STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-3775T
) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above-styled matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride, on October 4, 1991 in Tampa, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire
Kreuter & Livingston, P.A.
200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida
For Department of Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Transportation: Assistant General Counsel
Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Petitioner, National Advertising Company, is entitled to the issuance of a vegetation control permit for its south-facing advertising billboard located West of Interstate I-75, in Lee County, Florida.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about February 4, 1991, the Petitioner, National Advertising Co., applied for a vegetation control permit for its billboard in Lee County, Florida, from the Department of Transportation (DOT). The request for a permit was denied by letter, dated March 7, 1991, by the District Roadway Maintenance Engineer. On March 26, 1991, National Advertising filed its Petition for Administrative Proceeding, which was referred by the DOT to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 17, 1991. Following a change of venue for the formal hearing to Tampa, this matter was transferred to the undersigned Hearing Officer, discovery ensued and this hearing followed.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses and one composite exhibit was admitted in evidence. DOT presented the testimony of Laurie M. Hayes, District Roadway Maintenance Engineer which includes Lee County and four composite exhibits were admitted. Upon the joint request of the parties, the record was kept open to permit the DOT to file additional documentary evidence. On November 4, 1991, two documents which have been marked as DOT Exhibits 5(a) and 5(b) were filed for record. The transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Clerk of the Division on October 21, 1991. After a further extension for filing was requested by the parties, Petitioner filed its proposed findings of fact on December 12, 1991, and DOT filed its on November 22, 1991. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been given careful consideration and adopted where consistent with the evidence. Each proposed finding is ruled upon in the Appendix attached to this order.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system, including interstate highways.
Construction of Interstate 75 in the relevant area of Lee County, Florida, was completed and accepted by the DOT on or about February 22, 1979.
On March 10, 1980, the Florida Department of Transportation issued an outdoor advertising sign permit to Florida Outdoor for a billboard to be located adjacent to I-75, .25 miles north of the intersection of I-75 and State Road 82 in Lee County. The billboard was constructed and the billboard structure, together with the sign permit, was acquired by Petitioner in May of 1982.
Petitioner holds a current valid sign permit, DOT sign permit number AB-118-10, for the above sign.
Said sign is a non-conforming sign under the Rules of the DOT and cannot be moved or raised.
Petitioner submitted a properly completed application for a vegetation control permit to the DOT on February 4, 1991.
Petitioner's sign board does not have five hundred feet of exposure along the interstate highway within a one thousand foot window and is therefore a screened board under the provisions of the DOT's rules.
Following review of the application by the District Roadway Maintenance Engineer, it was determined that the area covered by the vegetation control permit was within an area specifically preserved during the construction process which prohibits any pruning, trimming, or removal of trees, shrubs, or vegetation in that area. Based on that determination, the permit was denied.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding, and the parties thereto, pursuant to subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Department of Transportation is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates outdoor advertising structures along the Interstate and Federal Aid Primary Systems, and along the State Highway System outside the corporate limits of cities and towns. The Florida Highway Beautification Program is controlled by Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code and Chapter 14-13,
F.A.C. controlls vegetation management.
The predecessor to the Petitioner applied for and obtained a valid sign permit from the DOT in 1980 for a north-south facing sign on leased property abutting the west side of Interstate I-75. These permits were obtained in compliance with the provisions of Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 14-10 and 14-13, Florida Administrative Code, then in force. Petitioner purchased the sign and the permit in 1982.
Early in 1991, Petitioner properly submitted an application for a vegetation control permit which would have been granted but for the Department's determination that the area covered by the application for the vegetation control permit was within an area specifically preserved during the construction process which prohibits pruning, trimming or removing any tree, shrub or vegetation. Rule 14-13.012, Florida Administrative Code. Based on that determination, the application was denied.
In regard to the regulation of outdoor advertising adjacent to the state highway system, which includes the interstate highway system, the Florida Department of Transportation has the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and the agreement executed between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation relating to the size, lighting and spacing of signs in accordance with Title 1 of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, United States Code, and federal regulations in effect as of the effective date of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, all as provided in Section 479.02, Florida Statutes.
In order to regulate the trimming and removal of vegetation growing in front of the outdoor advertising signs which are constructed and maintained adjacent to the state highway system, the Florida Department of Transportation adopted Chapter 14-13, Florida Administrative Code. Section 14-13.001, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the purpose of the Chapter is as follows:
The purpose of this rule chapter is to establish regulations and uniform guidelines covering the permitting, trimming or removing of selective vegetation in front of outdoor advertising displays along rights-of-way on the state highway system.
