Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs PEACOCK ELECTRIC CO., 89-005007 (1989)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 89-005007 Visitors: 40
Petitioner: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Respondent: PEACOCK ELECTRIC CO.
Judges: DIANE K. KIESLING
Agency: Department of Transportation
Locations: Fernandina Beach, Florida
Filed: Sep. 12, 1989
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, March 16, 1990.

Latest Update: Mar. 16, 1990
Summary: The issue is whether Respondent's outdoor advertising sign on State Road 200, 5.37 miles east of U.S. Highway 17, should be removed because it does not have a permit for said sign.Sign erected without permit was removed and cannot be re-erected.
89-5007.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-5007T

)

PEACOCK ELECTRIC COMPANY, )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on March 12, 1990, in Fernandina Beach, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Charles Gardner

Attorney at Law

Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450


For Respondent: Ronald L. Peacock, Pro Se

Peacock Electric Company Route 1, Box 137-D Fernandina Beach, FL 32034


STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES


The issue is whether Respondent's outdoor advertising sign on State Road 200, 5.37 miles east of U.S. Highway 17, should be removed because it does not have a permit for said sign.


PRELIMINARY STATEMENT


Petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), presented the testimony of Helen B. Hession and had DOT Exhibit 1 admitted in evidence. Respondent, Peacock Electric Company presented the testimony of its owner, Ronald L. Peacock.


The parties waived the filing of a transcript and of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. Ronald L. Peacock, owner of Peacock Electric Company, had his employees erect a two-sided sign on State Road 200, 5.37 miles east of U.S. Highway 17.


  2. Mr. Peacock acknowledges that he did not have a permit for the sign and that he knew he needed a permit at the time he had the sign erected. He testified that he just hoped he would not get caught.


  3. State Road 200 is a federal aid primary road.


  4. After he was first notified that the sign was erected without a permit, Mr. Peacock filed an application for a permit. The application was rejected because it did not contain the necessary fees, the permission of the landowner, or the local building permit. Additionally, the location of the sign is 942 feet from an existing permitted sign.


  5. The sign is five feet from the right-of-way.


  6. Mr. Peacock removed the sign after this action was filed by DOT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.


  8. As relevant to this case, Section 479.105, Florida Statute, states:


    1. Any sign which is located adjacent to the right-of-way of any highway on the State Highway System outside an incorporated area or adjacent to the right-of-way on any portion of the interstate or federal-aid primary highway system, which sign was erected, operated, or maintained without the permit required by S. 479.07(1) having been issued by the department, is declared to be a public nuisance and shall be removed as provided in this section.

      * * *

      (d) If, after a hearing, it is determined that a sign has been wrongfully or erroneously removed pursuant to this subsection, the department, at the sign owner's discretion, shall either pay just compensation to the owner of the sign or reerect the sign in kind at the expense of the department.


  9. In this case, the sign was erected without a permit and Mr. Peacock has correctly been denied a permit. The sign has been removed as required. The sign owner has not proven that the sign was erroneously removed. Hence, the sign cannot be reerected.

    RECOMMENDATION


  10. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it

is


RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order and

therein order the removal of the sign in question and deny any request for reerection of the sign without a permit.


DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.



DIANE K. KIESLING

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 16th day of March, 1990.



COPIES FURNISHED:


Charles Gardner Attorney at Law

Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450


Ronald L. Peacock Peacock Electric Company Route 1, Box 137-D

Fernandina Beach, FL 32034


Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458


Docket for Case No: 89-005007
Issue Date Proceedings
Mar. 16, 1990 Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 89-005007
Issue Date Document Summary
Apr. 25, 1990 Agency Final Order
Mar. 16, 1990 Recommended Order Sign erected without permit was removed and cannot be re-erected.
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