The Issue The parties entered into a stipulation which was read into the record and acknowledged by both parties. This stipulation and the testimony presented resolved the factual issues. The primary issue is the legal issue, whether a sign owned by a business, related to services furnished by the business, and not more than 100 feet from the business is exempted from the provisions of Section 479.11(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida owns the right-of-way in question. The State obtained tie right-of-way when the property was outside tie city limits of any incorporated area and before construction of the East Gate Motor Inn. The property of East Gate Motor Inn, together with the signs and lamp posts in question, are now and were at the time of the Notice of Violation within the city limits of Kissimmee. Federal regulations require the State of Florida to obtain a wider right-of-way in connection with federal-aid primary highways in unincorporated areas. East Gate Motor Inn owns the sign and two posts with lights in question. The structures are located within the right-of-way of State Road 500 (US Highway 192), which is a federal-aid primary highway. The structures involved are used solely in connection with the merchandise, services and entertainment furnished by the East Gate Motor Inn and are not more than 100 feet from the parking area routinely used in its business. The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of Exhibits 1 through 5.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends to the agency head that a final order be entered directing that the signs in question be removed from the State's right-of-way. DONE and ORDERED this 10th 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. O'Donnell, Jr., Esquire Suite 1475, Hartford Building 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact By Advertising Sign Permit dated March 4, 1985 (Exhibit 3), Clear Vu Media was authorized to locate a sign with both east and west facing boards on State Road 52, 2- 1/2 miles east of Plaza Drive (Little Road). The permit was issued by Linda K. Brown, outdoor advertising inspector for DOT. Prior to issuing the permit Brown visited the proposed site and approved the location as meeting the requirements for an outdoor advertising sign. Subsequent to the erection of the sign Brown inspected the sign and found the sign to be located on a site other than the approved site. The existing structure is located 890 feet from another existing and permitted sign. The approved site is located at least 1,000 feet from this existing sign and from any other permitted sign along State Road 52. State Road 52 is a federal-aid primary highway. A Notice of Hearing was sent to Clear Vu Media, Post Office Box 2038, New Port Richey, Florida 33552, by U.S. Mail and was not returned as undelivered.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation ("DOT") originally issued sign permits in 1964 for the location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2, and these permits have been renewed continuously thereafter. The location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2 is on the east side of U.S. 441. Effective October 30, 1987, Eagle Outdoor Advertising, Inc., which has owned Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2 since 1968 or earlier, transferred them to Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corp. ("Peterson"). On July 10, 1987, Gator Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Gator") applied to DOT for sign permits. The location for which Gator sought sign permits is on the same side of U.S. 441, approximately 348 feet from the location authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. On July 16, 1987, DOT rejected Gator's application solely because the proposed sign location did not meet applicable spacing requirements relative to the sign authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. In 1984, the owner withdrew his permission for maintaining the sign authorized by Permits 3966-2 and 3967-2. There has been no sign lease or owner permission for a sign at this location since 1984. As of the date of the final hearing, Peterson had not obtained the owner's permission to maintain a sign. Representatives of the property owner and a representative of Peterson have discussed the possibility of owner permission, but it had not been unequivocally granted.
The Issue The issue is which outdoor advertising signs should be permitted.
Findings Of Fact Escambia County, at all times material to these proceedings, had, in effect, a local ordinance that regulates the location and construction of outdoor advertising signs. The administrative agency of the county that handles enforcement of the ordinance is the county building inspection department. The policy adopted by that department is that an outdoor advertising company first submits to it a request for approval of a site location. The department inspects the location to see whether the location meets the spacing requirements of the ordinance. The building inspection department does not make an effort to determine at that time whether all other requirements for the issuance of a state permit are met. It issues a letter addressed to the Chipley office of the DOT stating whether it approves the proposed site and delivers that letter to the outdoor advertising company applying for the permit. Lamar submitted an application to the county for a site on the east side of Nine Mile Road (S.R. 297), 250 feet south of U.S. 90A, with a drawing showing the proposed sign location. (See, pg. 4; DOT Exhibit 4). The application was approved by the Escambia County building inspection department on January 6, 1989. On February 24, 1989, Outdoor submitted applications to the Escambia County building inspection department for sites on the east side of S.R. 297 (Nine Mile Road), south of U.S. 90A ("D" on DOT Exhibit 1), and on the south side of U.S. 90A east of S.R. 297 ("C" on DOT Exhibit 1). The locations were checked on February 27, 1989 by an employee of the Escambia County building inspections department, who found the sites to comply with spacing requirements and so indicated on the drawing submitted with the applications. However, that employee's supervisor, John Kimberl, found upon checking the records in the department's office that the application of Lamar for the site, 250 feet south of the intersection of S.R. 297 and U.S. 90A on the east side of S.R. 297, had been approved. This approval created a conflict with the site applied for by Outdoor on the east side of S.R. 297 ("D" on DOT Exhibit 1). Escambia County approved the application for the south side of U.S. 90A east of S.R. 297 ("C" on DOT Exhibit 1). Escambia County issued two letters, one of which stated that the application was approved and the other which stated that the application was denied because it would be in conflict with the spacing requirements because of a prior application. Both letters identified the sign in question using the same address. Outdoor applied for outdoor advertising permits for sites "C" and "D" to DOT by two separate applications on March 31, 1989. Outdoor attached sketches of both sites and a copy of the approval letter from Escambia County to its applications to the DOT representing to the DOT that the appropriate authorities of Escambia County had approved both sites. This may have been inadvertent and due to Outdoor's practice of proceeding only with letters of approval. The applications submitted by Outdoor were otherwise in order. A field inspection by Phillip Brown of the DOT showed that there would be a conflict between the two locations applied for by Outdoor because they were within 660 feet of each other and outdoor advertising signs would be visible to motorists on both highways. The DOT, therefore, offered Outdoor its choice of the two locations. Outdoor chose the location ("D") on the east side of S.R. 297. The DOT then issued Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 and gave Outdoor notice that it had denied its other application ("C"). Lamar applied to DOT for an outdoor advertising permit for its location 250 feet south of the intersection on the east side of S.R. 297 initially on January 27, 1989 and again on February 23, 1989. On one occasion, it was rejected because it had the wrong lease attached and on another occasion because the 250-foot distance placed it on property not subject to a valid lease. (See DOT Exhibit 4). After February 23, 1989, this application was amended to 144 feet south of the intersection of S.R. 297 and U.S. 90A and resubmitted with a proper lease. This site was not resubmitted to Escambia County for evaluation, and the original approval letter for the site 250 feet from the intersection was used. (See DOT Exhibit 3). After Lamar's application for permits for the east side of S.R. 297, 144 feet south of U.S. 90A, were rejected as being in conflict with Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 issued to Outdoor, Lamar requested an administrative hearing and alleged that Escambia County had not approved the application of Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297. It is the policy of both the Escambia County building inspection department and the DOT to approve applications for permits in the order in which they were received if the applications are in compliance with the requirements of the statutes, rules and ordinances. It is further the policy of Escambia County not to permit anyone to erect a sign unless they have state permits. In this case, neither Lamar nor Outdoor fully complied with the Escambia County requirements. Outdoor's application for site "D" was not approved by the county and Lamar changed the location of its sign from 250 feet to 144 feet south of the intersection. This new location was not resubmitted for site evaluation. The DOT should have been alerted to the problems of both applications because Outdoor's sketch said the approval was void and the date of the county's letter of approval to Lamar did not change when Lamar's site sketch was changed. Lamar received the approval of Escambia County; but by the time its otherwise valid application was submitted to the DOT, the DOT had issued the permits to Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297 and denied Lamar because of spacing problems. The DOT would have rejected the application of Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297 if Outdoor had submitted to it the proper letter from Escambia County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the DOT revoke the issued Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 because the site upon which the signs were to be erected was not properly approved by the county. The DOT properly rejected Lamar's application because its amended site was not approved by the county. DOT's denial of Outdoor's application for signs at site "C" is not at issue in this case and no recommendation is made regarding it. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Officer Hearings 1550 STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Hearings 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ben C. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esq. General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Robert P. Gaines, Esq. Beggs and Lane P.O. Box 12950 Pensacola, FL 32576-2950 J. Arby Van Slyke, Esq. P.O. Box 13244 Pensacola, FL 32591 Charles G. Gardner, Esq. 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 31st day of January,
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a limited partner in Wedgewood Limited Partnership, which acquired the property on which this sign is located in 1981. The property was developed by the limited partnership, and the sign is located alongside the golf course built by the partnership as a part of the development. The sign advertised the development. In 1983, the partnership applied for a permit for this sign and was told by Respondent that no permit was required for the sign as it qualified as an "on premise" sign. In 1986, the partnership was dissolved, and Petitioner acquired the 1/4 to 1/2 acre site on which this sign is located. The sign needs repair and renovation, and Petitioner desires to use this location as a site of a permitted outdoor advertising sign. Lamar Outdoor Advertising holds a permit for a sign 306 feet west of Petitioner's sign on the same side of I-4 and facing in the same direction. The Lamar sign was erected in 1968. Respondent denied the permit requested because the location of Petitioner's sign was within 1500 feet of the permitted sign owned by Lamar.
