhibit Number 8, a copy of a proposed final order. Included within those would be the requirements for erection of a temporary construction fence on the site to protect existing native dune vegetation from the impacts of that construction, in addition to the requirement of the dune vegetation relocation. This would involve the irrigation and application of fertilizer to those plants with the expectation that a certain percentage would survive over time as described in this special condition. This project will not pose a hazard to the sea turtle and its hatchlings and habitat for the sea turtles and hatchlings. Ms. Butler, Petitioner in this cause, has a beach home which is north of the Williams property separated by a 10 foot easement between those properties. In mid July, 1988 Ms. Butler offered a written statement in opposition to the placement and size of the proposed dwelling together with other remarks and asked that the Department provide her information and documents pertaining to the application under the authority of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. On August 10, 1988 the Department dispatched a letter of inquiry to surrounding property owners to include Ms. Butler and solicited remarks concerning the Williams application to be provided on or about August 20, 1988. Ms. Butler had received certain documents from the Department concerning the application sometime in the middle of August 1988. On August 18, 1988 Butler made known her objection to the project on the grounds that the concerns about the 30-year erosion line and the size and placement of the dwelling. On September 2, 1988 the Department informed Ms. Butler of the intent to grant the permit to Mr. Williams. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5. This led to a timely request for hearing by Ms. Butler stating her opposition to this project. The request was received in accordance with the Department's advice that the request must be filed by September 26, 1988. Based upon the prehearing conference and the discussion of those issues which would be allowed for consideration as stated in the request for hearing and the statement of particulars that attend the request for hearing, commented on by the hearing officer at the commencement of the final hearing, and found within the transcript and further stated in the issues portion to this Recommended Order, this case has been carried forward. The presentation made by the Petitioner, after the Department and applicant had offered their cases, was through her testimony and that of employees of the Department together with exhibits she offered. The testimony of the Department employees concerned the procedural techniques that the agency pursued in reviewing the application at issue. Ms. Butler described her concern for her property, and the area between her property and the Williams property. This is the 10 foot easement area which is sparsely vegetated and low. As a consequence she was concerned that her property might be destroyed with the advent of the Williams construction. She has no expertise in her own right nor did she present expert opinion from other witnesses which would tend to bear out her concern. She also expressed the concern that the Williams home, in its dimensions, was too large and that it should be relocated an additional 10 feet back from the adjusted placement following the Department's criticism of the original application. In effect, she would have the house placed 20 feet away from the sea as compared to the original site plan submitted with the application on February 10, 1988. Again, there is no competent evidence presented which would support her theory that this further relocation was needed. Her expression of concern for the sea turtles and their hatchlings and habitat was not well founded. Turtles are known to nest on the sandy flat beach area and the construction of the Williams property will not interfere with that area adjacent to the ocean.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order which grants a coastal construction control line permit to Harry B. Williams, Jr., based upon his modified plan required by the Department and upon the special permit conditions announced in the proposed final order, a copy of which is found as Department's Exhibit Number 8. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 27th day of April, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner proposes to erect a hyacinth fence at the entrance to Canal number 4 in Lake Istokpoga. The fence will consist of 4' x 4' posts six feet apart extending approximately 100 feet from each marsh bank of the canal toward Lake Istokpoga with an opening at the entrance of 12 to 14 feet to allow boat access. The fence will be attached to these 4' x 4' posts and extend about 2 feet below the surface of the water to prevent hyacinths from entering the canal and blocking navigation. Three other canals leading into Lake Istokpoga have been equipped with hyacinth fences and to date no problems have occurred. The fence does not extend to the bottom of the lake, is of a type approved by DER and will not materially effect the movement of water into and out of the canal. There is less water turnover in the canals than in the lake. This results in the canals having less oxygen than the lake and therefore are in a more stressed condition. As a result, from an ecological point of view, it is preferred to keep the hyacinths in the lake as opposed to the canals. Hyacinths which die and sink to the bottom take from the water oxygen that is needed to sustain aquatic life. From a navigational standpoint the 12 to 14 feet opening in the proposed fence is adequate for the boats that use the lake and canal. Erection of the fence will have no adverse effect on the ecology or biological resources of the area, and will result in keeping out many hyacinths that otherwise would enter the canal.
