Findings Of Fact U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway and, in the vicinity of University Boulevard, is a divided highway, with parkway between north-and- southbound lanes. University Boulevard (SR 109) is not a federal-aid primary highway. Petitioner holds a lease on the property on which the proposed sign is to be erected and, in fact, already has a structure on this site and a permit for a north-facing sign on this structure. The proposed sign meets all DOT requirements except spacing. The structure on which the proposed sign is to be displayed is located on the east side of U.S. 1, 125 feet north of the intersection with University Boulevard. Lamar Dean Outdoor Advertising Company was issued a permit for a 14 by 48 foot sign along the east side of University Boulevard, 150 feet south of the intersection with U.S. 1. This sign faces west. That application for permit (Exhibit 8) shows the type highway to be U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. A sign located on University Boulevard in Jacksonville which was not visible from a federal-aid primary highway would not require a DOT permit. This Lamar structure, which carries a Jack Bush-Toyota South copy, can easily be seen by persons in vehicles travelling on U.S. 1 and it is on the same side of U.S. 1 and within 500 feet of Petitioner's proposed sign. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) inspectors maintain inventories of all permitted signs. The criteria used by all DOT sign inspectors is to log any sign that can be seen and read from the primary highway. Actually, the Jack Bush sign can be seen by both north-and-southbound traffic on U.S. 1 when in the vicinity of University Boulevard but the northbound traffic passes closer to the sign. It is therefore carried by DOT as a south-facing sign.
The Issue Whether the signs of Respondent, Cannon Motel, should be removed for violation of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes, improper setback and no permit to erect the signs.
Findings Of Fact Cannon Motels, Inc. was served with a violation notice on October 18, 1976. The alleged violation was that the Cannon Motel signs were in violation of the state statute inasmuch as they had been erected without first obtaining a permit from the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, and they violate the setback requirements of Chapter 479. Petitioner, by certified letter dated November 11, 1976, requested an administrative hearing. Respondent moved to continue the hearing on the grounds of improper venue, lack of jurisdiction and failure by Petitioner to follow the technical rules. The motion was denied for the reason that the venue was proper being in the district in which a permit for an outdoor advertising sign must be obtained; the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the parties were fully advised of the issue to be heard. The subject signs each read "Cannon Motel." One is located one-half mile west of State Road 85 facing Interstate 10 and the other is located 1.3 riles east of State Road 85 facing Interstate 10. The sign east of State Road 85 is 30 by 12 and is approximately 18 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way. The sign that is west of State Read 85 is approximately 38 feet from the nearest edge of the right of way. Both signs were erected within 660 feet of the federal aid primary road without applying for or securing a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation. At some time prior to the hearing but after the erection of the signs, the area in which the sign located west of State Road 85 was erected was annexed by Crescent City, Florida. That area in which the signs are located is unzoned by the city and zoned agriculture by Okaloosa County.
Recommendation Remove the subject signs within ten (10) days of the filing of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James E. Moore, Esquire Moore and Anchors Post Office Box 746 Niceville, Florida 32578
Findings Of Fact On February 28, 1979, the manager of Chipley Hotel, Mrs. Linda Cain, made application for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the south side of I-10, 1.4 miles west of S.R. 77 in Washington County, Florida. Employees of the Department in Chipley assisted Mrs. Cain in the completion of the permit application and advised her that the property on which the sign was to be erected was zoned for commercial or industrial use. She had no independent knowledge of the zoning or lack of zoning on this property. Thereafter, Department personnel inspected the site, final approval of the permit application was given by the Department of Transportation, and a permit was issued to Chipley Motel authorizing the erection of an outdoor advertising sign at the requested location on I-10. In reliance on the issuance of this permit, Chipley Motel erected a sign at the permitted location. Each year Chipley Motel has paid to the Department the annual permit fees for the renewal of this permit. These permit fees have been paid for the years 1979 through 1985, and they have been accepted by the Department. Back in 1979, when employees of the Department at the Chipley District Office made their determination that the property where the sign was to be located was zoned commercial or industrial, they inquired of county officials and relied on the information supplied by them. The property where the subject sign has been erected is not zoned either commercial or industrial, and there has never been any actual zoning for this property. There exists no commercial or industrial activity within 800 feet of the subject sign's location which would qualify the site as an unzoned commercial or industrial area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department's Notice of Violation issued on October 3, 1984, be Dismissed, and that the Respondent's sign on the south side of I-10, 1.4 miles west of SR 77, facing west, in Washington County, Florida be allowed to remain in place as a nonconforming sign. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 26th day of April, 1985 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 April, 1985.
