The Issue Whether the Respondent erected and maintained outdoor advertising signs without a proper permit and in violation of the set-back laws of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent erected an outdoor advertising sign approximately one (1) mile east of State Road 79 on the north side of Interstate 10 right-of-way. The copy on the face of the sign read: "Rich's Truck Stop, Restaurant, Travel Park, CB Radio Shop, Texaco, This Exit." The distance from the sign to the nearest edge of the pavement of I-10 was approximately two hundred thirty-one (231) feet. The Respondent, Mr. Rich, speaking for the partnership Rich Oil Company admitted that the sign was located as stated in the violation notice. The sign was located in a rural area not zoned by a city or by a county. Respondent erected a second sign located approximately .5 of a mile west of Florida Secondary 181 on the north side of I-10 right-of-way. The sign is painted on the side of a trailer. The size of the sign is nine (9) feet high and forty (40) feet long. The copy states: "Rich's Truck Stop, Exit Highway 79, Marker 111, Open 24 Hours, Restaurant, Camping, Texaco." The trailer with the sign on it is located approximately one hundred three (103) feet from the nearest edge of the pavement of I-10. The trailer with the sign painted on it is standing in a pasture in a rural unzoned area. The Respondent Mr. Rich agreed as to the approximate location of the subject sign. No application for permit was made by the Respondent for either of the two subject signs. Respondent received a Violation Notice from Petitioner stating the signs were in violation of the set-back regulations and were in violation of the statute requiring a state permit. Contrary to the contentions of Respondent, the Hearing Officer finds that both of the signs which are the subject of this hearing and herein described are in fact "signs." The second described sign painted on the side of a trailer is a "sign" within the standard definition "a lettered board or other display used to identify or advertise a place of business," Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Copyright 1974 by G. and C. Merriam Company.
Recommendation Remove both of the subject signs within ten (10) days of the issuance of the Final Order unless said signs have been previously removed by the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of February, 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. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Russell A. Cole, Jr., Esquire 123 North Oklahoma Street Bonifay, Florida 32425 Mr. Glen E. Rich Rich Oil Company U.S. 90 West Bonifay, Florida 32425 Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428
Findings Of Fact In May of 1980, the Petitioner, Peterson Outdoor Advertising purchased a sign from Lamar Advertising Company. This sign is located on the east side of State Road 434, approximately 350 feet north of State Road 50 in Orange County, Florida. This sign is a stacked, back to back structure, having two faces which face north and south. The face which is the subject of this proceeding is the south face which faces northbound traffic on State Road 434. This face is visible to traffic on the main-traveled way of State Road 50. When the Petitioner purchased the subject sign from Lamar, it checked the records of Lamar, and the records of the Department of Transportation and the orange County Building and Zoning Department, to ascertain that the sign had all required building permits, electrical permits, county permits and state permits, and that the sign site was a legal location. The sign had all the permits that were required. The relevant document from the Department of Transportation pertaining to the subject sign was a letter dated March 13, 1978, from the Department's district office to Lamar. This letter returned the permit applications that had been submitted by Lamar in February of 1978 seeking permits for the subject sign, for the reason that "your applications do not require a state permit". The parties stipulated that, prior to May of 1984, the personnel of the Department's Fifth District gave advice that signs along non-controlled roads within 660 feet of a federal-aid primary highway did not need a state sign permit. The Petitioner relied on the determination of the Department that the subject sign site did not require a state permit, and purchased the sign from Lamar. In May of 1984 the Fifth District personnel of the Department corrected their erroneous prior interpretation of the statutes and rules they administer, and permits were thereafter required for all signs within 660 feet of a federal-aid primary highway if they were visible from the main-traveled way of the controlled road. On July 1, 1985, the Department's outdoor advertising inspector advised the Petitioner that the south faces of the subject sign required a state permit. These are the faces in question in this proceeding. In compliance with this advice from the Department, the Petitioner filed permit applications for both the north faces and the south faces of the subject sign. The Department returned the applications for the north faces for the reason that a permit was not required. The north faces are not involved in this proceeding. The Department denied the Petitioner's applications for the south faces by memorandum dated October 8, 1985, for the reason that these faces conflicted with permits held by Maxmedia, Inc., in that they were not located more than 1,000 feet from the Maxmedia sign. The Maxmedia permits authorized a sign which was erected at a point 740 feet from the subject sign of the Respondent. The permits held by Maxmedia were issued by the Department on May 8, 1984. Prior to July 1, 1984, the spacing rule for signs on a federal-aid primary highway required 500 feet between signs. On July 1, 1984, this spacing requirement was increased to require 1,000 feet on a federal-aid primary highway. State Road 50 is a federal-aid primary highway, and the area within 660 feet from State Road 50 is a controlled area. The Petitioner's sign 350 feet north of State Road 50 was more than 500 feet from any other structure prior to July 1, 1984. It is not more than 1,000 feet from the Maxmedia signs now, however.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Peterson Outdoor Advertising for a permit on the east side of State Road 434, approximately 350 feet north of State Road 50, facing south, in Orange County, Florida, be GRANTED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 29th day of October, 1986, 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 29th day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 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