The Issue The issues are (1) whether a driveway connection on Respondent's property in Auburndale, Florida, is subject to closure because it poses safety concerns, and (2) whether a second driveway connection on Respondent's property should be modified because it fails to meet current access management standards.
Findings Of Fact A. Background The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating access between state roads and private property abutting those roads. See §§ 335.18 through 335.188, Fla. Stat. State Road 544 is a part of the state highway system. Since 1998, Respondent has owned a small, irregularly shaped parcel of property located at 502 Havendale Boulevard (State Road 544), Auburndale. The 0.46-acre parcel lies on the southeast corner of the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street Northwest. Commercial establishments are located on the other three corners. In December 1998, Respondent leased the property to a tenant who operates Townsend Motors, a used car lot. The business has operated continuously at that location since that time. Aerial photographs reflect the lot has a capacity of around 30 or so vehicles. Most vehicles are displayed where the triangle-shaped lot comes to a point at the intersection and along the side of the lot facing State Road 544. Other vehicles are parked throughout the middle or rear of the lot. They are rearranged from time to time to enhance sales. To replace cars that are sold, the tenant typically buys a few cars at a time, which are delivered by a tow truck. Auto carriers and large trucks with trailers are not used to deliver vehicles. On the "rare" occasion in the past when a "big transport" made deliveries, the truck used the parking lot in a nearby Publix store to the east. State Road 544 is classified as a class 7 road. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-97.003(1), Table 2. That classification is assigned to roads where adjacent land is developed to the maximum feasible intensity and roadway widening is limited. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-97.003(2). The regulation provides that a driveway connection on a class 7 road must be at least 125 feet from an intersection and at least the same distance from other connections. This amount of spacing reduces driver confusion and the potential for rear-end collisions. Respondent's parcel has two driveway connections, less than 125 feet apart, facing State Road 544. The first connection is approximately 60 feet east of the intersection and is known as the western connection. The second connection lies further east and is known as the eastern connection. A third driveway connection is located on the western side of the parcel facing 42nd Street Northwest. Driveway connections on state roads must be permitted or grandfathered. See § 335.1825, Fla. Stat.; Fla Admin. Code 14-96.011(3)(a). Neither connection on State Road 544 is permitted. A driveway is grandfathered if it was in existence prior to July 1, 1988, when access permits were first required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.011(3)(a). Because the driveway connections were in place before 1988, they qualify for that status. To retain that status, however, a driveway must be consistently used by the owner. If use is discontinued for a period of one year or more, the use is considered abandoned. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.005(2)(c). If a driveway loses its grandfathered status through abandonment, the owner must apply for an access permit; otherwise, the driveway is subject to closure. A connection that retains its grandfathered status may still be modified if safety or operational issues exist. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14- 96.011(4)(b)(the Department may modify a grandfathered connection "if such modification is determined to be necessary because the connection would jeopardize the safety of the public or have a negative impact on the operational characteristics of the state highway"). The parties agree the eastern driveway is grandfathered and has been consistently used by the tenant since 1998. There is a dispute over the status of the western driveway. The Department must allow owners of private properties adjoining a state road to have "reasonable access" to and from their property. See § 335.18(2)(a), Fla. Stat. As a general rule, limiting the number of driveway connections promotes better traffic movement and an increased level of safety and mobility for the system as a whole. To determine the number of connections necessary to establish reasonable access, the Department considers the projected connection and roadway traffic volumes, the type and intensity of the land use, the access management classification of the state road, and the standards for that classification. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 14-96.002(25). The Intersection Project The genesis of this dispute is a safety project (Project) at the intersection of State Road 544 and 42nd Street Northwest adjacent to Respondent's property. The Project was initiated after the Department received pedestrian complaints concerning safe travel across the intersection to access retail and food stores and a lack of crosswalks that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Project is only 0.038 miles in length and is limited to improvements at the intersection and the installation of sidewalks adjacent to Respondent's parcel and the three other corner commercial properties. There will be minimal impact to current vehicular patterns, and no increase in capacity is expected. Part of the design effort for the Project included an evaluation of existing driveway connections for potential modifications that will improve traffic safety or traffic operations on the roadway. This evaluation was limited to driveways on State Road 544, as the Department has no jurisdiction over driveways on 42nd Street Northwest, a local road. During the planning process, the Department noted that the western driveway is less than 125 feet from the intersection, violates spacing requirements, and raises safety concerns. Accordingly, the Department proposes to remove it, "saw it over," and install type F curb and gutter along the roadway. To comply with access management standards for class 7 roads, the Department also proposes to narrow the width of the eastern driveway from around 60 feet to 36 feet and "widen the wings somewhat" to allow larger vehicles to swing into and out of the car lot. (Wings are the sides of the driveway that slope down from the top of the curb to the street level.) No changes to the driveway facing 42nd Street Northwest are proposed, and no other driveways on State Road 544 near the intersection will be modified. The Department determined that no other practical alternatives to this action exist. Based on its evaluation of the property, the Department concluded that one direct connection on State Road 544 and an indirect connection on 42nd Street Northwest, a local road, provide reasonable access to the property. The Department intends to install new pedestrian signal poles and increase access to a nearby bus stop. The Project includes connected sidewalks for the four commercial properties on the corners of the intersection and enhanced special emphasis crosswalks that are designed to comply with the ADA and connect to the existing Publix sidewalk to the east. The high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian signalization improvements, and removal of the western driveway will improve traffic movement through the intersection and enhance motorist, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. A Department Safety Office Benefit Cost Analysis revealed there were a total of 60 rear-end or angle crashes at the intersection during the five-year period 2010 through 2014 and that some could have been prevented with better signage and signals. The study projects 11 crashes will be avoided over the upcoming five-year period once the Project is completed. Besides reducing angle and rear-end crashes at the intersection, the proposed modifications will improve safety and operational conditions for pedestrians and motorists who will have greater connectivity to adjacent commercial properties. Respondent's Objections Respondent raises a number of objections to the Department's proposed action. She contends the western driveway is not abandoned, and even though it fails to meet current spacing requirements, it should not be closed; the proposed modification to the eastern driveway is not warranted by safety or operational concerns; the Department violated a number of statutory provisions during the process leading up to the issuance of the Notice; the proposed action will deny her and the tenant reasonable access to the property; and the changes will reduce the value of the property. The Western Connection To comply with insurance requirements, in 1998 the tenant erected bollards (short vertical posts embedded in the driveway) around most of the parcel to restrict access to the premises. Among other locations, bollards were placed along the entire back side of the western connection, blocking off vehicle access through that driveway. Bollards were also placed on roughly half of the back side of the eastern connection, leaving less than 30 feet open to allow vehicles to enter and exit the premises. Even though the bollards remained in place for almost 20 years, Respondent considers them nothing more than temporary fixtures, as they could be removed at any time by sawing them off at ground level or pulling them out of the concrete. The bollards remained in place until shortly after the Notice was received by Respondent in early January 2017. They were then removed by the tenant from the western driveway (and other areas). The tenant denies the Notice triggered their removal and maintains they were removed to provide "extra room for the FedEx and stuff like that to get in." He added that his current insurance company no longer requires bollards for security purposes. The Department contends the western driveway connection was abandoned because bollards blocked vehicle access through the driveway from December 1998 until January 2017. The tenant's testimony confirms this assertion. The tenant admits he has "not frequently [been] using the westernmost driveway," but maintains the connection was never abandoned, as Fedex trucks and the mail carrier regularly parked on the driveway apron, which lies between the roadway and the bollards. Emergency responders also use the apron when responding to accidents at the intersection, and disabled vehicles traveling eastbound on State Road 544 are pushed onto the apron. The bottom line is that even though the apron may have been used, the driveway itself was not, and the connection was basically used as a "pull-off." In fact, the tenant acknowledged that until January 2017, except for customers who used the parking lots of adjacent businesses located south of the parcel, all other customers used the eastern connection to access