Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

W. H. FORTIN vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 88-003575 (1988)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-003575 Visitors: 12
Judges: K. N. AYERS
Agency: Department of Transportation
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 1988
Summary: When sign became nonpremise, sign exemption was lost and new permit cannot be issued because site violates spacing requirements.
88-3575.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


  1. H. FORTIN, )

    )

    Petitioner, )

    )

    vs. ) CASE NO. 88-3575T

    )

    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )

    TRANSPORTATION, )

    )

    Respondent. )

    )


    RECOMMENDED ORDER


    Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above- styled case on December 9, 1988, at Bartow, Florida.


    APPEARANCES


    For Petitioner: W. H. Fortin, pro se

    940 Fenton Lane, No. 33

    Lakeland, Florida 33809


    For Respondent: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire

    Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street

    Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0450


    By letter dated June 28, 1988, W. H. Fortin, Petitioner, requested a hearing to contest the denial by the Department of Transportation, Respondent, of his application for a permit for an outdoor advertising sign located along I- 4, one mile west of S.R. 33, in Polk County.


    At the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf, Respondent called one witness and six exhibits were admitted into evidence. The parties waived the right to submit proposed Recommended Orders.


    FINDINGS OF FACT


    1. Petitioner was a limited partner in Wedgewood Limited Partnership, which acquired the property on which this sign is located in 1981.


    2. The property was developed by the limited partnership, and the sign is located alongside the golf course built by the partnership as a part of the development. The sign advertised the development.


    3. In 1983, the partnership applied for a permit for this sign and was told by Respondent that no permit was required for the sign as it qualified as an "on premise" sign.

    4. In 1986, the partnership was dissolved, and Petitioner acquired the 1/4 to 1/2 acre site on which this sign is located.


    5. The sign needs repair and renovation, and Petitioner desires to use this location as a site of a permitted outdoor advertising sign.


    6. Lamar Outdoor Advertising holds a permit for a sign 306 feet west of Petitioner's sign on the same side of I-4 and facing in the same direction. The Lamar sign was erected in 1968.


    7. Respondent denied the permit requested because the location of Petitioner's sign was within 1500 feet of the permitted sign owned by Lamar.


      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


    8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.


    9. So long as the sign here involved was on property owned by Wedgewood Limited Partnership and advertised Wedgewood's product, it was exempt from the requirement that a permit for the sign be obtained by Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes.


    10. When the property on which the sign is located was no longer owned by a person or company whose business was identified by the sign, the sign ceased being an on-premise sign and a permit was required.


    11. Section 479.07(9)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:


      A permit shall not be granted for any sign for which a permit had not been granted by the effective date of this act unless such sign is located at least:


      1. One thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway, if on an interstate highway.


    12. Since the sign in question is located less than 1500 feet from a permitted sign, the application for a permit was properly denied.


    13. From the foregoing, it is concluded that the site on which Petitioner proposes to erect a sign is located within 1500 feet of an existing permitted sign on the same side of the interstate highway as an existing sign, and a permit for such a sign may not be issued. It is


RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for a sign along I-4, one mile west of S.R. 33, be denied.

ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.


K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675


Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1988.


COPIES FURNISHED:


Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation

Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450


W. H. Fortin

940 Fenton Lane, No 33

Lakeland, Florida 33809


Kaye N. Henderson Secretary

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58


Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel

Department of Transportation

562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450


Docket for Case No: 88-003575
Issue Date Proceedings
Dec. 15, 1988 Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 88-003575
Issue Date Document Summary
Jan. 25, 1989 Agency Final Order
Dec. 15, 1988 Recommended Order When sign became nonpremise, sign exemption was lost and new permit cannot be issued because site violates spacing requirements.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

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