The Issue Whether the subject outdoor advertising signs are illegal because they were erected without state permits from Petitioner. Whether the subject signs should be removed. Whether Petitioner is equitably estopped to assert that the signs are illegal and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 95 on Northwest 6th Court, which is between Northwest 75th Street and Northwest 76th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 95 sign. The Interstate 95 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 95. The Interstate 95 sign is located within 147 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 95. Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 395 at the corner of Northwest 14th Street and Northwest 1st Court, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 395 sign. The Interstate 395 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 395. The Interstate 395 sign is located within 240 feet of the right- of-way of Interstate 395. Eugene A. (Andy) Hancock, Jr., is the President of the corporate Respondent and, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, controlled the activities of Respondent. Mr. Hancock caused the corporate Respondent to lease the respective properties on which the subject signs are located in November 1998. He thereafter caused the corporate Respondent to erect the two double-faced signs at issue in this proceeding. The subject signs were constructed during September and October 1999. Each sign was constructed without a state permit from Petitioner. Each sign is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that his company did not apply for permits from Petitioner because of a conversation he had with Bernard Davis, a former outdoor advertising administrator for Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that Mr. Davis represented to him that his company would not need permits from Petitioner if it had permits from the City of Miami. This testimony is rejected. 3/ Respondent has applied for state sign permits for the subject signs. Permits for these signs have not been issued because of their proximity to existing, permitted signs. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that the subject signs are illegal and must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2001.
Findings Of Fact In May and June of 1983 the Department received in its district office in Chipley, Florida, applications for four permits for outdoor advertising signs to be located adjacent to I-10, approximately one mile west of S.R. 285, in Walton County, Florida. Two of these applications requested permits to erect a two-faced, back-to-back structure on I-10, 4,262 feet west of S.R. 285, and two of these applications sought permits to erect a two-faced, back-to-back structure on I-10, 5,262 feet west of S.R. 285. These permit applications stated that the locations requested were in a commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector approved these permit applications in June of 1983. When he visited the sites he found a small building, approximately eight to ten feet by approximately ten to twelve feet in dimension, situated at a point 300 feet from one of the sign sites and 700 feet from the other site. There was a pile of steel lying on the ground adjacent to this building. He was told by the Respondent's president that the Respondent's plan was to put an office on the site, and a building on which to work on signs and to store material. On the basis of his inspection of the site, coupled with these representations of the Respondent's president, the inspector approved the four applications for sign permits. Subsequently, in 1984 after the permits had been issued, the small building had been removed and was replaced by a shed and another small building. However, in 1983 at the time the applications for permits were submitted, the site where the business activity was planned did not have telephone service, nor did this location have any mailing address, and there were no employees of the Respondent on the site until 1984. The Respondent obtained this location for the purpose and with the intent of locating its sign business thereon, but when the permit applications were submitted the site had not yet become a commercial location. Much of the evidence presented by both sides at the hearing concerned activities conducted at the location between the two sign sites subsequent to the time when the permit applications were submitted. However, this is irrelevant. The salient facts are that the president of the Respondent knew that a business activity within 800 feet of the sign site was required in order to obtain lawful permits; he intended to establish his own sign business at a location between the two sign sites which would comply with the permitting requirements; but in June of 1983 when the permit applications were submitted, there was not then in existence any business activity within 800 feet of the proposed sign sites. Thus, the statement of the Respondent on its applications that the proposed sign sites were in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business was false, and the Respondent's president knew this when he submitted the applications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AJ511-12, AJ510-12, AJ509-12 and AJ508- 12, held by Reese Outdoor Displays, Inc., be revoked, and the signs which were erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 20th day of May, 1985 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 20th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 George Ralph Miller, Esquire P.O. Box 687 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact By notice of alleged violation dated April 18, 1979, the Department of Transportation (hereafter "Department") charged that the Respondent, Ron Sorg installed a sign on U.S. 301, 7.19 miles south of I-4 in violation of Rules 14- 10.04 and 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code. The sign in question is an outdoor advertising, sign, located on private property in an area zoned agriculture and has been in its present location for at least ten years. The sign has never been permitted and the road on which it borders is presently classified as a federal-aid primary road. Until 1976, the road on which the sign borders was a federal-aid secondary road. Following the notice of violation, the Respondent applied for a sign permit on October 12, 1979. Since none of the above facts were in dispute, the only issue remaining is the law which is to be applied to this particular sign. Both parties agreed to submit the legal issue to the Hearing Officer for determination.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Section 479.07, Section 479.11(5) and Section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, which statutes provide that permits must be obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation before an outdoor advertising sign is erected and which prohibits the erection of an outdoor advertising sign within 660 feet within the nearest edge of the right of way of all portions of the interstate system or the federal primary aid system and which is placed on the inside of a curve or in any manner that may prevent persons using the highway from obtaining an unobstructive view of approaching vehicles.