Findings Of Fact On January 27, 1982, the department of Transportation notified the Petitioner, Vortex Springs, Inc., that its applications for the outdoor advertising sign permits which are the subject of these proceedings were denied because the zoning had been determined to be unacceptable. These applications seek permits authorizing two signs on I-10 in Holmes County, Florida, one approximately 1.38 miles west of SR 81 facing west, and the other approximately 1.1 miles east of SR 81 facing east. Both of these locations are inside the city limits of the municipality of Ponce de Leon, Florida. The signs for which the Petitioner seeks permits were already erected when the subject applications were submitted to the department. There was no other evidence presented that was relevant or would support additional findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Federal Highway Beautification Act, as amended, which pertains to lighting, design and spacing of signs on the interstate, federal and primary highway systems. Respondent, First Coast Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (First Coast), is an outdoor advertising firm located in St. Augustine Beach, Florida, and is the owner of a sign erected on State Road A1A in Flagler County, Florida. Respondent, Motel Delores, is a motel located at 5992 Oceanside Boulevard (State Road A1A) in Flagler County and has a sign erected near its place of business. Both signs are located on the same side of the highway and are subject to DOT's regulatory jurisdiction. The underpinnings of this controversy began in 1966 when Motel Delores decided it would erect a sign with a message reading "Delores Motel & Restaurant". The actual location of the sign is 385 feet south of the intersection of Malacompra Road and State Road A1A, or 10.2 miles north of the intersection of State Roads 100 and A1A, in Flagler County, Florida. At that time, the property on which the sign was erected was owned by Malcolm Johnson. According to Jerrald D. Schatz, who is one of the motel owners, Motel Delores was given permission by Johnson for the sign to be erected on Johnson's property. In 1970, ITT Development Corporation (ITT) purchased Johnson's land. There is no indication in the record that ITT initially lodged any objections to Motel Delores continuing to have its sign located on ITT's property. The date on which DOT began regulating outdoor advertising signs is not of record. However, Motel Delores first learned of the need to obtain a sign permit in early 1977 when a DOT representative advised it that a permit was necessary. Accordingly, respondent made application with DOT for a permit on March 9, 1977, and was issued tag number 5697-02 on March 16, 1977. Thereafter, the tagged sign remained at the same location until March 1990. In 1984, ITT and DOT became embroiled in a civil action over ownership of land on and near State Road A1A where the two signs are now located. In 1986, the lawsuit was settled when DOT and ITT agreed to exchange land in the immediate area. As a result of that settlement, the land on which Motel Delores' sign was located was deeded from ITT to DOT and now constitutes right- of-way on State Road A1A. Without DOT's written permission, the placement of a sign on state right-of-way is prohibited. In March 1990, Motel Delores' sign and tag were stolen by unknown individuals. Within a few days, Schatz began erecting a new sign a few feet closer to A1A. By chance, a DOT sign inspector, William Terry, happened to be traveling on A1A and observed the new sign. After a preliminary investigation was conducted, including contact by DOT with ITT, Terry concluded that the sign was within fifteen feet of DOT right-of-way on a federal primary highway and the sign owner did not have ITT's written permission to have the sign at that location. The inspector was unaware of the fact that DOT and ITT had exchanged land some four years earlier and was under the impression that the land on which the sign was located belonged to ITT. Accordingly, on March 29, 1990, Terry posted a cease work order on the sign and recommended that a notice of violation be issued. The recommendation was accepted by the district administrator of outdoor advertising and a notice to show cause was issued on April 6, 1990. On April 23, 1990, Schatz filed a request for hearing with the DOT district office. In late February 1990 First