the property. The evidence supports a finding that, even if the car lot has remained in business continuously, and Respondent did not intend to abandon the driveway, for the reasons stated above, it was effectively abandoned for more than one year. Because the western driveway is only 60 feet from the intersection and violates spacing standards, it is subject to closure based on safety concerns. Without closure, additional traffic will enter and exit the car lot, there will be less driver reaction time for vehicles to stop, and it will increase the potential for more pedestrian injuries and vehicle crashes. The Eastern Connection The eastern driveway is 58 feet wide when measured at the back of the property line. Until January 2017, less than 30 feet were usable because bollards blocked the remainder of the connection. The maximum width for a class 7 driveway connection is determined by the number of vehicle trips per day that enter a property and whether the connection is in a rural or urban location. Under current design standards for urban locations, a 24-foot driveway connection is typically allowed. See Dep't Ex. 15. Assuming a large volume of traffic entering or exiting the driveway, a maximum of 36 feet may be permitted. Id. Although there is no evidence that a large volume of traffic enters or exits the premises, after speaking with the owner's representative, Mr. Combee, the Department agreed to increase the width from 24 feet to 36 feet and widen the sides (wings) to make the driveway more accessible by customers and vehicles making deliveries. By comparison, the nearby Publix store has a 24-foot connection to State Road 544, although it also has several indirect connections on the local streets. The modified connection is of sufficient length and size for vehicles to enter and exit the premises. Other Objections Notice Respondent contends the Department did not comply with section 335.199(1), Florida Statutes, before issuing the Notice. That subsection provides as follows: Whenever the Department of Transportation proposes any project on the State Highway System which will divide a state highway, erect median barriers modifying currently available vehicle turning movements, or have the effect of closing or modifying an existing access to an abutting property owner, the department shall notify all affected property owners, municipalities, and counties at least 180 days before the design of the project is finalized. The department's notice shall provide a written explanation regarding the need for the project and indicate that all affected parties will be given an opportunity to provide comments to the department regarding potential impacts of the change. Subsection (3) of the statute also requires at least one public hearing in the jurisdiction where the project is located. The Department has always construed this provision as applying only to large projects that involve an expenditure of "upward of a million dollars" and take out or block medians, remove turn lanes, or reconfigure intersections in conjunction with a modification or closure of a driveway connection. Because the Project entails the expenditure of $119,936.00, and only new curbs, sidewalks, striping, and pedestrian signals are contemplated, the Department considers it a "very limited scope" project and one that does not implicate the statute. For small projects such as this, the Department provides preliminary notification to the property owner and tenant, if any; a written notice setting forth the proposed agency action and the reason for the changes; an opportunity for the owner to meet with Department representatives to express concerns; notice to the affected local governments; and ultimately an administrative hearing, if one is requested. This process complies with section 335.1825(3), which only requires "reasonable notice" to the owner before closing an unpermitted connection. Before the Notice was issued, oral notice regarding the Project was given to the tenant by a Department representative. During the meeting, the tenant told the representative that he "didn't mind" if the western driveway was removed. Also, a Department representative spoke by telephone with Mr. Combee before the Notice was issued, but Mr. Combee says he was under the impression the Department was only seeking to close the connection on 42nd Street Northwest. An on-site meeting with Mr. Combee and his counsel was conducted in February 2017. Based on concerns expressed by Mr. Combee, the Department agreed to increase the width of the eastern driveway from 24 to 36 feet and widen the wings to provide greater accessibility into and out of the lot. Besides meeting with the tenant and Mr. Combee, the Department informed the City of Auburndale and Polk County about the intersection project and asked them whether any comments had been received from the public regarding the intersection. Assuming arguendo that section 335.199 applies to every project involving the closure or modification of a driveway connection, regardless of its size, there was no showing that Respondent was prejudiced by the Department's failure to comply with all requirements of the statute. Lack of an Engineering Study Respondent contends the Department violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-96.011(4)(b) by failing to conduct a formal engineering study to substantiate the safety and operational concerns for closing and modifying the connections. In lieu of a signed and sealed engineering study, the Department performed a Safety Cost Benefit Analysis documenting the five-year crash history at the intersection. The study also includes an engineer's