Findings Of Fact Mr. Claude R. Finley is the sole owner of Pensacola Outdoor Advertising. He purchased property on April 17, 1984, having a sign structure with four faces located thereon. This sign structure was owned by the Lamar Company. The Department had issued for permits to the Lamar Company for the four faces of this sign. Mr. Finley was aware that this sign was permitted by the Department to Lamar when he purchased this property. Mr. Finley applied for sign permits at this approximate location by application dated April 15, 1984. The Department denied the application because of sign permit numbers AD809-8, A15824-10, A1585-10 and 6821-10 held by the Lamar Company, and because no preliminary approval letter from Escambia County had been obtained. A second application for permits was sent to the Department on June 12, 1984, which was also returned unapproved by letter dated June 18, 1984, because of the existing permits that had been issued to Lamar. Mr. Finley attempted on numerous occasions to work out a lease with Lamar for the subject location, but he was not successful. By letter dated June 12, 1984, Mr. Finley notified the Lamar Company that it had 15 days to remove the sign structure from his property. Mr. Hollis Wood, General Manager of the Lamar Company, responded by letter dated June 22, 1984, that he would remove the sign structure on June 30, and cancel its permit tags after the expiration of its lease for the sign site. Mr. Finley rode by the location on I-10, on June 30th, about 3:00 p.m. He did not stop, but he observed no sign there. He could tell by the bent trees that some work had been done in the area. The previous time Mr. Finley had been by the site, earlier in the week, the sign was standing. By letter dated June 13, 1924, Mr. Finley advised the Department that he was the owner of the property where the Lamar Company held permits, and he advised he was cancelling the permits for signs on his property. By letter dated June 19, 1984, the Department informed the Lamar Company that it had received information that the Lamar Company no longer had the permission of the property owner to maintain the sign at the location where the permits were issued, and that the permits would be invalidated by the Department unless evidence was provided to refute the information, or a hearing requested within 30 days to challenge this cancellation action. Mr. Wood, by letter dated June 29, 1984, requested an administrative hearing. Later Charles W. Lamar III, by letter dated July 20, 1984, withdrew the request for an administrative hearing, advising that the sign structure in question had been removed, and that a cancellation affidavit and the permit tags were being returned to the Department. The first application for sign permits on the south side of I-10, 2.2 miles east of SR 297, for signs facing east and west, submitted by the Petitioner, was denied because of the four existing permits held by the Lamar Company at this location, and because no preliminary approval from Escambia County for erecting billboards that had been obtained. The county's preliminary approval is part of the application process for locations in Escambia County. The Lamar Company's sign permits remained outstanding until after July 1, 1984, when the new spacing requirements of the 1984 amendment to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, became effective. There are two permitted sign locations approximately 1,000 feet to the east and to the west of the subject site. These permits are held by Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising. The Petitioner's second permit application was denied because the permits held by the Lamar Company were not cancelled until July when the new spacing law became effective requiring 1,500 feet between signs on I-10, resulting in a spacing conflict with the two Bill Slater locations approximately 1,000 feet to the east and west of the proposed site. The Department's procedure for revoking permits allows a party holding a permit to cancel it by submitting an affidavit and returning the tags, stating the reason for cancellation in the affidavit. Until permits are revoked or cancelled by the Department, they remain valid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order finding that the application of Pensacola Outdoor Advertising for sign permits at a location on the south side of I-10, 2.2 miles east of S.R. 297, facing east and west, in Escambia County, Florida, be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 28th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Holley, Esquire Post Office Box 268 Chipley, Florida 32428 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
The Issue Whether Respondent was in violation of Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, providing for the permitting of outdoor advertising structures.
Findings Of Fact Respondent maintains an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 in Gadsden County, Florida. The sign is located approximately 1/2 mile South of the city limits of Havana. This sign has not been permitted in the years 1973 or 1974. No current permit tag was affixed to the sign as of May 12, 1975. Respondent has made no application to the Department of Transportation for a current permit.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the sign involved herein is erected on the right-of-way of a State maintained road. 1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received, the testimony adduced during the hearing, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, utilizes outdoor advertising inspectors to keep surveillance of state maintained roadways: to report infractions of the State right-of-way by outdoor advertising agencies and to assist such advertising agencies in the proper erection of signs. In so doing, these inspectors enforce and are guided by the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. The subject sign involved herein is situated 16.36 miles north of State Road 26, in Gainesville, Florida. The sign in question is situated approximately 600 to 700 feet from the crossing of Interstate 75 and State Road 26. (Testimony of Thomas Wigham, Outdoor Advertising Inspector for Petitioner.) Petitioner utilized the services of one of its registered surveyors, Lloyd Register, a location engineer, to determine the exact placement of the sign in question. Messr. Register is a registered surveyor and is the holder of surveyor's certificate No. 1522 (Florida). Messr. Register staked the area where the subject sign is erected after completing a survey of the area in question. The survey reveals that the subject sign is located within the State owned right-of-way adjacent to State Road 26. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, and Testimony of Lloyd Register.) Respondent offered no evidence herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter an order authorizing it to remove the subject sign which is located 16.36 miles north of State Road 26, a State maintained road, in Gainesville, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 25 day of September, 1981.
The Issue Whether DOT should void outdoor advertising permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35?
Findings Of Fact On March 20, 1987, (T. 12) DOT issued advertising sign permits to respondent, Nos. AT 402-35 and AT 403-35, authorizing construction of a metal outdoor advertising sign "monopole" 43 feet high with sign boards facing north and south, less than a tenth of a mile south of Alternate U.S. Highway 90, a "federal aid primary road" (T. 11), immediately west of State Road 297 in Escambia County. DOT's Exhibit No. 1. In May of 1988, Outdoor Media, Inc., applied for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign at a site five or six hundred feet east of the intersection of State Road 297 and Alternate U.S. Highway 90. Because the site proposed by Outdoor Media, Inc., is visible from and lies within 660 feet of the main traveled way of Alternate U.S. Highway 90 and because it lies within 1,000 feet of the site on which DOT had authorized Salter to erect signs, DOT denied Outdoor Media, Inc.'s, application. When Philip N. Brown, who works in DOT's outdoor advertising section, reported that no sign had ever been built at the site for which Salter had obtained permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35, DOT notified Salter of its intent to void and revoke the permits. DOT's Exhibit No. 2. Some time after June 19, 1988, more than 18 days after DOT sent Salter notice of its intent to void the sign permits, Salter erected a wooden sign on the site. On March 10, 1988, Salter had obtained a building permit from Escambia County for the metal monopole structure, but, because more than 180 days had elapsed without any call for inspection, Escambia County declared the building permit null and void on September 23, 1988.
The Issue The Administrative Complaint in this cause charges that the subject sign violates Sections 479.071 and 479.021(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.09, Section 3, Florida Administrative Code, which is the same as Rule 14- 10.06(b)(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code supra. The Respondent admits ownership of the-outdoor advertising structure and that it does not bear a tag as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes; however, the Respondent asserts that the sign in question qualifies as an exception and is entitled to a tag pursuant to the provisions of Section 479.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner asserts that the sign does not qualify for a tag and stipulates that had the Respondent applied for a tag that said application would have been denied. The Respondent also contends that the sign is exempt from operation of the outdoor advertising law in all respects pursuant to the provisions of Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes. Based upon the foregoing, the following issues of fact are raised: Is the subject sign an on premises sign for purposes of the exemption stated in Section 479.16(1), Florida Statutes, and Is the sign located in an unzoned commercial or industrial area as defined by Section 479.111(2) and Rule 14- 10.06(b)(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and Does the subject sign meet the spacing requirements set forth in Rule 14-10.06(b)(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts as found in paragraphs 1 through 9 below. The subject advertising structure is an advertising sign as defined by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. The subject sign is located in Jackson County, Florida. The subject sign is not within the corporate city limits of any city or town. The subject sign is within 660 feet of Interstate 10. The subject sign is owned by the Respondent, Fuqua & Davis, Inc., a Florida corporation. The subject sign does not have a permit as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Department of Transportation, would not issue a permit as required by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, for the subject sign. There is no zoning in Jackson County, Florida. Interstate 10 is an interstate highway as defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code, and said interstate highway was open for vehicular traffic at the time sign was erected. The subject sign can be seen from the main traveled way of I-10. The subject sign is located at the interchange of State Road 69 and Interstate 10. In this location, there are several commercial enterprises. These businesses include Fuqua Shell Station, Golden Lariat Western Wear Shop and Branch's Phillips 66 Station. The sign is located on a farm within the interchange. The area surrounding the interchange of State Road 69 and Interstate 10 in which the sign is located is an unzoned commercial area. This finding is based upon the testimony of a real estate appraiser together with the businesses mentioned in paragraph 11 above, which are located in this area. The highest and best use for property adjoining an interstate interchange is commercial and its evaluation to fully commercial usage begins from the time an interstate is built. The location of the subject sign is identified on Petitioner's Exhibit 1 to Cases #81-181T and 80-796T an aerial photograph. The subject sign is located adjacent to an interchange on an interstate highway. It is not located on the premises of the business advertised. A diesel pump is located within 30 feet of the sign; however, the pump and sign are over 500 feet away from and on the opposite side of SR 69 for the advertised business on non-contiguous property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Final Order of the Department be issued requiring removal of the sign within thirty (30) days by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1984 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg., MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James J. Richardson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Paul Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of December, 1984. =================================================================
The Issue Whether a sign owned by Henderson Sign Company located approximately one- tenth of a mile east of the junction of State Road 73 and U.S. 90 containing as old copy "Key Drug Center" and new copy "Best Western Motor Inn" is in violation of the permit (Section 479.07(1) and (6), F.S.), spacing (Sections 479.02 and 479.111(2), F.S.), and setback (Section 479.11(1),F.S.) requirements.
Findings Of Fact The respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising structure adjacent to U.S. Highway 90 approximately one-tenth mile east of its intersection with State Road No. 73 within the corporate limits of the City of Marianna. This structure is a double billboard, with one advertisement for "Key Drug Center," erected in August of 1974, and the other for "Best Western Motor Inn" erected in April of 1976. It is located approximately five (5) feet from the edge of the sidewalk approximately 10 to 15 feet from the edge of the north side of Highway 90. At the time of the Respondent's erection of the first sign, he obtained a permit from the City of Marianna but not from Petitioner Department of Transportation. Before erection of the second sign, in 1976, the Respondent submitted an application to the Petitioner, but the application was denied. There is no other outdoor advertising structure bearing a properly issued permit from the Petitioner in existence within 500 feet from the Respondent's advertising structure although there is a non-permitted sign within 120 feet facing in the same direction. Petitioner has entered into evidence a copy of the zoning ordinance of Marianna, Florida. Petitioner contends: that the signs of Respondent violate the set-back, space and permit section of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and of The Governor's Agreement of 1972. Respondent contends: that the Petitioner has not proved where the edge of the right-of-way of Federal Highway 90 is located, that the other sign, if any, is not a lawful sign, having no permit, so the spacing violation, if any, is not enforceable and that the requirement of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, does not apply to incorporated cities.
Recommendation Remove subject signs for violation of the 660 foot setback requirements of a federal aid highway, Section 479.11(1), and the spacing requirements of the Governor's Agreement of January 27, 1972. The zoning ordinance of Marianna, Florida does not show that there is effective control of outdoor advertising by the City of Marianna. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Room 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Richard Wayne Grant, Esquire 209 North Jefferson Street Marianna, Florida 32446 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Henderson Sign Service Post Office Box 887 Marianna, Florida Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Department of Transportation Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428
The Issue Whether the sign of Petitioner, White Advertising International, should be removed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, for violation of Section 479.07(1) and Section 479.11(2), Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact A notice of violation was sent by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, to the Petitioner, White Advertising International, on March 21, 1977, citing an outdoor advertising sign owned by the Petitioner located 1.97 miles west of U.S. #1, State Road 50 E/B with copy "Real Estate Service." The violation noted that the sign violated Section 479.071(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14ER77-09 (now Rule 14-10.04) and Section 479.11(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14ER77-10, 11 (now Rule 14-10.05 and 14-10.06). There is no dispute as to the location or copy or ownership of the subject sign. It is not in a zoned business, commercial or industrial area and is outside an urban area. The sign does not conform to the current setback requirements. The sign has a permit tag dated 1971, the only permit tag on the sign. No application was alleged to have been made for permit or annual fee paid or offered subsequent to 1971 until the application noted in 4, infra. A sign permit application and annual renewal was processed by White Advertising International dated January 21, 1977. The application was an annual renewal for the year of "19 72-1976." The printed application form stated that, "The signs listed above meet all requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Respondent, by its outdoor advertising section administrator, refused to grant the permit on the grounds that the sign which had been erected prior to the enactment of the current setback regulations and probably in the year 1967 had had no application for permit or annual fee paid since 1971 and therefore having become an illegal sign, no permit could be issued. The Petitioner sign company introduced into evidence a letter dated February 28, 1977, from Respondent, Department of Transportation, through its property management administrator which indicated that the State had previously contended the subject sign was built on an unplatted street and had to be removed without compensation but that it was discovered such was not the case and that the State then offered to reimburse Petitioner for relocation costs. Petitioner did not remove the sign and the letter states that the current position of the Respondent State is: That the sign is on the right of way, contrary to Section 339.301, Florida Statutes; Has no current permit; contrary to Section 479.07(1), F.S. Violates Section 479.13, Florida Statutes, as having been constructed, erected, operated, used and maintained without the written permission of the owner or other person in lawful possession or control of the property on which the sign is located; and The sign therefore is an illegal sign and must be removed by Petitioner without compensation. Respondent contends: that the sign is illegal, having failed to be permitted since the year 1971; that it has one pole of the sign pole on the right of way contrary to Section 339.301; that it has no lease contract as required by Section 479.13; that Respondent has no authority to renew delinquent permits; that once a sign becomes illegal a new permit cannot reinstate its nonconforming status. Petitioner, White Advertising International, contends: that it should be granted a permit inasmuch as permits for some signs had been granted by the Respondent although the annual permit fee was not timely made.
Recommendation Remove subject sign if the same has not been removed within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire White Advertising International Post Office Box 626 Titusville, Florida
Findings Of Fact Lamar Advertising Company was issued permits numbered AH998-10 and AH999-10 on or about October 11, 1982. These permits were for the erection of a sign on the north side of I-10 approximately 1.78 miles west of U.S. 29 in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the existence of an auto paint and body shop within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. When Lamar Advertising Company submitted the applications for the subject permits it designated thereon that the proposed location was within 800 feet of a business. These applications also certified that the signs to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. In February of 1984, Lamar Advertising Company was advised that the subject permits were being revoked because of the absence of any visible commercial activity at the permitted location. Subsequently, Lamar Advertising Company requested an administrative hearing pursuant to this notice. Effective on June 30, 1984, Lamar Advertising Company assigned the subject permits to the Respondent. By letter dated September 25, 1984, the Department advised Lamar that the subject permits had been transferred to the Respondent subject to pending litigation. Prior to the issuance of the subject permits to Lamar Advertising Company, the site was inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, who is presently employed by the Respondent. Before this field inspection the inspector had been informed that a paint and body shop was located in the area, and this business was shown on a sketch submitted with the Lamar applications. When the inspector viewed the site from the interstate, she observed an area where several cars were parked and also saw someone working on a car. She measured the distance from the area where the parked cars were, to the proposed sign site, with her car odometer. No other measurements were made at this time. The inspector made no inquiry of anyone at this location regarding whether or not an automobile paint and body business was actually being conducted there. Nevertheless, she approved the subject permit applications based upon the existence of such a business. Willie James Pritchett who resides at the site of the subject automotive business, is employed by Pensacola Paint & Body, but he does conduct a business known as "Willie's Paint and Body" at this location. Mr. Pritchett's business is such that he works on cars in the back yard of his residence a couple of hours in the evening after work and on the weekends. A detached three stall garage is located behind Mr. Pritchett's residence. The business does not have a telephone listing separate from the residence, and all bookkeeping is conducted at the Pritchett home. Before the Department's inspector became employed by the Respondent, she arranged with Mr. Pritchett for the erection of a small on-premise sign, visible from I-10, advertising Willie's Paint and Body Shop. The phone number listed on this sign is the number of the Pritchett residence. The sign was furnished to Mr. Pritchett by the Respondent, and was erected around the first of February, 1985. If one were looking at the right spot, the Pritchett property is visible from I-10, but is almost completely obstructed by trees. The immediate area is residential in nature. There is nothing about the Pritchett property that would indicate to a traveler on I-10 that anything other than a residence is located at this site, even if the traveler were to see the entire property from the interstate. Mr. Pritchett produced occupational licenses for the periods October, 1977 - September, 1980, and October, 1983 through September, 1985. He testified that "the times I didn't have the license I wasn't in business". Consequently, in the month of October, 1982, when the subject permits were issued, Mr. Pritchett was not conducting an automotive paint and body business. The Department's present outdoor advertising inspector made several measurements at this location with the standard roller tape used by the State. The distance as measured along the pavement of I-10 from the location of Willie's Paint and Body Shop to the closest point at which the Respondent could locate its sign is either 890 feet or 920 feet or 940 feet, depending on how the distance is measured. The Respondent contends that the distance is 781 feet, but the measurements made by the Department's present inspector are accorded the greater weight because of the verification procedures utilized by him.
The Issue Whether the sign of Petitioner is in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and the outdoor advertising rules promulgated thereunder for having no permit from the Respondent and for being erected in a nonconforming area.
