The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising sign of Petitioner should be removed.
Findings Of Fact A notice of alleged violation of Chapter 479 and Section 335.13 and 339.301, Florida Statutes and notice to show cause were sent to Petitioner, Highland Court on August 18, 1977. The notice alleged that the subject outdoor advertising sign with copy, Highland Court, located 2.11 miles north of US 192; US 1 13 N Mile Post 2.11 was in violation of Chapter 479.07(2), and Rule 14- 10.04 having no current permit tag visible. The Petitioner asked for an administrative hearing which was properly noticed. Prior to the hearing the Petitioner stated that he was retiring and had no further interest in the sign. He stated that he was selling the business. Evidence was presented that the subject sign was erected without a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation. It has no current state permit tag attached. An application had been made for a permit but the permit was denied for the reason that the sign stands less than 500 feet from an existing sign to which is attached a current and valid permit.
Recommendation Remove the sign. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of August, 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: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Kenneth E. Gross, Manager Highland Court 24 North Harbor City Blvd. Melbourne, Florida 32935
Findings Of Fact On February 9, 1982, George King, Sign Inspector for the Department of Transportation, observed and checked a sign located approximately three-tenths of a mile east of the Hendry County line on state Road U.S. 27, in Palm Beach County, Florida. State Road U.S. 27 is a federal-aid primary highway which is open and utilized by the traveling public. The sign in question, which is visible from U.S. 27, advertises "Cape Realty" and is located approximately two feet off of the right-of-way line, outside the city limits in an area zoned agricultural. At the time the sign was inspected on February 9, 1982, there was no state permit attached to the sign. An examination of the photograph of the subject sign taken by the inspector on December 14, 1982, at the same location, shows no state permit affixed to the structure. Additionally, by timely failing to answer admissions requested by Petitioner, the Respondent is deemed to have admitted ownership and that the subject sign was erected without a state permit in an unpermittable zoning area, outside any incorporated city of town, adjacent to and visible from the main traveled way of U.S. 27.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Transportation finding that the sign in question is in violation of applicable rules and statutes and should be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Department of Administration 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 8 day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Flora Elena Caso c/o Cape Investment Realty, Inc. 417 West Sugarland Highway Clewiston, Florida 33440 John Beck, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the signs of Respondent should be removed for violating the spacing requirements of Florida Statutes and State Laws, Rules and Regulations.
Findings Of Fact An application for a permit was filed by the Respondent, Lamar-Citrus Outdoor Advertising, for a location and construction of a billboard sign. The application designated U.S. 41 not within the city limits in the county of Lee. The nearest highway intersection was designated as Bonita Beach Enterance, Highway 865 and 1200 feet North from the intersection. The permit was approved May 13, 1976, and the approval designated the sign location as "Sec 309N 01.32 15R f/s." The direction that the sign would face was checked. The lighted block was not checked. Thereafter a 12 x 25 double-face lighted sign was erected by the Respondent on the West side of United States Highway 41, a four-lane highway. On May 2, 1977, the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, issued an "alleged violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Notice to Show Cause." The violation notice stated "Signs were approved in this section, but they were for 309 North, not South." Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Petitioner contends: he properly constructed his signs pursuant to his application and the permit issued by the Respondent. He contends that the spacing problem is caused by another outdoor advertising sign and not his own. Petitioner further contends that the application forms have been changed to clarify the location of signs since his application was filed and his permit was granted. Respondent contends: that Petitioner failed to locate his sign in the location for which he applied and for which the permit was issued; that because of the failure to properly locate his sign, his sign is in an unpermitted location and is an unpermitted sign; that Petitioner's sign is in violation of the spacing requirements of Section 479.02(2) inasmuch as a properly permitted sign is within 200 feet of Petitioner's sign; that the Petitioner has been applying for and has been granted permits for outdoor advertising along the highways of the State of Florida for at least nine and a half years and that the same method of describing the location for the construction of billboards has been