STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-101T

) DOCKET NO. 75-103-OA NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY )

OF TAMPA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

After notice to the parties, a formal administrative hearing, pursuant to the Florida Administrative Procedures Act, was held in Bartow, Florida, on April 3, 1975, before Delphene Strickland, Hearing Examiner.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Steve Moran, Esquire

Rick Boger Arnold Baker

For Respondent: William D. Rowland, Esquire

ISSUES

1. Whether at least one of three signs located in the area of subject sign is in violation of state and federal law.

   
   

2. Which signs, if any, are in violation.

   
   

3. Whether the subject sign is in violation of the spacing regulation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. There are three signs standing on a strip of land adjoining U.S. 19, a Federal Aid Primary Road approximately six (6) miles North of S.R. 60. The spacing requirement is that there must be at least 500 feet between signs. Copy on the sign advertising "Parkview Terrace by U.S. Home" is a two-faced sign with one side blank and is located between two signs which have a permit to advertise although the spacing between the three signs standing is not the required 500 feet. The cited sign presently advertising "Parkview Terrace by U.S. Home" was formerly in a location owned by Artcraft which company did not apply for a permit and which Artcraft informed Complainant was going to be removed. The Complainant did not prosecute for permit violation inasmuch as the inspector was told the sign would be removed and when removed the other to signs involved herein would be eligible for permits. The site was abandoned but Respondent erected another sign in approximately the same location without a permit.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

2. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the subject sign replaced an abandoned sign, was erected subsequent to the other two standing permitted signs and that said sign has no permit and is not eligible for a permit inasmuch as it is some 300 feet from other signs. Said sign is in violation of Chapter

   479 and the Federal Beautification Act as well as the Governor's Agreement dated January 27, 1972.

   
   

3. The testimony that it was understood by Respondent the area was zoned Federal Aid Urban and not within the Beautification Act is without validity inasmuch as Complainant advised Respondent on November 22, 1974, subject sign was in violation for the reason of improper spacing and because it had no permit. The Federal Department of Transportation took the legal position that Federal Aid Urban designation did not apply to the highways of the State of Florida and that the laws of the state were not amended by Federal regulation and that Chapter 479, Florida Statutes would be enforced in the State of Florida. See Memorandum Marked "A" and "B" which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Remove subject sign which is in violation of the 660 feet spacing requirement and which has not been issued a permit by the Florida Department of Transportation.

Date: 5/4/75

DELPHENE STRICKLAND

Hearing Examiner

Docket for Case No: 75-000101

Orders for Case No: 75-000101