estimate of the type and cost of specific improvements planned to improve the safety of motorists and pedestrians at the intersection. See Resp. Ex. 5. Nothing in rule 14-96.011(4) or (5) requires that a formal engineering study be conducted before closing an unpermitted connection or modifying a grandfathered connection. In fact, the rule cited by Respondent provides the "problem may be substantiated by an engineering study signed, sealed, and dated by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida." (emphasis added). Therefore, both driveways are subject to removal or modification without any type of formal study being conducted. Here, the Department relied on a study of the crash history at the intersection, access management standards for connections on class 7 roadways, and safety concerns expressed by members of the public. These measures are adequate to support the Department's proposed action. Reasonable Access Respondent contends the Department's proposed action leaves her without "reasonable access" to the property. To support this contention, her engineering expert opined that both driveways on State Road 544 are necessary in order for large trucks making deliveries to enter and exit the lot. The engineer assumed incorrectly, however, that semi-trucks and trailers now access the property to make deliveries, and a 36-foot driveway will be too small to accommodate that type of vehicle. He also opined that large trucks cannot access the property through the 42nd Street Northwest connection because a building is located in the middle of the parcel and prevents them from being driven across the lot and exiting through the eastern connection. The expert agrees a 36-foot driveway provides reasonable access for automobiles and small trucks. The evidence shows that replacement vehicles are normally delivered by a tow truck hauling no more than one or two at a time and large semi-trucks and trailers do not make deliveries at the property. Assuming that the mail carrier or FedEx wish to continue parking where the apron now sits while they deliver the mail or a package, they can do so by pulling over the six-inch curb and parking on the grass. The evidence supports a finding that one direct access point on State Road 544 and one indirect access point on 42nd Street Northwest provide reasonable access to the property and result in safer and more efficient access to the state highway system. Economic Concerns Respondent contends the value of her property will be diminished as a result of the closure of the western connection. However, economic injury is not a statutory consideration for closing or modifying connections, and redress for that type of injury, if any, lies in another forum. Management of Project The Department routinely allows construction project administrators who are not professional engineers to manage the day-to-day work on intersection projects such as this. While the project plans were signed and sealed by a professional engineer, who is the project engineer of record, a construction project administrator, Mr. Freeman, will take the plans and "make it a reality in the field." Respondent contends Mr. Freeman is violating section 471.003(1) by performing certain investigative, evaluating, planning, and designing activities without an engineering license. Assuming arguendo this is true, jurisdiction over that issue lies with the Florida Board of Professional Engineers and not the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order approving the closure of Respondent's western driveway and modification of the eastern driveway, as part of the Department's State Road 544 Safety Project. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dew, Secretary Department of Transportation Mail Station 57 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Andrea Shulthiess, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Tom Thomas, General Counsel Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (eServed) Richard E. Shine, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 (eServed) David W. Holloway, Esquire David W. Holloway, P.A. 13100 Park Boulevard, Suite B Seminole, Florida 33776-3539 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The Intervenors filed an Application for Dredge and Fill Permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department entered a notice of its intent to issue a permit. Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was given Case No. 82-3155. A Recommended Order which includes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has been entered in Case No. 82-3155. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order are hereby incorporated into this Final Order and constitute a part of this Final Order. The Petitioner is an association of home owners within a residential development known as "Caloosa." Intervenors are seeking to develop an industrial park on land adjacent to the Caloosa development. Surface and ground waters from the proposed industrial park would drain toward Caloosa. Prior to the Department's entry of the notice of intent to issue a permit to Intervenors, the Department's personnel evaluated the application in free-form proceedings. An environmental specialist who works with the Department as a permit processor proposed to deny the application on account of the fact that Intervenors proposed to fill approximately 70 acres of wetlands, 24 of which were within the Department's permitting authority under Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The administrator of the Department's Dredge and Fill Permitting Section came to the conclusion that denial of the application could not be