STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 78-2179T

)

LAMAR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, )

)

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 23 January 1979 at Chipley, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

For Respondent: John M. McNatt, Jr., Esquire

1500 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202

By Notice of Alleged Violation dated August 29, 1978, Petitioner seeks to have the sign owned by Respondent located on the I-110, 1844 feet north of SR-296 removed.

As grounds therefor it is alleged that the sign is too close to the point where the on-ramp joins the I-110 and no permit was attached to the sign. The latter violation notice was withdrawn during the hearing. One witness was called by Petitioner, one witness was called by Respondent and seven exhibits were offered into evidence. Exhibit 1 was withdrawn after being marked as an exhibit.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Following receipt of the complaint from a competing sign company, Petitioner had Respondent's sign located on the I-110 1844 feet north of SR-296 checked to ascertain its exact distance from the on-ramp to the I-110 nearest this sign.

   
   

2. The District sign inspector measured the distance between the point where the I-110 pavement widening begins along the I-110 to the point on the I-110 nearest the sign. This measurement was made twice, once with two other employees of Petitioner and once with one other employee. This distance measured 469 feet.

   
   

3. Respondent's witness testified that he and another employee of Respondent measured the same distance and determined it to be 514 feet 1 inch. After considering the contradictory testimony presented, it is found that the sign is located less than 500 feet from the beginning of the widening of the I-110 at the on-ramp which distance is measured along the I-110.

   
   

4. Prior to this sign being erected, Respondent's representative visited the site of the sign with Petitioner's District sign inspector and was advised that the location was satisfactory and that a permit could and would be issued for a sign at this location.

   
   

5. Respondent built the sign on the spot pointed out to the inspector at a cost of some $12,000, applied for and was issued a permit for this sign.

   
   

6. No evidence was presented that Respondent in any manner misled the sign inspector or made any misrepresentation either while both were at the site or at any other time to induce Petitioner to issue a permit for this sign.

   
   

7. No evidence was submitted that the sign in question was outside an incorporated town or city.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding.

   
   

9. Spacing of signs is prescribed by Rule 14- 10.09(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides in pertinent part:

   
   

   2. Interstate Highway

   b. Outside incorporated towns and cities, no structure may be located adjacent to or within five hundred (500) feet of an interchange, intersection at grade, or safety rest area. Said five hundred (500) feet to be measured along the Interstate from the beginning or ending of pavement widening at the exit from or entrance to the main-travelled way.

   
   

10. Relying upon the assurances of Petitioner's representation that a sign in the place proposed would be permitted, and was permitted, Respondent erected the sign at a cost of $12,000. The sign inspector who conducted the site inspection and who approved the application had the authority to approve the application. Petitioner cannot now, after Respondent has spent $12,000 to erect this sign, come in and require the sign be removed because it is located within 500 feet of an on-ramp to an Interstate highway. This is a classic case of estoppel and no action of Respondent misled Petitioner in granting the permit upon which Respondent now relies.

    
    

11. From the foregoing it is concluded that the sign owned by Lamar Outdoor Advertising on the I-110, 1844 feet north of SR-296 is located within 500 feet of the interstate on-ramp and the permit for its erection should not have been granted. It is further concluded that the Respondent relied upon Petitioner's issuance of a permit for this sign and expended some $12,000 to erect the sign. Petitioner is estopped to hold this sign illegal. It is therefore

RECOMMENDED that the Notice of Alleged Violation be dismissed and the case closed.

Done and Entered this 7th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida.

K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

Docket for Case No: 78-002179

Orders for Case No: 78-002179