STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-103T

) DOCKET NO. 75-06-A

OUTDOOR MEDIA, )

)

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 2, 1975, at 2:00 P.M., before Delphene Strickland, Hearing Examiner.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Rick Boger

Steve Moran, Esquire

For Respondent: Patrick A. Lyons, Bicel Corporation

ISSUES

Whether subject sign is in violation of state and federal law for the reason that no permit was secured at time of erection of subject sign.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent proceeded to erect subject sign prior to January 29, 1975, and continued such erection after January 29, 1975, the date a Notice of Outdoor Advertising Violation was served on Respondent Corporation by the District Sign Inspector.

   
   

2. Said notice of violation notified Respondent that Respondent Corporation was in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes or Section 335.13, Florida statutes for the reason that no permit had been secured and that the erection of said sign was in violation of the specific requirement of Chapter 479, Florida statutes inasmuch as subject sign was approximately 250' from an existing sign.

   
   

3. Respondent continued to erect subject sign despite objections from the Florida Department of Transportation.

   
   

4. On the date of the hearing the Respondent testified that as of that date an application had been made and permit had been approved.

5. The sign coordinator testified that the sign which had been permitted and which was so spaced to prohibit the building of Respondent's sign had been removed after the Notice of Hearing had been set.

   
   

6. The complainant contended that Respondent erected subject sign without first applying for a permit; that after Notice of Violation Respondent disregarded the notice and the law and continued to build subject sign; that not until notice of this hearing was received did Respondent "buy out" the offending sign which prohibited the issuance of permits. The Respondent did not deny that no permit was issued before erection of subject sign but contends that permits have now been issued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Respondent failed to secure permits before erecting subject signs in violation of the state outdoor advertising law.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Dismiss the Complainant but notify Respondent that such practices are in violation of the law and inasmuch as the erection of signs along the state highways is a privilege and Complainant is responsible for enforcing the outdoor advertising law - it is expected that no signs will be erected along the state highways without first obtaining a permit.

DELPHENE STRICKLAND

Hearing Examiner

Date: 5/29/75

Docket for Case No: 75-000103

Orders for Case No: 75-000103