justified. He felt that the wetlands to be filled served only marginally to preserve water quality in the area. The Intervenors had proposed to artificially create wetland areas in order to compensate for the loss of filled wetland areas. The program administrator suggested to the permit processor that they negotiate to get the Intervenors to create additional artificial wetlands in order to mitigate against any possible adverse effect from the loss of natural wetland areas. These negotiations occurred, and the Intervenors agreed to increase artificially created wetland areas. The Department of Environmental Regulation does not have a rule which provides that its personnel can engage in negotiations respecting a permit application. Negotiations are, however, an inherent part of a permitting process. The Department does not have any written or unwritten policy whereby it accepts such mitigating factors as artificially created wetlands as justifying the filling of natural wetlands. It does not appear that the Department has any rule or nonrule policy concerning mitigation or trade-offs, and it does not appear that the Department has ever had such a rule or policy. The Department does not have a policy of accepting concessions, trade-offs, or mitigating factors so as to allow an applicant to violate the Department's water quality standards. Since there has been a permitting process, such factors as artificially created wetlands have been considered by the Department in determining whether an application meets the Department's criteria for issuance of a permit. The Department's policy is to consider whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-term effects of proposed activities will not result in violations of water quality standards, as required under Rule 17- 4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code. If an applicant has proposed to construct artificial wetlands, the Department would logically consider it in making determinations about granting the permit. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding from which it could be concluded that the Department has any unpromulgated "mitigation" policy which has the effect of a rule.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pierson is the owner of a parcel of land located at 7 Heilwood Street, Clearwater Beach, Florida. This parcel consists of the North 1/2 of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 in Block 6, Revised Map of Clearwater Beach, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 11, page 5, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. The westwardly portion of the parcel is beach front property on a coastal barrier island. When the subdivision known as Clearwater Beach Subdivision was platted, fifteen lots were placed in Block 6. The three beachfront lots were smaller in area than the other twelve lots which were uniform in size and shape. However, when Lot 2 was divided and the northern half went to Lot 3 and the southern half to Lot 1, fourteen similar parcels were created in Block 6. Pierson purchased the parcel in question as unimproved property in Clearwater Beach Subdivision in 1962. This was nine years prior to the creation of Coastal Construction Control Lines by the Florida Legislature. The establishment of the Coastal Construction Control Line for Clearwater Beach in 1977, caused building setbacks previously established by the City of Clearwater for this unimproved parcel to become even further restricted. The Coastal Construction Control Line deleted the seaward 5/8ths of the Pierson property on which a building could have been erected previously on Clearwater Beach. Few parcels on this island were impacted as severely as Respondent Pierson's by the creation of the Coastal Construction Control Line because most of these parcels already contained permanent improvements. This parcel remained vacant until Respondent Pierson erected a duplex in 1986. This improvement was constructed according to the Land Development Code in effect at the time with the following exceptions: A variance of zero setback from the Coastal Construction Control Line and a 6 foot height variance to permit construction of a building 31 feet in height were granted by the Board. At the time the variances were granted, Respondent had the option to build either a duplex or a triplex at the site. Respondent seeks to expand this structure and to convert it into a triplex. In order to complete the planned expansion, a variance of 18 feet was requested from the Board to allow construction 7 feet from the Heilwood Street right-of-way. Currently, the Code requires a 25 feet setback from a street right-of-way. In addition, a variance of two feet from the eastward property boundary was requested to allow construction up to 6 feet from this side property line. Code provisions require an 8 feet setback. The existing structure is 6 feet from this side property line. The proposed addition to the current structure would continue with that eastern setback of 6 feet to the north, with an additional 25 feet of structure extending towards Heilwood Street. The expansion of the building to the west would terminate at the Coastal Construction Control Line. The property is zoned RM-20 with a land use plan designation as high density residential developed. The parcel is 95.12 feet in length and 87 feet in width, an area of 8,242.38 square feet. Ordinarily, a parcel with these dimensions is of sufficient size to build the structure proposed by Respondent Pierson without violating the street right-of-way setback and the side property line setback mandated by the Code. In this case, setback variances are