Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Alicia M. Paulino-Grisham
Alicia M. Paulino-Grisham
Visitors: 63
6
Bar #676926(FL)     License for 22 years; Member in Good Standing
Hollywood FL

Are you Alicia M. Paulino-Grisham? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

99-000904  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs WHITECO METROCOM  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 23, 1999
Should certain outdoor advertising signs owned by Respondent Whiteco Metrocom (now known as Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corporation) and Respondent Chancellor Media Whiteco Outdoor Corporation (Chancellor) be removed as a result of notices of violations brought by Petitioner Department of Transportation (the Department) against Chancellor?Agency met its burden of proving that the billboards could not be re-erected after being destroyed by wildfire because they were too close to other permitted signs.
99-003346  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 06, 1999
With respect to DOAH Case No. 99-3345T, whether the Respondent must remove the double-faced outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to I-95, on the west side of the highway, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign, dated March 31, 1999. With respect to DOAH Case No. 99-3346T, whether the Respondent's permits for a double-faced outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to I-95, on the west side of the highway, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida, and bearing permit numbers AZ346-35 and AZ347-35, should be revoked for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Violation - Maintenance of Nonconforming Signs dated March 31, 1999.Department failed to prove that sign company removed and re-erected an outdoor advertising sign. Notices of Violation should be dismissed.
99-003345  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 06, 1999
With respect to DOAH Case No. 99-3345T, whether the Respondent must remove the double-faced outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to I-95, on the west side of the highway, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Violation - Illegally Erected Sign, dated March 31, 1999. With respect to DOAH Case No. 99-3346T, whether the Respondent's permits for a double-faced outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to I-95, on the west side of the highway, 1.25 miles south of North Lake Boulevard, in Palm Beach County, Florida, and bearing permit numbers AZ346-35 and AZ347-35, should be revoked for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Violation - Maintenance of Nonconforming Signs dated March 31, 1999.Department failed to prove that sign company removed and re-erected an outdoor advertising sign. Notices of Violation should be dismissed.
99-004902  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 22, 1999
As to DOAH Case No. 99-4902T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit AF330 was a permitted, nonconforming sign that was destroyed and cannot be rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 00-0398T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit AF330 was illegally rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 99-4903T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit BF075 was a permitted, nonconforming sign that was destroyed and cannot be rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 00-0397T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit BF075 was illegally rebuilt.Nonconforming outdoor advertising signs could not be rebuilt after they were destroyed.
99-004903  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 22, 1999
As to DOAH Case No. 99-4902T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit AF330 was a permitted, nonconforming sign that was destroyed and cannot be rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 00-0398T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit AF330 was illegally rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 99-4903T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit BF075 was a permitted, nonconforming sign that was destroyed and cannot be rebuilt. As to DOAH Case No. 00-0397T, whether the outdoor sign bearing permit BF075 was illegally rebuilt.Nonconforming outdoor advertising signs could not be rebuilt after they were destroyed.
99-004905  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 22, 1999
At issue is whether the permits Respondent holds to maintain two outdoor advertising signs should be cancelled, and whether the signs Respondent repaired and reerected following the destruction of the original signs by an Act of God (a hurricane) should be removed, as alleged in the Notices of Violation.Nonconforming sign destroyed by hurricane could not be re-erected.
99-004906  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 22, 1999
At issue is whether the permits Respondent holds to maintain two outdoor advertising signs should be cancelled, and whether the signs Respondent repaired and reerected following the destruction of the original signs by an Act of God (a hurricane) should be removed, as alleged in the Notices of Violation.Noncomforming sign destroyed by hurricane could not be reerrected.
99-005381  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 29, 1999
Whether Respondent's outdoor sign permit should be revoked because the original sign has been destroyed by an Act of God, as alleged by Petitioner.Because replacement materials to rebuild sign exceeded 50 percent of sign`s value just prior to its destruction, sign can not be reerected.
99-002400  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 28, 1999
The issue for consideration is whether the Respondent's signs, bearing permits numbers AX762 and AX782, respectively, located adjacent to U.S. Highway 41 in Manatee County, Florida, be removed for the reasons set forth in the Department's Notices of Violation dated March 15, 1999.Failure to display advertising copy on nonconforming signs for more than 12 months makes them illegal and requires their removal.
99-002402  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 28, 1999
The issue for consideration is whether the Respondent's signs, bearing permits numbers AX762 and AX782, respectively, located adjacent to U.S. Highway 41 in Manatee County, Florida, be removed for the reasons set forth in the Department's Notices of Violation dated March 15, 1999.Failure to display advertising copy on nonconforming signs for more than 12 months makes them illegal and requires their removal.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer