Findings Of Fact Petitioner's sign was erected without the benefit of a permit from DOT and was subsequently cited for violation of the Highway Beautification Act, Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's application for a permit for a sign located along U.S. 19, 1000 feet south of Hiawatha Parkway in Hernando County was denied after measurements taken by a DOT sign inspector showed the sign to be within 1000 feet of a permitted sign owned by Whiteco Metro Company on the same side of U.S. 19 facing in the same direction as Petitioner's sign. A Notice of Violation was placed on the sign on November 3, 1987, directing Petitioner to remove the sign within 30 days. When Petitioner failed to take action and correct this violation, the sign was removed by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 31, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed a sign opposite Respondent's place of business advertising Respondent's business, which appeared to be on the DOT right-of-way of U.S. 19 in Hernando County. Measurements to place the sign in relation to U.S. 19 were taken. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location, as determined by a DOT right-of-way marker 1000 feet south of Respondent's sign and the DOT right-of- way map, shows the right- of-way to extend 55 feet west of the edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. The sign at issue was located 46 feet from the edge of the pavement placing the sign 9 feet inside the DOT right-of-way line.
Findings Of Fact On September 23, 1979, the Department issued to the Respondent, Chipley Motel, permit number 9028-6 authorizing an outdoor advertising sign on the south side of I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 in Washington County, Florida. This permit was issued pursuant to an application that had been filed by a representative of the Respondent which stated that the site where the sign would be erected was zoned commercial or industrial. The Respondent's representative filed this application containing the statement that the proposed site was zoned commercial or industrial without first checking with county officials to determine the zoning status of the site. Upon receipt of the Respondent's application, Department personnel at the Chipley District Office made inquiry of county officials and were informed that the site applied for by the Respondent was zoned commercial. Thereafter, the Department's district office personnel advised the Respondent that they had ascertained the subject site to be commercially zoned, and permit number 9028-6 was issued. Both the Respondent's representative and the Department's district office personnel believed the proposed sign site was zoned commercial. However, the site applied for by the Respondent, and where permit number 9028-6 authorized a sign to be erected, was not zoned commercial or industrial either when the application was submitted or when the permit was issued. Pursuant to the issuance of permit number 9028-6, the Respondent erected an outdoor advertising sign at the permitted location. This sign was taken down sometime between September of 1979 and July of 1985. Permit number 9028-6 which had been issued for this sign on I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 was affixed to another sign located 250-300 feet from the permitted site. Sometime after July 31, 1985, a different sign was erected at the location on I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77, and permit number 9028-6 was affixed to this sign. Therefore, permit number 9028-6 had been used on two signs at two different locations before it was reapplied to the sign that now stands on the permitted site. The sign that is up now is not the sign for which permit number 9028-6 was issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that permit number 9028-6 held by Chipley Motel, for a sign on the south side of I-10, .8 mile west of SR 77 in Washington County, Florida, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James J. Richardson, Esquire P. O. Box 12669 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2669 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The sign in issue in these proceedings is mounted on the bed of a pick- up truck which is generally parked opposite Respondent's business. The vehicle is moved daily, sometimes several times per day. On August 5, 1987, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's sign in an area appearing to be on the DOT right-of- way of SR 52 in Pasco County. Measurements were taken to locate the sign with respect to SR 52. The DOT right-of-way along SR 52 at this location extends 50 feet north and south of the centerline of SR 52, and 38 feet from the edge of the pavement of SR 52. On August 5, 1987, the DOT sign inspector using a steel tape measure found Respondent's sign to be located 12 feet from the edge of the pavement, thus clearly on the right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1986, Respondent owned a sign that had recently been erected along the west side of U.S. 19 in Pasco County, Florida, 37 feet from the nearest edge of the pavement. The DOT right-of-way at this location extends 88 feet west of the western edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. Upon seeing the DOT sign inspector in the vicinity of the sign, an employee of Respondent came to the scene, saw the violation notice posted and offered to relocate the sign off of the right-of-way. The sign in issue was relocated off of the DOT right-of-way within ten days of the notice of the violation. U.S. 19 at this location is a part of the State Highway System.