required to complete the triplex because of the Coastal Construction Control Line's location on the parcel. In his application for variance, together with evidence presented, Respondent Pierson contends that the variance request arises from a condition unique to the property. The "unique" condition being that he did not build what he now wants to build on the property before the land use restrictions currently in place limited development of the parcel to such an extent. All other lot owners in the locale chose to develop their lots earlier than Respondent did, under less restrictive conditions. As a result, Respondent Pierson's duplex is setback further from Heilwood Street than the other buildings. Deciding when and what to build as a real property improvement is part of real estate ownership. Now that Respondent Pierson wants to change his previous development decision to reflect his current intended property use, he wants the same setback benefits as those acquired by other property owners on Heilwood Street who developed their parcels during past time periods with less restrictive setbacks. The Coastal Construction Control Line and the building setbacks have been placed on the property because of legitimate state and local concerns. A driveway was placed by Respondent Pierson in front of the duplex as it faces the water at the end of a dead-end street. The location of this driveway and the existing setback of the duplex from the road beyond all of the other property setbacks on this street, make this portion of Respondent's property a convenient area for traveling cars to turn around or to park while using the beach. Respondent Pierson contends that the variances he has requested will discourage the use of his land as a turnaround area, because it would be clear to those attempting to use his driveway that they were trespassing. His primary interest is to maintain his private interests in the property which should go beyond those currently enjoyed by the public. It is a desire for these rights that control his request for the variances as opposed to a desire to secure a greater financial return. The variances granted by the Board will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the Vasilaros property. The variances, however, could impair the present value of the Petitioner's property because the expansion of the Pierson duplex into a triplex would block a large amount of the Gulf view the Vasilaros building was designed to acquire. Petitioners' lot is in the same subdivision as the parcel owned by Respondent Pierson. Even before the Vasilaros lot was improved, the landowners knew or should have known that another parcel separated this lot from the beach. Respondent Pierson is under no statutory or contractual obligation to restrict his land use to allow Petitioners a view. The variances granted would result in a nonconforming building. All of the other structures in the immediate vicinity are nonconforming because these structures were built before current zoning regulations were adopted. Respondent Pierson seeks to blend with the neighborhood on the street and to have the same nonconforming advantages. Respondent Pierson could convert the current structure into a triplex. The apartments would be much smaller than the ones contemplated in the proposed plan. He seeks to create the third apartment for his own retirement home. On August 22, 1991, the Board granted a variance of 15 feet to permit construction of a triplex 10 feet from a street right-of-way and a second variance of 2 feet to allow construction up to 6 feet from the side property line to the south because the Board found that the applicant has substantially met all the standards for approval, as listed in Section 137.012(d) of the Land Development Code. More specifically, the Board found: a) The variances arise from a condition which is unique to the property and not caused by the applicant; b) The Coastal Construction Control Line restricts the use of two- thirds of the property, allowing only 19 percent use, c) The particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions involved and the strict application of the provisions of this Development Code would result in unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; and d) The variances granted are the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship created by the minimal use of the property subject to the requisite building permit being obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the variances granted by the Board be set aside and the application for the variances submitted be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: JOHN T BLAKELY ESQ PO BOX 1368 CLEARWATER FL 34617 GEORGE W GREER ESQ 600 CLEVELAND ST - STE 685 CLEARWATER FL 34616 MILES LANCE ESQ PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 34618 CINDIE GOUDEAU/CITY CLERK CITY OF CLEARWATER PO BOX 4748 CLEARWATER FL 34618 MICHAEL WRIGHT/CITY MANAGER CITY OF CLEARWATER 112 S OSCEOLA AVE CLEARWATER FL 34618 VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 11th day of February, 1992.