Section 14-13.005 provides for a detailed process in the making of an application for a vegetation control permit and in the analysis of, and action to be taken in response to, an application for a vegetation control permit. That Section provides that an application must be filed with the District Outdoor Advertising Administrator who makes a determination as to the status of
the sign structure, to-wit: legal, illegal or non-conforming. In the event the outdoor advertising structure is determined to be either a conforming display or a non-conforming display not scheduled for removal within the next twelve months, the application along with the permit number issued for the outdoor advertising structure is forwarded to the District Roadside Development Coordinator.
The application was denied by the DOT's District Roadway Maintenance Engineer acting in her capacity as the district roadside development coordinator upon her opinion that the application was precluded by virtue of the provisions of Section 14-13.012, Florida Administrative Code.
The Engineer based her opinion on the provision found in Section 14- 13.012, Florida Administrative Code, which provides as follows:
Exemption. No tree, shrub, or vegetation of any sort planted in accordance with a local,
state or federal beautification project or areas specifically preserved during the construction process, may be pruned, trimmed, or removed and therefore is exempt from the provisions of these rules. (Emphasis added.)
In an effort to enlighten as to what "areas specifically preserved during the construction process" means, the District Roadside Maintenance Engineer testified that no selected clearing plans were included in the construction plans for Interstate 75 in the area in question, but that the term "areas specifically preserved during the construction process" means the same as "selected clearing and grubbing." In support of this position, the Respondent filed its Guide for Highway Landscape and Environmental Design subsequent to the hearing and also filed the Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
In evaluating the pages filed from a Guide for Highway Landscape and Environmental Design, no guidance is offered by the publication relating to criteria to be utilized in determining what areas are preserved during construction, nor are there any criteria or guidelines contained in that document which shed light upon the construction of what is meant by "areas specifically preserved during the construction process." The publication does provide that the site of a project should be cleared only within the limits of construction or as required for safety. The publication goes on to say that ground surface should be cleared of all trees, brush, weeds, roots, matted leaves, etc. The only reference made in that publication to areas specifically preserved provides that trees, shrubs and landscape features which are to be preserved should be protected during the progress of work and further limits a contractor from removing or cutting trees or shrubs outside the limits of construction without authorization. Clearly the publication allows extensive removal of dead trees, underbrush, etc., and certainly does not direct its attention to "areas specifically preserved during the construction process."
The second publication provided by Respondent is the Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction adopted by the Florida Department of Transportation in 1977 and provides for selective clearing and grubbing in Section 110-3 thereof. That Section provides in pertinent part as follows:
Selecting Clearing and Grubbing shall consist of removing and disposing of all vegetation, obstructions, etc., as provided above except that, where the contractor so elects, roots, etc., may be cut off flush with the ground surface. Stumps shall be completely removed
and disposed of by the Constructor. Undergrowth
shall be entirely removed except in specific areas designated by the Engineer to remain for aesthetic purposes. Desirable trees shall be trimmed, protected and left standing, with the exception of such trees as the Engineer may designate to be removed in order to facilitate right of way maintenance. Undesirable or damaged trees (as so designated by the Engineer), shall be removed.
Selective Clearing and Grubbing shall be done only in areas so designated in the plans.
Clearly the foregoing Section from the DOT's publication allows extensive removal of vegetation within the "selective clearing and grubbing" designation. This document does not shed any light on what criteria or standards are utilized by the Department in determining "an area specifically preserved during the construction process," in fact it further confuses and confounds the testimony of the Respondent's witness to the effect that "areas specifically preserved during the construction process" equate with those areas designated for "selective clearing and grubbing."
The provisions of Section 14-13.012, Florida Administrative Code, relating to "areas specifically preserved during the construction process" is vague, is not supported by standards or criteria to be utilized in determining such areas, and based upon the Department's own Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction do not equate to areas designated for "selective clearing and grubbing." In addition, it is simply not reasonable for the DOT to have issued a valid permit in 1980 and continue to reissue that permit continuously since that date for a sign it says is located in an area preserved for vegetation control since 1979.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that:
A Final Order be entered finding that the vegetation control permit requested by National Advertising Company on I-75 (S.R. 93) in Lee County, Florida, should be GRANTED, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14-13, Florida Administrative Code.
DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this
30th December, 1991.
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties.