Findings Of Fact 1. On or about January 18, 1988, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's signs 600 and 625 feet south of Candlewood Drive in Pasco County on what appeared to be the easterly right-of-way of U.S. 19. The right-of-way of U.S. 19 at this location extends 59 feet from the easterly edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. Respondent's signs were 49 feet from the edge of the paved surface of U.S. 19. U.S. 19 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway. Respondent located his signs east of the berm along U.S. 19 which he believed to be off of the DOT right-of-way.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owned property including structures used for his dwelling and for his business which was located within the right-of-way of an interstate highway being constructed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation. The Petitioner and the Department negotiated with respect to the amount of compensation that Petitioner was entitled to receive. The Department located a residential dwelling which it contended was comparable to Petitioner's. Petitioner accepted the dwelling located by the Department as comparable for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation that Petitioner was entitled to receive. Petitioner elected, however, to construct a new dwelling on other property that he owned. Petitioner was compensated as if he had purchased the comparable dwelling and was compensated an additional $829 for "incidental expenses" beyond the replacement value as established by the comparable dwelling. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to be compensated for the cost of a "origination fee" which resulted from Petitioner's having to arrange financing. Although improperly labeled, it appears that Petitioner did receive adequate compensation for the loan origination fee. Petitioner received a check from the Department for a "replacement housing payment" which included the origination fee which Petitioner contends he was entitled to receive. While the replacement housing payment was not broken up so as to reflect these fees, it was calculated to include them. Petitioner contends that he is entitled to receive incidental expenses beyond those that he has already received in the amount of $2,068.23. Petitioner has received a payment for incidental expenses in the amount of $829, which includes expenses for a survey, sketch and description, loan application fee, title insurance, attorney's fees, and recording fees. Petitioner actually incurred incidental expenses beyond those for which he was compensated. These additional fees resulted, however, from the fact that Petitioner elected to construct a new residence rather than to accept the comparable residence located by the Department. Because Petitioner was constructing a new residence, it was necessary for him to incur some expenses which would not have been incurred had he accepted the comparable dwelling located by the Department. These expenses included costs of obtaining a rezoning of his property, costs of various construction permits, the cost of obtaining a construction loan, and the cost of a builder's risk insurance policy. While the Petitioner actually incurred these costs, they were costs that he would not have incurred if he had elected to accept the comparable dwelling located by the Department. Petitioner did accept the comparable dwelling for the purpose of setting the amount of benefits that he was entitled to receive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation denying the application of the Petitioner, John D. Lawrence, for additional relocation assistance benefits. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. John D. Lawrence c/o Manatee Tropical Foliage Post Office Box 206 Parrish, Florida 33564 Charles G. Gardner Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Paul N. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that the agency head enter a final order permitting the voluntary removal of the entire structure within 30 days of the date of the agency head's final order, and directing employees of the Department of Transportation to remove the structure after the 30-day period without compensation to the owner. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 385 Marianna, Florida 32446
Findings Of Fact Petitioner acquired a lease on property along S.R. 580 in Hillsborough County for the purpose of erecting a outdoor advertising sign thereon. Petitioner obtained approval from Respondent to place this sign at a location slightly more than 500 feet from an existing sign on the same side of the road facing in the same direction. Petitioner hired a small contractor to erect the sign without sending a representative to the site to ensure the sign was properly located. The contractor erected the sign on the wrong side of a driveway into the property leased so the sign, instead of being more than 500 feet from an existing sign, is some 472-474 feet from this sign on the same side of the highway and facing in the same direction. The cost of moving the sign to the correct location is estimated at $10,000. This petition in effect seeks a waiver of the 500-foot spacing requirement.