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the City's application to open an at- grade crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street, Boca Raton, Florida (Milepost 324 + 2350') should be granted and is in keeping with the dictates of Section 338.21, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-46.03(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Based on a careful consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence and the other arguments of counsel, ,the following relevant facts are found. The City of Boca Raton filed an application to open an at-grade railroad crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street, which is situated at Railway's Milepost 324 + 2350' and the Florida East Coast Railway Company filed an application to close Palmetto Park Road at-grade crossing, which is situated at Milepost 324 + 2988'. Due to the close proximity of the two crossings, a joint hearing was held. The Railway, in filing its application to close Palmetto Park Road, noted that its application was alternative to and contingent upon the granting of the City's application to open NE/NW 2nd Street. The Railway's position is that one of the two crossings is adequate. The Applicant's position respecting this application was presented through Mr. John Carroll, City Engineer since approximately September of 1977, and Mr. Joseph Pollack, P.E., of Kimley-Horn and Associates. Palmetto Park Road is a major east/west arterial road serving the City. The most recent traffic counts for Palmetto Park Road in May, 1978, indicate a peak traffic count of approximately 24,000 vehicles per day at the intersection of Palmetto Park Road, Dixie Highway and the existing crossing. This represents a volume/capacity ratio for that intersection of approximately 1.35 or approximately 35 percent greater than the designed capacity for the intersection. Such a condition is known as "forced flow." Based thereon, the City argues that there have been an increasingly high number of vehicle-to- vehicle and vehicle-to crossing gate accidents at the subject intersection and crossing. Thus, for example, the City points out that during calendar year 1977, the most current year that statistics were available, there were eighteen accidents at the intersection and crossing, with seven of those accidents directly involving the crossing gates closing on vehicles waiting to clear the crossing (See City Exhibit 10). According to Dr. Carroll, several additional crossing gate accidents were never reported. The West Palm Beach Urban Area Transportation Study (WPBUATS) indicates a 1955 traffic volume on Palmetto Park Road of 18,000 vehicles per day and 1990 traffic volume of 26,000 vehicles per day (City's Exhibits 4A, 4B, 5A and 5B). Such projections are based upon the City's construction of alternate east/west corridors which are not now in existence and, if such alternative routes are not constructed, the above projected traffic volume increases would be greater. Without question, the NE/NW 2nd Street project would reduce congestion on Palmetto Park Road. Testimony introduced during the hearing reveals that the NE/NW 2nd Street project will draw approximately 4,000 vehicles per day from Palmetto Park Road. If such reduction results, the volume/capacity ratio on Palmetto Park Road at the existing crossing and Dixie Highway intersection would reduce the current "forced flow situation to its approximate designed capacity. During the hearing, testimony was submitted to the effect that in addition to eliminating the "forced flow" condition at Palmetto Park Road, the subject project will facilitate emergency vehicle response time, would be more convenient to citizens desiring access to the central business district and would, if calculated, result in a fuel consumption saving. The NE/NW 2nd Street project was first envisioned by the City in 1964 and since that date, the City has acquired substantial amount of the necessary rights-of-way to accomplish completion of this project. Specifically, in 1973, the City acquired rights-of-way between Federal Highway and First Avenue, and in 1974 and 1976, the City required certain developers to dedicate other necessary rights-of-way. In September, 1977, the City's electorate approved a bend issue totaling $1,770,000 for road improvements, which included $448,000 for the NE/NW 2nd Street project. Mr. Pollack testified credibly that his firm designed the NE/NW 2nd Street project and the crossing to meet all applicable design safety criteria. The Railway's opposition to the opening of a crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street was based partially upon the close proximity of the proposed crossing to the existing crossing at Palmetto Park Road and also upon the Railway's opinion that opening of the NE/NW 2nd Street crossing would do little in terms of reducing the over-utilization of the crossing at Palmetto Park Road. 10. It was noted during the hearing that by 1990, the average traffic vehicle using the Palmetto Park Road crossing will approach 30,000 vehicles. It is undisputed that the additional crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street will draw vehicles from the Palmetto Park Road crossing. In terms of alternative routes, the City conducted feasibility studies which reveal that either in terms of widening Palmetto Park Road or alternatively constructing an above-grade crossing at the Railway's mainline track, both alternatives are prohibitive in terms of cost and thus, not feasible. The prohibitive costs stem from the fact that the property abutting Palmetto Park Road in the close proximity of the existing crossing is presently developed for commercial uses. Finally, all parties agreed that regardless of whether the proposed NE/NW 2nd Street crossing application was granted, the closing of Palmetto Park Road would be disastrous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the application of the City of Boca Raton to open an at-grade crossing at NE/NW 2nd Street (Milepost 324 + 2350') be GRANTED. It is further recommended that the application of the Railway to close the Palmetto Park Road at-grade crossing (Milepost 324 + 2988') be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
