STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BILL SALTER ADVERTISING, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 79-114T

)

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION, )

)

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: Bill Salter

Post Office Box 422 Milton, Florida 32570

For Respondent: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

By letter dated 13 December 1978, Bill Salter Advertising, Petitioner, contested denial of a permit for a sign on Tamarack and Escambia Streets and I-

110 requested in application dated 6-13-78. As grounds therefor, it is alleged that the denial was based upon the proximity of the proposed sign to an existing sign and the existing sign is illegal because it is located within 508 feet of an on-ramp to the I-110. Although Petitioner had requested that this case be heard with Case No. 78-2179T, the request from Respondent was to consolidate this case with 78-1062T, a wholly unrelated case, for hearing. At the time scheduled or No. 78-2179T no request for consolidation was made and the two cases were heard separately.

The Recommended Order in Case No. 78-2179T contains no Findings of Fact in conflict with the findings made in this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner submitted applications on 13 June 1978 for signs facing north and south on I-110 0.433 miles north of SR 296 and these applications were denied by Respondent because the sign would not be located more than 800 feet from the noted business activity. The testimony produced at the hearing related solely to the distance the proposed sign would be located from an existing sign owned by and permitted to Lamar Outdoor Advertising.

2. Petitioner's position at the hearing was that his application for a permit should be granted because the Lamar sign upon which the denial of his application was allegedly based was illegal because located less than 500 feet from the beginning of an on-ramp to the I-110.

   
   

3. There was no dispute regarding the facts in this case. The position in which Petitioner intends to locate the proposed sign is less than 1,000 feet from a sign previously permitted to Lamar Outdoor advertising.

   
   

4. The hearing in Docket No. 78-2179T was held the same date as the hearing in this case and it was there found as a fact that the Lamar sign is located less than 500 feet from the beginning of the on-ramp at the I-110.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

5. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of these proceedings.

   
   

6. Although Docket No. 78-2179T and the instant case were not consolidated for hearing, they are inextricably related. In Docket No. 78-2179T the conclusion was reached that although the Lamar sign is located within 500 feet of the beginning of the on-ramp to the I-110, the site had been approved by DOT's representative before the sign was erected. Lamar expended some $12,000 in constructing the sign, and DOT issued Lamar a permit for that sign. Even though the permit should not have been issued by DOT, it was concluded that DOT is now estopped to deny the validity of the Lamar sign.

   
   

7. Rule 14-10.06(1)(b), F.A.C., relates to spacing of signs and provides in pertinent part:

   
   

   2. Interstate highway

   a. No two structures shall be spaced less than one thousand (1,000) feet apart on the same side of the highway facing in the same direction.

   
   

8. Although the above quoted rule was not given as the reason for the denial of Petitioner's application in the letter of denial contained in the file (but not offered into evidence), the sole claim asserted by Petitioner was that an existing illegal sign was the only reason he was denied permits for the sign he proposed.

   
   

9. Until such time as the Lamar signs are removed or their removal directed, no additional sign may be approved which is located within 1,000 feet of this sign.

   
   

10. From the foregoing, it is concluded that although Respondent should not have approved the Lamar application, because that sign is located too close to an on-ramp of the I-110, that sign is now in existence and so long as it remains no other sign such as the sign proposed by Petitioner may be erected within 1,000 feet of this sign. It is therefore

RECOMMENDED that the application of Bill Salter Advertising to erect a sign along the I-110 which is located less than 1,000 feet from the existing Lamar sign be disapproved.

Entered this 23rd 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

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bill Salter

Post Office Box 422 Milton, Florida 32570

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

Docket for Case No: 79-000114

Orders for Case No: 79-000114