National Advertising's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4 (in part) 5,6 (in part), 8,10. Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial: paragraph 4 (in part-coverage in
Preliminary Statement), 6 (in part), 7,9,11.
Rejected as a conclusion of law: paragraph 12,13. Department of Transportation's Proposed Findings of Fact:
Accepted in substance; Stipulation of Facts; paragraphs 1 (in part), 2 (in part).
Rejected as conclusions of law: paragraphs 1 (in part), 2 (in part).
Copies furnished:
Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Kreuter & Livingston, P.A.
200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida
Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida
Ben G. Watts Secretary
Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Thornton J. Williams General Counsel
Department of Transportation
562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NATIONAL ADVERTISING COMPANY,
Petitioner
CASE NO. 91-3775T
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Respondent
/
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to due notice, the above-styled matter came on for hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, before its duly designated hearing officer, Daniel M. Kilbride, on October 4, 1991, in Tampa, Florida.
Appearance on behalf of the parties were as follows: For Petitioner: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire
Kreuter & Livingston, P.A.
200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida
For Respondent: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire
Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street M.S. 58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about February 4, 1991, National Advertising Company (hereinafter National), applied to the Department of Transportation (hereinafter Department) for a vegetation control permit for its outdoor advertising billboard located in Lee County, Florida. By letter dated March 7, 1991, and signed by the District Roadway Maintenance Engineer, the Department denied National's permit request.
On March 26, 1991, National filed with the Department a request for an administrative proceeding which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer on June 17, 1991.
At hearing, National presented the testimony of two witnesses and entered into evidence one composite exhibit. The Department presented the testimony of one witness and had admitted into evidence four composite exhibits. Upon the joint request of the parties, the record was left open to permit the Department
to file additional documentary evidence. On November 4, 1991, two documents marked as DOT Exhibits 5(a) and 5(b) were filed with the Clerk of the Division and made part of the record. Both parties filed proposed findings.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether National Advertising Company is entitled to issuance of a vegetation control permit for its south-facing advertising billboard located west of I-75, in Lee County, Florida.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on a review of the record in its entirety, the following factual findings are made.
The Florida Department of Transportation is that state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which provides for the regulation of outdoor advertising structures along the state highway system which includes the interstate highways within the State of Florida.
Construction of Interstate Highway 75 (I-75) in the relevant area of Lee County, Florida, was completed and accepted by the Department on or about February 22, 1979.
On March 10, 1980, the Department issued an outdoor advertising sign permit to Florida Outdoor for a billboard to be located adjacent to I-75, .25 miles north of the intersection of I-75 and State Road 82 in Lee County. The billboard was constructed and the billboard structure, together with the sign permit, was acquired by National in May of 1982.
National holds a current valid sign permit, DOT sign permit number AB- 118-10, for the above-referenced sign.
The subject sign is a non-conforming sign under the rules of the Department and cannot be moved or raised.
National submitted a properly completed application for a vegetation control permit to the Department on February 4, 1991.
National's sign board does not have five hundred feet of exposure along the interstate highway within a one thousand foot window and is therefore a screened board under the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14- 3.003.
Following a review of National's application for a vegetation control permit by the District Roadway Maintenance Engineer, the Department determined that the area covered by the vegetation control permit was within an area specifically preserved during the construction process which prohibits any pruning, trimming, or removal of trees, shrubs, or vegetation in that area. Based on that determination, the permit was denied.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded that:
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and parties to this proceeding pursuant to subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Department of Transportation is that state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, which regulates outdoor advertising structures along the Interstate and Federal Aid Primary Highway Systems, and along the State Highway System outside the corporate limits of cities and towns. The Florida Highway Beautification Program is implemented by rule in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapters 14-
10 and 14-13 for vegetation management.
In regard to the regulation of outdoor advertising adjacent to the State Highway System, which includes the Interstate Highway System in Florida, the Department has the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and the agreement executed between the State of Florida and the United States Department of Transportation relating to the size, lighting and spacing of signs in accordance with Title 1 of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, United States Code, and federal regulations in effect as of the effective date of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, all as provided in section 479.02, Florida Statutes. The agreement in incorporated in and made a part of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.009.