Findings Of Fact Subject sign was erected without a permit in 1973 and was nailed to a tree. The sign is located in a zoned residential area approximately ten feet from the nearest edge of the right of way of a federal aid primary highway, State Road 61.
Recommendation Remove subject sign and remove any re-erection of subject sign. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of May, 1976. 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 Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 C. A. Miller Auto Truck Service 806 Westway Road Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, E. A. Hancock Advertising, Inc., erected two double face outdoor advertising signs in June, 1975, in an unincorporated part of Broward County, Florida, without first obtaining a permit from the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation. Two of the signs face north and two signs face south. Each sign structure has two faces. After erection the Respondents applied for permits but permits were refused by Petitioner and violation notices dated October 22, 1975, were sent to Respondents indicating that Respondent was in violation of the outdoor advertising laws by erecting signs without permits and erecting "two separate signs erected illegally (which] can be seen from 1-95." After much correspondence between the parties, the matter was set-for hearing November 9, 1976, was thereafter continued and finally heard on July 12, 1977, more than two years after the erection of the signs. The signs were constructed on a county secondary road known as Ravenwood Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and more definitely located as "south from 3497 Ravenwood Road. The road is one lane in each direction and is the type of road usually known as a service road. The billboard signs are elevated to a height of approximately 25 feet from the ground to the top of the sign and sit back about 15 feet from the secondary road. Although the signs can easily be read by travelers on Ravenwood Road, signs designed primarily to serve this two lane road would as a practical matter have been much smaller and much closer to the ground and the message would have had smaller letters. The signs are a "visual overkill" for travelers on Ravenwood Road. See "Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1" and the Polaroid pictures taken from Ravenwood Road. The signs are elevated to less than 25 feet above 1-95. One sign is about 190 feet from the south lane of the interstate highway and the other about 191 feet from the south lane of the highway. Both signs are on the west side of the interstate highway. The two sign structures are approximately 300 feet apart. One sign is approximately 500 feet from an existing sign and the other is approximately 850 feet from an existing sign. The large size lettering on the large signs are clearly visible to the motoring public on interstate highway 1-95. Three of the four signs are visible and can easily be read by motorists going either north or south on the interstate highway. Evidence is unclear as to whether one side of one of the double space signs is clearly visible from the interstate highway. Copy on the signs is changed from time to time, but at the time the pictures entered into evidence were taken from the interstate highway, copy read, "WHITEHALL PRESTIGE LIQUORS A GREAT VODKA" and "HOLSUM Baked just right for you." The advertising is large and can be read in the Polaroid snapshots that were taken by Petitioner while on the interstate highway and entered in the record as "Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1." Application for sign permits was made June 16, 1975 to the Broward County Planning, Building and Zoning Department. Permits were issued by the county and were affixed to the signs. The Hearing Officer further finds: The subject signs were constructed primarily to be read by the public traveling on the interstate highway. The size of the signs, the size of the lettering, the elevation of the signs and the angle of the signs provide insurance that messages can be easily read by those traveling on the interstate. The traffic on the interstate is much heavier than traffic on Ravenwood Road. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent is in violation of outdoor advertising laws: No permit was applied for or granted before the outdoor advertising signs were constructed by Respondent. The signs were constructed primarily to be read by the public traveling on 1-95, an interstate highway. The setback of tho Respondent's signs is less than 660 feet from the interstate highway. The signs should be removed as violating the state statutes as well as the federal code laws, rules and regulations contained in the "Highway Beautification Act." Broward County has not submitted to the administrator of the state evidence that it has established effective control with regard to size, spacing, height and lighting requirements contrary to the agreement of the Governor authorized by Section 479.02. Broward County does not enforce any outdoor advertising requirements even if it could be shown the zoning was in compliance with Title 1 of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, U.S. Code as required by Section 479.02 and the agreement executed pursuant thereto. Respondent contends that: It secured permits from Broward County and attached them to the subject signs. Broward County had zoned the area M-3 and that it is a commercial zone. The signs were erected primarily to be read by the public traveling on Ravenwood Road. There are no spacing requirements of a thousand feet between advertising signs under the Florida law and that even if there were they had not been formerly charged with violating spacing requirements. Public Law 89-285, passed by the 89th Congress of the United States on October 22, 1965, allowed the states and the federal government to agree to set-back for signs nearer than 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right of way in areas zomed industrial or commercial. The agreement between the Governor and the federal government made provisions for local governments to regulate size, lighting and spacing requirements. That in fact the ratification of the Governor's Agreenent under Section 479.02 is not the enactment of a law. The Petitioner has in fact issued permits to others after signs have been constructed and should issue a permit for subject signs to Respondent. At the subject hearing the attorneys for both parties indicated that they desired to submit a Memorandum of Law but neither party submitted a memorandum.
Recommendation Require the Respondent to remove its signs within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order. Invoke the penalties of Section 479.18 for violation of Chapter 479. The Department of Transportation has ample enforcement power to remove the signs under Section 479.02 aside from the agreement: Brazil v. Division of Administration, 347 So.2d 755. See also Section 335.13 which states in part: "(1) No person shall erect any billboard or advertisement adjacent to the right-of-way of the state highway system, outside the corporate limits of any city or town, except as provided for in chapter 479." DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert D. Korner, Esquire 4790 Tamiami Trail W. 8th Street Coral Gables, Florida 33134
The Issue Whether Respondent's sign, as identified in Notice of Violation Number 1- 17-14, is permittable.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters concerned herein, Respondent, Berlin Sign Company, was engaged in the outdoor advertising business in Florida, and Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was the state agency charged with the responsibility for regulating outdoor advertising in this state. On or about March 30, 1989, Joseph V. Hanrahan, an outdoor advertising inspector for the Department of Transportation, observed a sign owned by the Respondent and erected under permit issued by Sarasota County, located approximately 60 feet south of River Road and 250 feet west of U.S. Highway 41, in Sarasota County, Florida. The sign is clearly visible from U.S. Highway 41, a federal aid primary highway and is located approximately 200 feet from a billboard facing in the same direction owned by National Advertising Company. Though a swampy area between the signs prevents an accurate measurement of the distance, Mr. Hanrahan is quite certain the distance is well within the 1,000 foot separation distance required by the Rules of the Department, and it is so found. River Road intersects with U.S. Highway 41, and though the sign in issue is primarily directed at traffic on River Road approaching U.S. Highway 41 from the east, due to the curve of U.S. Highway 41, the sign is readily visible from U.S. Highway 41 which almost parallels River Road at that point. The sign in issue advertises a real estate development located quite a distance to the north and west of the sign location. River Road is a primary feeder road from Interstate Highway 75 on the East to the area. Much of the traffic exiting the Interstate for this area utilizes River Road, and it is at this traffic the sign is aimed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued requiring Respondent, Berlin Sign Company, to remove the sign in question to a location consistent with the state requirements for sign adjacent to federal aid primary highways. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 28th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 J. Michael Berlin Berlin Sign Company 264 Bahama Street Venice, Florida 34285 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esquire Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