Findings Of Fact Sometime prior to September 6, 1977, in the year 1977, Petitioner erected three outdoor advertising signs less than 30 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of Interstate-10 in rural areas advertising pecans at a Shell station or restaurant at the next exit. One sign was located 03.53 miles East of State Road 53. One was erected 09.98 miles West of State Road 14 and one was located 05.17 miles West of State Road 14. The Respondent, Department of Transportation, served a violation notice on Petitioner dated September 6, 1977, alleging that Petitioner's signs were in violation of Section 479.07(1) and Rule 14-10.04(1), inasmuch as no application had been made or permit granted for the erection of the signs. The violation notice also alleged that the Petitioner was in violation of Section 479.11(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-10.05(1)(a) and (b), as being in a nonconforming area. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing stipulating as to the location of the signs in the rural areas along Interstate Highway 10. Petitioner contends: that the subject signs are within the exception of Section 479.16(2) and are excepted from all of the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Respondent contends: that the Petitioner is in fact an outdoor advertiser and does not own or lease the farms themselves and therefore does not come within the exception provided for farmers to market the produce of their farms. Mr. J. B. Davis, the President of J. B. Davis, Inc., operates travel shops and is a Shell Oil Jobber. He operates travel shops on Interstate-75 and Interstate-10 and sells various produce at these shops including pecans and other products at the Shell station. He has an agreement with three property owners along Interstate-10 to buy their pecans. The agreements extend to allowing the Petitioner to buy the pecans at the prevailing market price in Madison, Florida; the right to cultivate the trees themselves and right of access over the owner's property. Two of the agreements have been reduced to writing and were introduced into evidence. The sign erected by the Petitioner along Interstate-10 approximately 4 miles from State Road 53 was fallen down in disrepair at the date of the hearing. The sign advertised "This Exit Pecans Shell Station". It was erected on property owned by Mr. Jerry Wood and is in an open field Petitioner buys pecans from Mr. Wood. The sign located approximately 10 miles from State Road 14 is on property located by Mrs. Mattie Cruce. The sign advertises "This Exit Pecans at Shell Restaurant". It is erected in a field with scrub trees growing toward the back. Petitioner buys pecans from Mrs. Cruce to sell at the Shell station. The third sign erected by Petitioner is on property owned by Mr. John Cone. The sign is approximately 5 miles from State Road 14 along Interstate-10. It advertises "Pecans, 5 Miles at Shell Restaurant". Petitioner buys pecans from Mr. Cone. The two lease agreements with the owners of the property on two of the signs was drawn up in the week immediately prior to the date of this hearing on the violation notices. Previously there was an oral agreement with all three owners of the property that the Petitioner would buy the pecans from the owners to sell at the Shell station operated by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Remove the signs of Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin B. Browning, Jr., Esquire Browning & Hardee Post Office Drawer 652 Madison, Florida 32340 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation The Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of the state and federal laws, rules and regulations by enlarging, lighting and changing copy on a privileged sign without obtaining a permit for a sign less than 660 feet from the nearest edge of an interstate highway.
Findings Of Fact A formal notice of violation was given Mr. R. Armstrong on October 27, 1975, notifying him that he was in violation of Chapter 479 and Section 335.13 and Section 339.301, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapter 1, Title 23, Subparagraph G, U.S.C., inasmuch as no application for a sign permit was made and the Respondent changed, enlarged, and lighted a sign formerly owned by the Callahan Chamber of Commerce. The sign is nearer than 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 95, a Federal Aid Highway. The sign was first lighted on August 27, 1975 and continues to be lighted. A sign in the approximate location had been allowed to stand as a privileged sign. Copy thereon read: "Next Exit, U.S. 301 North, Callahan Chamber of Commerce." This sign was changed by the Respondent from a 16 X 62 foot sign to a 20 X 62 foot sign. Lights were added and the power turned on August 27, 1975 according to the records of the Florida Light and Power Company. The sign had been transferred to the Respondent and copy changed to read: "Shell Gas." The sign is located on State Road 8 (I-95) 12.65 miles of North Dunn Avenue. Said sign has no permit and no permit was applied for, and it is in violation of the setback requirements of Section 479.11, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Remove subject sign if said sign has not been removed by the owner within ten (10) days after the entry of the final order herein. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. R. Armstrong Shell Service Post Office Box 2 Yulee, Florida 32097 Mr. Frank Whitesell Post Office Box 1089 Lake City, Florida 32055 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