used by the Respondent and has been used by the Petitioner and that it is a logical and practical way to describe a permitted location for a sign along a highway; that it is true that new forms are being used to further clarify the position of signs but that the application form used by the Petitioner when applying for the sign and obtaining a permit for the subject sign is clear on its face and the method of location has been well known to the Petitioner for many years. Upon observing the demeanor of the Petitioner and Respondent and listening to the testimony of the witnesses and argument of counsel, the Hearing Officer further finds 1) the Petitioner knew or should have known that the area in which he was permitted to erect a sign was East of the highway inasmuch as the location and construction form expressly stated that the nearest highway intersection was Number 865 and that the direction from the intersection was North. The permit states Sec. 309 North and indicated the sign faces South. A driver of a vehicle going North from the intersection must be in the right hand two lanes of U.S. 41 and that to proceed 1200 feet a sign would be on the right hand or the East side of the four lane highway. The "modus operandi" for location of signs is statewide and well known to the Petitioner as well as the Respondent. To ascertain a location on the West side opposite the area in which the Respondent approved for Petitioner's sign would have required a vehicle to travel North in the South bound lanes of U.S. 41 in order to drive the distance from the stated intersection to the location. Throughout the state the sections are usually designated on the permits so that they show the direction in which to drive, North, South, East or West. The signs are located on the right side of the highways as the vehicle travels.
Recommendation Require the Petitioner to remove the subject sign or remove it at the expiration of appeal time. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 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: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 E. Snow Martin, Esquire Post Office Box 117 Lakeland, Florida 33802
Findings Of Fact In 1976 an outdoor advertising company named Outdoor Media applied to the Department to have permits issued for a sign that had been built in 1971 on the north side of I-4, 1.42 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441 (Orange Blossom Trail) inside the city limits of Orlando. Permit numbers 2259-12 and 2260-12 were issued by the Department to Outdoor Media for the west face and the east face of this sign. In 1978 the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising, Inc., purchased this sign from Outdoor Media. A request for replacement tags was made and granted, and tag number 2259-12 was replaced by 7553-12, and tag number 2260-12 was replaced by 7554- In April of 1984 the Respondent again requested replacement tags, and tag number 7553-12 was replaced by AM 267-12, and tag number AM 7554-12 was replaced by AM 268-12. Sometime after April, 1984, this sign was removed, and the Respondent erected a new sign, a monopole, at a location on the north side of I-4, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441 (Orange Blossom Trail). This is approximately 200 feet west of the place where the old sign had been located. The Respondent affixed tag numbers AM 267-12 and AM 268- 12 to the new monopole structure, but these tags were not issued for this sign. They had been issued for the old sign which was removed. The city limits of Orlando are such that the location of the new monopole is outside the city; while the location where the old sign had been was inside the city limits. The county allows a taller sign than may be built inside the City of Orlando, and the Respondent wanted to enhance the visibility of its sign by raising its height. The Respondent obtained a variance from Orange County to extend the height of the monopole sign to a total of 65 feet. The monopole sign at 1.5 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441 percents adjacent to the ramp leading onto I-4 and is less than 1,000 feet from the nearest permitted sign. The distance between these signs is 898 feet as measured by the Department's inspector using a measuring wheel. The Department's inspector has more than 11 years of experience. He has measured signs, sites and locations over 1,000 times. He is familiar with the state and federal requirements for calculating point to point measurements between signs, and he followed them in making the measurements in this case. The Department's inspector measured the distance between the Respondent's new monopole and the nearest permitted sign three times with the same result. Be ran the measuring wheel along the right-of-way of I-4 at right angles to the two signs. Five of the Respondent's witnesses also measured the distance between these signs with results ranging from 955 feet to 1,016 feet. However, none of these witnesses had any experience in making measurements between signs pursuant to state and federal requirements, and some of these distances were obtained by measuring along the ramp instead of along the side of the highway. Thus, the testimony of the Department's inspector is found to be the credible evidence supporting the finding that the two subject signs are 898 feet apart. The Department's evidence relative to when the new monopole was erected is vague and imprecise, and thus not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact on this issue. The Respondent presented evidence to show that the monopole was erected in April of 1984, and it contends that it applied for the county variance in preparation for relocation and reconstruction of this sign. However, the Respondent's evidence that the monopole was erected in April of 1984 is self-serving, and not corroborated. Even the variance notice indicates that it was applied for on October 4, 1984. Thus there is likewise insufficient credible evidence to support the Respondent's contention relative to when this sign was actually constructed. Nevertheless, the Respondent erected its new monopole structure at the point on the north side of I-4, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441, without having first obtained a state sign permit for this location. The Respondent's manager and its president both admit that tags numbered AM 267-12 and AM 268-12 were issued for the sign at 1.42 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441. Peterson Outdoor Advertising is a licensed outdoor advertising company. The firm's manager has been in the business for 27 years. The company president has been engaged in the business of outdoor advertising for more than 25 years, and he claims to have a familiarity with the law. From these facts, and from all inferences that can be drawn therefrom, there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that this experienced outdoor advertising company was misled into moving its sign 200 feet westward without a permit by the Department's approval of its request for replacement tags for the old sign structure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign on the north side of I-4, 1.5 miles west of U.S. 17/92/441, in Orange County, Florida, be removed. And it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AM 267-12 and AM 268-12 be REVOKED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of February, 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 26th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Finding of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Replacement tags are not outdoor advertising sign permits. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence, or irrelevant. Last sentence is accepted. Rejected as irrelevant. Lost tag application is not an application for outdoor advertising sign permit. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial intent. Rejected as irrelevant, except for raising the height of the sign to 65 feet which is accepted. Rejected as irrelevant or not supported by competent substantial evidence, except for the granting of a variance and the building permit which are accepted. Rejected, as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected, as not supported by competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32801-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 In 1959 Petitioner erected the 25' x 12' poster panels here in issue on land leased by Petitioner on East Memorial Boulevard and Gary Road in Lakeland, Florida. These signs have been properly maintained since that time. Prior to 1975 signs located within city limits did not require state permits; however, in 1975 the law was changed to require those signs located within city limits to have permits. Such permits were issued upon application and without the normal fee. On May 8, 1978 Petitioner made application for a permit for the two panels located on U.S. 92 (East Memorial Boulevard) and Gary Road in Lakeland (Exhibit 2). U.S. 92 is a federal aid primary highway. On 9 May 1978 the application in Exhibit 2 was disapproved because it was located within 500 feet of a sign owned by Goddard Signs which had been erected circa 1973. Goddard obtained a permit for its sign in 1974 (Exhibit 6) and has renewed this permit annually thereafter. At the time Petitioner disapproved Exhibit 2 the policy of refusing to issue initial permits to non-conforming signs was being followed. By virtue of its proximity to the Goddard sign, Petitioner's sign was a non-conforming sign. Largely because of adverse court decisions Petitioner revised its policy with respect to non-conforming signs erected many years ago to grant approval to applications received by 17 February 1979. Notice of this change was contained in a notice dated December 18, 1978 (Exhibit 4) which was sent to all outdoor advertisers including Petitioner. This notice contained the following provision: NOTE: Signs erected inside the limits of a city or town on an Interstate or Federal Aid Highway are required to have permits. Should you have failed to acquire such a tag, you should make application and obtain these permits by February 17, 1979. Failure to do so makes the sign subject to all the penalties provided for in Chapter 476 of the Florida Statutes, including, but not limited to, the removal of the signs. Although Petitioner was aware of this notice, it did not submit an application for the signs in question until March 21, 1979 (Exhibit 3). This application was also denied by Petitioner because of its proximity to the Goddard sign. Had Petitioner's application (Exhibit 3) been submitted on or before 17 February 1979 it would have been approved by Respondent.