Coast began erecting an outdoor advertising sign approximately 523 feet north of where the Motel Delores sign was located. In conjunction with this activity, on March 14, 1990, First Coast filed an application with DOT for a sign permit. However, A1A is designated as a part of the federal-aid primary highway system and state law prohibits two permitted signs from being located within 1,000 feet of one another on such a road. Because the DOT "inventory book" for permitted signs carried the tag number for the sign owned by Motel Delores, which was 523 feet south of First Coast's sign, the application was returned to First Coast on March 21, 1990, with a notation by the district administrator that it was "Dis-Approved" (sic). A short time later, Terry posted a cease work order on First Coast's uncompleted sign, and a notice to show cause was issued on April 6, 1990, on the ground the sign did not meet spacing requirements. However, because at that time Motel Delores' sign was on DOT right-of-way without DOT's permission, there was no lawful, permitted sign on the same side of the road within 1,000 feet of First Coast's sign and thus the notice was improvidently issued. Indeed, a DOT representative acknowledged at hearing that Motel Delores' sign was "illegal" at the time the notice to show cause was issued against First Coast. In view of this, First Coast's application for a sign permit should have been approved. On April 19, 1990, First Coast requested a hearing to contest DOT's preliminary decision. Among other things, First Coast contended that the Motel Delores sign was illegally erected and thus its sign met all spacing requirements. For reasons not of record, DOT did not forward this and Motel Delores' first request for hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings until more than a year later. During this period of time, both respondents completed construction of their new signs and have continued to use them pending the outcome of these proceedings. Even so, DOT agreed at hearing that respondents should not be charged with violating the cease work orders posted on the two signs. On October 17, 1991, DOT advised Schatz by letter that it was "rescinding all violations issued under the (April 6, 1990) notice" because the notice had incorrectly identified the location of the sign as 385 feet north of Malacompra Road when in fact the actual location was 385 feet south of Malacompra Road. Schatz's happiness was short-lived, however, because DOT then issued another notice to show cause on November 1, 1991, alleging that the sign did not have a valid permit tag and was located on DOT's right-of-way. Motel Delores thereafter requested a hearing on November 8, 1991. On November 20, 1991, Motel Delores filed with DOT an outdoor advertising permit affidavit form in which it represented that its sign tag had been stolen and a replacement tag was necessary. The request was approved by DOT on January 14, 1992, and replacement tag number BF 209-25 was issued. On February 1, 1992, or less than a week prior to final hearing, DOT and Motel Delores executed a five year lease agreement whereby DOT agreed that the motel could keep its sign on DOT's property for $200 per year. According to Schatz, he had requested such a lease from DOT in late 1990 and it took more than a year for DOT to formalize the agreement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the notices to show cause issued against respondents on April 6, 1990, and November 1, 1991, be dismissed with prejudice. It is further recommended that a sign permit be issued to First Coast Outdoor Advertising, Inc. for its sign erected on State Road A1A in Flagler County. DONE and ORDERED this 30 day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 30 day of March, 1992. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Suite 1150 200 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801 Jerrald D. Schatz 5992 North Oceanside Boulevard Hammock, FL 32137-2601 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, Agency Clerk 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Orange Park Billiards and Sports Pub, Inc. (the “Bar”), should be reimbursed by Respondent, Department of Transportation (the “Department” or “DOT”), for costs associated with obtaining a new liquor license incident to its relocation as a displaced tenant pursuant to section 421.55, Florida Statutes (2012).