In order to regulate the trimming and removal of vegetation growing in front of the outdoor advertising signs which are constructed and maintained adjacent to the state highway system, the Department adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 14-13. Rule 14-13.001 sets out the purpose of the rule chapter:
The purpose of this rule chapter is to establish regulations and uniform guidelines covering the permitting, trimming or removing of selective vegetation in front of outdoor advertising displays along rights of way on the State Highway System.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-13.005 provides for a detailed process in the making of an application for a vegetation control permit and in the analysis of, and action to be taken in response to, an application for a vegetation control permit. That rule provides that an application must be filed with the District Outdoor Advertising Administrator who makes a determination as to the status of the sign structure, to-wit: legal, illegal or non-conforming. In the event the outdoor advertising structure is determined to be either a conforming display or a non-conforming display not scheduled for removal within the next twelve months, the application along with the permit number issued for the outdoor advertising structure is forwarded to the District Roadside Development Coordinator.
The current spacing requirements for outdoor advertising signs are found in subsection 479.07(9)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides:
A permit shall not be granted for any sign for which a permit had not been granted by the effective date of this act unless such sign
is located at least:
1. One thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the highway, if on an interstate highway.
However, subsection (c) provides:
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed so as to cause assign which is conforming on the effective date of this act to become nonconforming.
Therefore, the 1,500 foot spacing requirement contained in section 479.07(9)(a)1., does not render National's sign non-conforming. However, section 479.01(12), Florida Statutes, defines a nonconforming sign as:
... a sign which was lawfully erected but which does not comply with the land use, setback, size, spacing, and lighting provisions of state or local law, rule, regulation, or ordinance passed at a later date or a sign which was lawfully erected but which later fails to comply with state or local law, rule, regulation or ordinance due to changed conditions. (emphasis added)
Based on the uncontroverted record evidence that National's sign does not conform to City of Fort Myers sign requirements, the sign is rendered non- conforming under Department rules and regulations based on the definition contained in section 479.01(12), Florida Statutes, rather than by the spacing requirement contained in section 479.07(9)(a)1., Florida Statutes.
The application was denied by the Department's District Roadway Maintenance Engineer acting in her capacity as the District Roadside Development Coordinator upon her opinion that the application was precluded by virtue of the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-13.012 which provides:
Exemption. No tree, shrub, or vegetation of any sort planted in accordance with a local, state or federal beautification project or areas specifically preserved during the construction process, may be pruned, trimmed, or removed and therefore is exempt from the provisions of these rules. (Emphasis added)
In an effort to enlighten as to what "areas specifically preserved during the construction process" means, the District Roadside Maintenance Engineer testified that no selected clearing plans were included in the construction plans for I-75 in the area in question, but that the term "areas specifically preserved during the construction process" means the same as "selective clearing and grubbing." In support of this position, the Department filed its Guide for Highway Landscape and Environmental Design (hereinafter Guide) subsequent to the hearing and also filed the Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (hereinafter Standard Specifications).
In evaluating the pages filed from the Guide, no guidance is offered by the publication relating to criteria to be utilized in determining what areas are preserved during construction, nor are there any criteria or guidelines contained in that document which shed light upon the construction of what is meant by "areas specifically preserved during the construction process." The publication does provide that the site of a project should be cleared only within the limits of construction or as required for safety. The publication goes on to say that ground surface should be cleared of all trees, brush, weeds, roots, matted leaves, etc. The only reference made in that publication to areas specifically preserved provides that trees, shrubs and landscape features which are to be preserved should be protected during the progress of work and further limits a contractor from removing or cutting trees or shrubs outside the limits of construction without authorization. Clearly the publication allows extensive removal of dead trees, underbrush, etc., and certainly does not direct its attention to "areas specifically preserved during the construction process."
The second publication provided by the Department is the Standard Specifications adopted by the Department in 1977 and provides for selective clearing and grubbing in Section 110-3 thereof. That Section provides in pertinent part as follows:
Selective Clearing and Grubbing shall consist of removing and disposing of all vegetation, obstructions, etc., as provided above except
that, where the Contractor so elects, roots, etc., may be cut off flush with the ground surface.
Stumps shall be completely removed and disposed of by the Contractor. Undergrowth shall be entirely removed except in specific areas designated by the Engineer to remain for aesthetic purposes. Desirable trees shall be trimmed, protected and left standing, with the exception of such trees as the Engineer may designate to be removed in order to facilitate right of way maintenance. Undesirable or damaged trees (as so designated by the Engineer), shall
be removed. Selective Clearing and Grubbing shall be done only in areas so designated in the plans.