The Issue Whether the respondents or some of them erected and maintained outdoor advertising signs in violation of Rule 14-10.006(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, because more than two advertisements or "messages" were visible to motorists at the same location?
Findings Of Fact Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards both of the same, concededly lawful size, mounted on a single structure, one on top of the other, 1.75 miles east of State Road 69 in Jackson County. The upper sign advertises a Holiday Inn in Marianna. The bottom sign advertises a Best Western motel (yellow logo against black background) and a McDonald's restaurant (golden arches and white lettering against a red background.) Between the two businesses's names on the bottom sign board appears "11 MI EXIT 21" against a white background. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1716T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure, one on top of the other, 2.4 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises the Chipley Motel. Over the words "THIS EXIT," the central portion of the lower sign advertises a Stuckey's store. Flanking this central portion, both ends of the billboard are taken up with advertisements featuring petroleum trademarks (a scallop shell and a star.) Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1714T). Visible to east-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted one on top of the other on the same poles, 1.2 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a single business establishment. Underneath, half the sign is devoted to advertising the Washington Motor Inn and half to touting The Outlet Center. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1923T). Visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 are two billboards of the same size mounted on the same structure one on top of the other, 2.7 miles east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advises motorists of the proximity of a motel. The lower sign advertises both a Chevron filling station and a Western Sizzlin restaurant, devoting half the panel to each. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1921T). Also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is a pair of billboards mounted one over the other at a site 1.3 miles west of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper panel is devoted exclusively to informing the driving public of a nearby motel. The lower billboard, like the lower billboard located 1.7 miles east of State Road 69, advertises a McDonald's restaurant and a Best Western motel, and does so in a similar bipartite manner. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89- 1922T) Finally, also visible to west-bound traffic on Interstate Highway 10 is another pair of billboards mounted on top of one another on the same poles, a mile east of State Road 77 in Washington County. The upper sign advertises a McDonald's restaurant. Like the lower sign located 2.4 miles east of State Road 77, the lower sign located a mile east advertises not only Stuckey's, but also Shell and Texaco gasolines. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 (89-1924T). A handbook DOT employees use depicts three billboards at one location, over the caption: "One of the three faces is illegal if erected after January 28, 1972. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. DOT has not promulgated the handbook as a rule. The evidence did not establish when the billboards in question here were erected. But for Milford C. Truette's perspicacity, these cases might never have arisen. As acting outdoor advertising supervisor for DOT's District II, he told Elsie Myrick, a property and outdoor advertising inspector for DOT, that she "might want to check into ... [the signs involved here] and see that they were in violation." Myrick deposition p. 8. In the subsequently formed opinion of Ms. Myrick, it is unlawful for an outdoor advertising sign to advertise three or more locations at which the same advertiser does business or three or more businesses at the same location, although the proprietor of a single store might lawfully advertise three or more products for sale at the store, and a motel owner is free to advertise a restaurant and a cocktail lounge, at least if they are under the same roof. Respondent's signs are in violation, in Ms. Myrick's view, because, "You're getting across more messages than what you're allowed in a space." Myrick deposition, p. 15. Ms. Myrick thought a sign advertising several stores housed in a single mall would be illegal, but Mr. Truette and Mr. Kissinger, DOT motorist information services coordinator, disagreed. Ms. Myrick rejected the suggestion that common ownership of advertisers would make a difference, but Mr. Kissinger's views on this point were less clear. T.52-3. Mr. Kissinger believes that an outdoor advertising sign can advertise multiple locations at which an enterprise conducts business, or even multiple business entities, if they are all located on the same parcel of real estate.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notices to show cause issued in each of these consolidated cases. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 20th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-1714T, 89-1716T, 89-1921T, 89-1922T, 89-1923T, 89-1924 Except for the last sentence in proposed finding of fact No. 4, petitioner's proposed findings of fact 1 through 5 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact were not numbered, but have been treated fully in the recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802