Findings Of Fact The Bar was a billiards and sports pub located in Clay County, Florida. It was, at all times relevant hereto, located within the Comfort Inn, a hotel situated on US Highway 17 in Clay County. US 17 is called Park Avenue in Clay County, but becomes Roosevelt Boulevard when it crosses into Duval County. The Clay -- Duval county line is just north of the Comfort Inn site. The Bar was formerly owned by Terry Harper, who had purchased “State of Florida Quota Alcoholic Beverage License No. 20-01226, a 3PS series License for use in Clay County, Florida” in June 2009. The Bar was purchased from Harper by Steve Chelgren on or about January 1, 2010. The purchase was made by way of a promissory note, and Chelgren made timely payments on the note for the first couple of years. There is a dog racetrack located next door to the Bar. The racetrack also has a poker room. Pari-mutuel gambling is allowed on the dog races and the poker games. The Bar receives a lot of business from the patrons of the dog track, as much as 25 percent of the Bar’s total business. The Jacksonville Naval Air Station is located adjacent to Roosevelt Boulevard just across the Duval County line. Many Bar patrons are sailors and employees of the Naval Air Station. There are approximately 69,500 cars passing the Bar site each day. The Bar is in a good area for attracting customers. In 2012, the Department acquired the Comfort Inn property as part of a state and federal road project. By way of a letter dated May 8, 2012, the Department notified Chelgren that the Comfort Inn property was being acquired. The letter gave Chelgren “at least 90 days” to relocate his business to another site. Chelgren was also advised about “advisory services and payments under the Relocation Assistance program,” which he may be eligible to receive as a result of the displacement. The program provided money for moving expenses and other services. Chelgren immediately began looking for a place to relocate his business. In order to accommodate the same clientele and continue business as normal, Chelgren first considered the Roadway Inn located just across US 17/Park Avenue from his present location. The Roadway Inn site would be in close proximity to the dog track and the Naval Air Station. Unfortunately, his construction inspection experts told Chelgren that the Roadway Inn had too many problems and would be prohibitively expensive to renovate. Chelgren then began looking elsewhere for a suitable location to relocate the Bar. He did not find a viable option in Clay County, so he began looking in Duval County. Chelgren ultimately settled on a site in Jacksonville Beach, some 30 miles from the Bar’s location in Clay County. The Jacksonville Beach site reportedly had a comparable amount of traffic and was likely to produce customers similar in number to the Comfort Inn site in Clay County.1/ There was one major difference between the two sites: The liquor license purchased by Chelgren in Clay County costs about $59,000; a similar license in Jacksonville Beach would cost about $400,000. The license under which the Bar operated was a 4COP license, which allows for the sale of beer, wine, and liquor and does not require the establishment to sell a certain percentage of non-alcoholic products, i.e., food, clothing, etc. There was no testimony or evidence presented at final hearing as to how a 4COP license differs from the 3PS license held by Chelgren in Clay County (except that the number at the beginning of the license type designates the county in which it is located). It is presumed for purposes of this Recommended Order that the licenses are effectively the same. The City of Jacksonville Beach only allows 12 4COP (or “quota”) licenses within its city limits at any one time. While other cities may increase the number of quota licenses as the population grows, Jacksonville Beach decided to limit the number of licenses without regard to population increases. As a result, the Jacksonville Beach licenses increase in value beyond similar licenses in other locations. At some point after finding the Jacksonville Beach location, Chelgren contacted the Department about obtaining reimbursement for a new liquor license at a replacement location in Jacksonville Beach. The Department, by letter dated November 5, 2012, notified Chelgren that his request was denied. DOT would pay for the “remaining useful life of the existing license,” but nothing more. It cost $1,820 per year to renew the liquor license, so DOT said it would pay the pro rata share of that payment for the time remaining before the next renewal. The Department’s decision to deny Chelgren’s request for payment of the new 4COP license was then appealed. The appeal letter is dated January 3, 2013. By letter dated January 29, 2013, DOT notified Chelgren that his appeal was denied. He was given the right to appeal further by filing a request for formal administrative hearing, which precipitated the instant action. Pending resolution of the challenge to DOT’s decision, Chelgren, nonetheless, decided to make the move to the Jacksonville Beach location and to rename the business, “The Tavern on First Street.” He entered into a purchase and sale agreement dated January 16, 2013, agreeing to purchase a liquor license for the sum of $400,000 with $40,000 down and $1,500 due per month at 5 percent interest. No evidence was presented as to the volume of customers at the new location, as to the automobile traffic volume, or whether the site is indeed comparable to the location of the Bar in Clay County. No evidence was presented as to whether Chelgren sold his Clay County license in an effort to mitigate his damages, or whether such a sale was even possible. Chelgren now operates the Tavern at First Street under a 4COP license purchased for that purpose. He continues to seek reimbursement for the cost of that