Clearly the foregoing Section from the Department's Standard Specifications allows extensive removal of vegetation within the "selective clearing and grubbing" designation. This document does not shed any light on what criteria or standards are utilized by the Department in determining "an area specifically preserved during the construction process," in fact it further confuses and confounds the testimony of the Department's witness to the effect that "areas specifically preserved during the construction process" equate with those areas designated for "selective clearing and grubbing."
The provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-13.012 relating to "areas specifically preserved during the construction process" has not been proven in this case to support standards or criteria to be utilized in determining such areas, and based upon the Department's own Standard Specifications, do not equate to areas designated for "selective clearing and grubbing."
Inasmuch as it was not demonstrated on the record that the area in which National's sign is located falls within the exemption contained in Florida
Administrative Code Rule 14-13.012, it is necessary to look to the vegetation permitting requirements contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-13.006. Based on the finding contained in paragraph five (5) of the foregoing Findings of Fact, and paragraph of the conclusions above the subject sign is non- conforming and; therefore a permit may be issued pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) of that rule which provide in part:
If the sign is non-conforming or the option
in 14-13.006(1) is not exercisable, the vegetation within the viewing zone may be pruned or trimmed in accordance with good landscaping practices, at the direction of the District Roadside Development
Coordinator, to allow 500 feet cumulated visibility or the option in 14-13.006(3) may be exercised.
Selected individual plants up to the maximum caliper diameter of four inches diameter at breast height (dbh) may be relocated or removed at the option of the District Roadside Development Coordinator in order to reduce the obstructed
view, provided that such action does not constitute an infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. The applicant may be required to replace any plant removed, destroyed, or severely damaged during relocation... Individual plants exceeding a caliper diameter of four inches dbh
may not be removed or relocated...
Under federal guidelines, the State of Florida, through the Department of Transportation is required to have effective control of outdoor advertising displays along interstate and federal aid primary highways. Those displays are controlled pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 479 through the issuance of outdoor advertising permits. Nothing in Chapter 479 or any other statutory provision requires the Department to allow persons onto Department right of way to cut, trim, or otherwise remove vegetation in Department owned right of way. Through promulgation of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 14-13, the Department has elected to allow such trimming under certain circumstances and to completely disallow such trimming under other circumstances.
RELIEF, ORDER AND REMEDY
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it ORDERED that:
National Advertising Company be granted a vegetation control permit for its sign located adjacent to I-75 in Lee County, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 14-13.
DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1992.
BEN G. WATTS,
Secretary
Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
COPIES FURNISHED:
Daniel M. Kilbride Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Kreuter & Livingston, P.A.
200 East Robinson Street Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida
Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida
Gary Kissinger
Motorist Information Services Coordinator Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida
Marshall Stivers
State Maintenance Engineer
Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida
L.M. Hayes
District Roadway Maintenance Engineer 801 North Broadway
Bartow, Florida 33830-1249
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION AND MAY BE APPEALED BY PETITIONER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND RULE 9.110, FLORIDA RULES OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE, BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 9.110 (D), FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, BOTH WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPROPRIATE FILING FEE, AND WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S CLERK OF AGENCY PROCEEDINGS, HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, 605 SUWANNEE STREET, M.S. 58, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0458, WITHIN THIRTY
(30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THIS ORDER.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 18, 1992 | Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 30, 1991 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/4/91. |
| Dec. 12, 1991 | Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation filed. |
| Nov. 22, 1991 | (Respondent) Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation filed. |
| Nov. 12, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing Copies of Exhibits w/Exhibits filed. |
| Nov. 04, 1991 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing Exhibits filed. (From Vernon L. Whittier, Jr.) |
| Oct. 21, 1991 | Transcript filed. |
| Oct. 04, 1991 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jul. 30, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Oct. 4, 1991; 1:00pm; Tampa). |
| Jul. 01, 1991 | Ltr. to DRA re: response to Initial Order filed. |
| Jun. 24, 1991 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jun. 18, 1991 | Agency Referral Letter; Request for Administrative Hearing, letter form; Agency Action letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 13, 1992 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 30, 1991 | Recommended Order | Petitioner entitled to vegetation control permit; DOT standards for interstate vague. |
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. HEADRICK OUTDOOR, 91-003775 (1991)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. A. W. LEE, JR., 91-003775 (1991)
PETERSON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CORPORATION vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 91-003775 (1991)
WHITE ADVERTISING INTERNATIONAL vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 91-003775 (1991)
LAMAR OF TALLAHASSEE vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 91-003775 (1991)