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 90 approximately 1 mile East of the junction of State Road 379. This sign was not permitted in the years 1973 or 1974. No current permit tag was affixed to the sign as of May 14, 1975. Respondent has made no application with the Department of Transportation for current permit.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding was erected on Kaley Avenue, approximately 124 feet east of the intersection of Kaley Avenue with U.S. 17/92/441, in Orange County, Florida. This location is approximately .64 mile north of 1-4, as alleged in the violation notice. The subject sign is located on the south side of Kaley Avenue facing east and west which is parallel to U.S. 17/92/441. U.S. 17/92/441 is a federal-aid primary highway. Kaley Avenue is a non-controlled road. The parties stipulated that it was the position of personnel of the Fifth District of the Department of Transportation prior to May of 1985 that state permits for outdoor advertising structures were not required when such structures were to be erected on a non-controlled highway, although said structures might be within 660 feet of a federal- aid primary highway. In March of 1981 the Respondent had applied to the Department for a permit to erect a sign at the location in question in this proceeding. By letter dated April 24, 1981, the Department returned the Respondent's application for the reason that the sign location requested does not face or serve a federal-aid primary highway, and no state permit is required. Based upon the Department's response to its permit application, the Respondent erected its sign at the location where its application sough a permit. The sign was erected in May of 1981. The sign that was erected is visible to traffic on U.S. 17/92/441, although it is parallel to U.S. 17/92/441 and at right angles to Kaley Avenue. There is another permitted sign located on the south side of U.S. 17/92/441, approximately 96 feet from the subject sign. This other sign faces north and south not east and west, and is not on Kaley Avenue. The notice of violation issued for the subject sign in August of 1985 seeks removal of this sign for not having the permit which the Respondent had applied for in 1981, but which had not been issued. It was as a result of the Department's erroneous interpretation of the applicable statutes and rules that the Respondent's application for a permit was returned in April of 1981 advising the Respondent that a permit was not required. As a result of this erroneous interpretation, the Respondent's sign was built.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent, Cashi Signs, in the violation notice issued on August 21, 1985, be dismissed, and that the sign which is the subject of this proceeding be given the classification of non-conforming sign. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 23rd day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the signs of the Petitioner should be removed for violations of Section 479.07(2) and 14-10.04(2), no current permit and the violation of Section 479.07(2) and 14-10.06(3), a spacing violation.
Findings Of Fact An alleged violation of Chapter 479, Section 335 and 339.31, Florida Statutes, and notice to show cause was sent to the Petitioner on the 13th day of February, 1978 alleging that a sign owned by Petitioner located on a roof top thirty (30) feet east of Mills Avenue and State Road 50 with copy reading "WFTV Eyewitness News" is in violation of Section 479.07(2), having no current permit visible. A second sign located on the same roof top, 30 feet east of Mills Avenue and State Road 50 with copy "B.J. 105 Radio Station", was in violation of Section 479.07(2) as having no current permit visible and also in violation of Section 479.02(2), Rule 14-10-06(3), Florida Administrative Code, violation of a spacing requirement. An application was made by Petitioner for a permit but was denied by the Respondent for the two subject signs. The sign with the copy "B.J. 105 Radio Station" is less than 500 feet from a permitted billboard and has no current permit tag attached thereto. The sign with the copy "WFTV Eyewitness News", has no current permit tag attached thereto. The subject signs advertise off-premise businesses and must have permits from the Respondent, Department of Transportation. No permits have been issued for either of the subject signs. Petitioner has agreed that any improper use of the sign will be discontinued and contemplates an "on-premise or on-site" sign which the Respondent has agreed is a proper use and not in violation of the statutes and rules.
Recommendation Remove the signs of Petitioner within 30 days from the date hereof unless such signs are permitted by the Respondent after a change in the copy on the sign structures. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of August, 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: Bruce E. Chapin, Esquire 201 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Philip Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