license. DOT maintains its denial of the request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order affirming its denial of Orange Park Billiards and Sports Pub, Inc.’s application for reimbursement of its cost for a new liquor license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Lamar acquired permits AA-634 and 7504 from Peterson Outdoor Advertising Company for a double-faced sign located on U.S. 98, South, approximately one-half mile north of Crystal Lake Drive on a site leased from Mary D. and Billy Allred. The lease (Exhibit 1.), executed in 1978, was for a three-year term with automatic renewal for an additional five year period and thereafter from year to year on the same terms and conditions unless terminated by lessee by giving 30-days notice prior to the end of the lease year. By warranty deed dated June 14, 1983, (Exhibit 2.) Sun State acquired the property on which this sign was located from Allred. Rent on this lease for 1984 was sent to Allred by Lamar, endorsed over to Sun State and cashed by Sun State. A check for rent for 1985 sent by Lamar to Sun State was never negotiated. By letter dated April 3, 1985, (Exhibit 4.) Sun State Homes told Lamar to immediately remove the sign from its property on U.S. 98, South. On May 16, 1985, Sun State applied for a permit for a sign on U.S. 98, 550-feet north of North Crystal Lake Drive. This application was disapproved by DOT on June 7, 1985, in Exhibit 3 because it was in conflict with the sign for which Lamar held tags for the proposed site. On or about the same time, Sun State applied to Polk County for a building permit to erect a sign at this site. Polk County disapproved the application because DOT had denied the permit. By letter dated May 29, 1985, Sun State appealed the denial of their application. On or about May 27, 1985, Lamar removed their sign from Sun State's property. On May 28, 1985, Lamar submitted an application for a permit to erect a sign on U.S. 98, 1,200 feet north of N. Crystal Lake Drive (Exhibit 5.) and simultaneously surrendered tags no. AA-634 and 7504. Lamar had obtained permission from the owner of that property to erect a sign at this site. This application was denied by DOT because of the appeal by Sun State from its denial. DOT will not approve an application for a sign permit when the right of occupancy of the site is contested. Lamar appealed this denial and the two cases were consolidated for hearing. The two applications are mutually exclusive as only one can be granted without violating spacing requirements.
Findings Of Fact Violation notices for two signs owned by Petitioner were issued and were the subject of this hearing. Subsequent to the taking of the testimony but prior to the close of the record, the Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation, withdrew its complaint against Petitioner, Peterson Outdoor Advertising, on one of the signs, to wit: Board No. 92 located 4.4 miles north of State Road 404, Highway A1A, n/b with copy "Bank Services" for which a violation notice was issued the 14th day of March, 1977. The violation notice issued against Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation on Board No. 3297 located at 1.07 miles south of State Road 520 on Highway 1-95, M.P. 37.10 with copy "Seaworld" is the subject of this hearing. The violation notice cited Petitioner for violation of Section 479.07(1), no permit. Petitioner had a sign located in the approximate location of the sign now cited in violation. The sign was badly damaged by what was apparently an act of God, a windstorm. Most of the sign was destroyed as shown by Petitioner's Exhibit 1, a photograph taken in January of 1977. The sign had been constructed with six inch by eight inch beans and a plywood face. The height of the sign was approximately six feet. There were Peterson identifiers on part of the structure that was left standing. A new structure was erected at the approximate same location. Round poles for the supporting structure were erected. The new sign of new materials was built and the elevation of the new sign is approximately twenty feet in height. The State's Exhibits 2 and 3, photos taken on February 4, 1977, show the new structure, Exhibit 2 showing new round poles and the State's Exhibit 3 showing a sign approximately twenty feet in height advertising "Florida's Best Entertainment Value SEAWORLD. On 4 Between Orlando & Walt Disney World" as copy. The State's Exhibit 1 shows the remains of the old sign in the approximate location. The new sign, which is the sign of this hearing, carries the same permit nunber that the prior destroyed sign carried on one of the posts of the structure. The Respondent, Department of Transportation, contends: that no permit was applied for or obtained for the subject sign; that the old sign in the approximate same location was destroyed by an act of God and a new sign was rebuilt in the approximate location without a permit; that the old sign was erected with square poles and to a height of about six feet whereas the new sign was erected with round poles and with a height of approximately 20 feet; that the permit displayed on the new sign is the permit that had been issued to the old destroyed sign and when the sign was blown down the permit expired and should not have been placed on the new sign by the Petitioner, Peterson Outdoor Advertising. Petitioner, Peterson Outdoor Advertising, contends: that no one saw the old sign fall and it is a mere conclusion that it blew down; that it has a permit on it. The Proposed Recommended Order of Petitioner has been considered in the preparation of this Order.
Recommendation Remove the sign, Board No. 32-97. DONE and ORDERED this day of July, 19'77, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 503 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Boulevard Post Office Box 539 Winter Park, Florida 32790
