Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY, 77-000141 (1977)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-000141 Visitors: 16
Judges: DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND
Agency: Department of Transportation
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 1977
Summary: Whether the Respondent has violated Section 479.02, Florida Statutes, and Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, for failure to display a visible permit tag and for a multiplicity of advertisers on one side of Board No. 0399B.Respondent`s sign with advertisements for different restaurants in association does not violate one ad rule. Recommend moving permit to where it can be seen.
77-0141.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-141T

) NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY, )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


Pursuant to notice an administrative hearing was held before Delphene C. Strickland, Bearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, in the Department of Transportation Offices, 719 South Boulevard, Deland, Florida, on April 27, 1977 at 2:00 P.M.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304


For Respondent: William Rowland, Esquire

115 East Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789


ISSUE


Whether the Respondent has violated Section 479.02, Florida Statutes, and Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, for failure to display a visible permit tag and for a multiplicity of advertisers on one side of Board No. 0399B.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. A violation notice was issued on October 18, 1976, Respondent sign company citing an advertising sign located 10.14 miles south of U.S. 1; 528 north of 520 with copy thereon advertising the businesses of 13 restaurants.


  2. At the hearing testimony was heard and evidence was received showing that a permit tag was affixed to a pole of the outdoor advertising structure. The tag was not clearly visible and is difficult to be seen inasmuch as the copy of the board has been nailed on the pole immediately above the permit tag.


  3. Testimony was received and an exhibit entered which shows that the entire face of the sign is covered with outdoor advertising. Lettering at the top of the sign states "EAT OUT ENJOY THE INFORMAL FAMILY ATMOSPHERE OF MERRITT

    ISLAND". The lettering on the bottom board of the sign which is a separate board attached to the main board has the lettering, "TURN RIGHT ON 520". The remainder of the board shows individual advertisements of 13 different places to eat. The Petitioner contends: (1) that the permit tag is not clearly visible as required by the law; (2) that the sign is in violation of Section 479.02(1) and the Governor's Agreement promulgated thereto inasmuch as it displays more than two (2) signs. Respondent contends: (1) that the permit tag is clearly visible; (2) that one advertiser bought the copy and the sign displays but one advertisement.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  4. Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, Individual device permits; fees; tags.-, provides in part:


    "(4). . . . The tag shall be attached to the face of the advertising structure, advertising sign or advertisement on the end nearest the highway in a manner that shall cause it to be plain and visible.


  5. The permit tag affixed to the pole of the subject sign has not been affixed so that it is plainly visible as required by the statute; however, it can be seen upon examination.


  6. Section 479.02(1), Florida Statutes, and the Governor's Agreement promulgated thereunder by the Legislature of the State of Florida provides in part:


    "Section III. State Control


    (B)(3) The maximum size limitations shall apply to each side of a sign structure; and signs may be placed back-to-back, side-by- side, or in V-type construction with not more than two displays to each facing, and such sign structure shall be considered as one sign."


  7. The copy on the subject sign was purchased by one advertiser, the Merritt Island Restaurant Association. The manner in which it was painted on the board, although it shows 13 different places to eat, is a single display and does not violate the spirit or the wording of the agreement.


    RECOMMENDATION


  8. Have the Respondent move the permit tag into a more visible position as required by the statutes. Dismiss the charge as to a violation of the Governor'S Agreement.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.


DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building

Room 530

Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675


COPIES FURNISHED:


Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304


William Rowland, Esquire

115 East Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789


Docket for Case No: 77-000141
Issue Date Proceedings
Aug. 24, 1977 Final Order filed.
Jul. 29, 1977 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 77-000141
Issue Date Document Summary
Aug. 23, 1977 Agency Final Order
Jul. 29, 1977 Recommended Order Respondent`s sign with advertisements for different restaurants in association does not violate one ad rule. Recommend moving permit to where it can be seen.
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