Findings Of Fact The sign at issue in this case was the subject of an earlier administrative hearing conducted in DOAH Case Nos. 83-1180T and 83-1181T on November 8, 1984. That consolidated proceeding arose as a result of a notice of illegal sign issued by the Department against Herbert J. Shaw, Sr., and Donna Shaw, his wife, alleging they were the owners of a sign located on the State's right-of-way. The transcript of that formal hearing shows that the Department presented its case-in-chief and then rested. Those Respondents began presenting their evidence. A discussion was then held off the record, after which an announcement was made on the record that those Respondents had agreed with the Department's position, that they had withdrawn their request for an administrative hearing, and that the matter would be finally resolved in one of two ways: 1) those Respondents would purchase from the Department the amount of property required to eliminate any encroachment of the sign in question, or 2) the Department would remove the sign. The proceeding was then adjourned, and an Order Closing Files was entered by the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. On December 13, 1984, a document entitled Final Order was entered by the Secretary of the Department that provided, in part, as follows: Because the formal requests for hearing made by the Respondents have been withdrawn, it is ordered that these cases be dismissed. It is further ordered that the outdoor advertising signs be removed pursuant to agreement of the parties (R-31) if within a reasonable amount of time an agreement between the parties cannot be reached as to a price and amount of property to be conveyed to the Respondents to eliminate the encroachment of the Respondent's signs on the Petitioner's right-of-way. Thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Shaw, Sr., and the Department did not pursue the purchase and sale of part of the right-of-way. Further, the Department did not remove the sign. It appears that none of the parties to that prior action treated the "Final Order" as a final order. Rather, 5 1/2 years later the Department issued a new Notice of Illegal Sign and advised Mr. and Mrs. Shaw, Sr., that they could request an administrative hearing to determine the merits of that Notice, which is the subject matter of this action. At the beginning of the April 25, 1991, final hearing, Respondents Shaw, Sr., moved to have the style of the case amended to substitute Herbert J. Shaw, Jr., Trustee, the successor property owner, as the Respondent. Upon correction of the style, the Department made an ore tenus motion to dismiss, asserting that the 1984 final order was dispositive of all issues in the current case. The hearing was adjourned to permit Respondent to investigate that assertion and file a memorandum in response to the motion. That motion was subsequently denied, and this cause was again noticed for final hearing. However, that hearing was cancelled to permit the parties to this cause to negotiate for the sale or lease of the Department's right-of-way to Respondent. Those negotiations proved unsuccessful, and the final hearing was re-scheduled for, and conducted on, December 23, 1992. The sign in question is located in front of a restaurant which is located on Respondent's property in Key Largo, adjacent to State Road 5 (SR-5), which is also known as U.S. Highway 1. SR-5 is a part of the State Highway System. The sign is within the Department's SR-5 right-of-way. The outdoor advertising sign in question has been in the same location since 1973. Although it appears that a permit was obtained by Respondent or by his father from Monroe County, no permit for the sign was ever applied for or obtained from the Department. In 1972 or 1973, Respondent or his father presented to the Department a survey in conjunction with an application for driveway permits. Although that survey noted in some fashion the location of the sign in question, the location of the sign was not specifically brought to the attention of the Department's employees reviewing the application for driveway permits. Neither Respondent nor his father intentionally or knowingly placed the sign within the Department's right-of-way. It appears that the source of the error may have been a survey performed around 1972 which utilized a Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority plan sheet to determine the location of the Department's right-of-way. Those plan sheets have never been relied upon by the Department to show the location of its right-of-way, and no evidence was offered that the Department was the source of any erroneous information which may have been included on that plan sheet. The Department itself has made no representation which would have suggested to Respondent or to his father that the outdoor advertising sign was not located within the Department's right-of-way. On December 21, 1992, Petitioner filed its Notice of Intent to Seek Costs and Attorneys Fees. At the final hearing, the Department offered no evidence as to any costs or attorneys fees incurred by it, or the reasonableness thereof. Since the Department has thereby abandoned any claim to costs and attorneys fees pursuant to Rule 1.380(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, no findings regarding the entitlement thereto or the reasonableness thereof are made in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent's outdoor advertising sign to be located within the Department's right-of-way and requiring its removal. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 3rd day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-5260T Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 15, and 16 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 7-9 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 11-14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 10, and 11 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Herbert J. Shaw, Jr. Post Office Box 507 Key Largo, Florida 33037 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor G. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Respondent is trustee for the owner of the sign advertising Riverfront Lots located adjacent to State Road 200 (A1A) 10.34 miles east of U.S. 1. SR 200 is a federal-aid primary highway. No permit has ever been issued for this sign and the land on which the sign is erected is zoned Open Rural.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding was erected on Bennett Road, approximately 280 feet north of the intersection of Bennett Road with State Road 50, in Orange County, Florida. This location is approximately 1.4 miles west of SR 436, as alleged in the violation notice. The subject sign is located on the west side of Bennett Road facing north and south which is parallel to State Road 50. State Road 50 is a federal-aid primary highway. Bennett Road 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 1984, the Respondent had applied for a permit to erect a sign along a non-controlled road within 660feet of a federal-aid primary highway, and had been advised by Department personnel that a state permit was not required (See Case No. 85- 3017T which was heard contemporaneously with the subject case). The sign which is the subject of this proceeding was erected without a permit based on the Respondent's knowledge of the Department's position that a permit was not required, as expressed to the Respondent previously in 1984. The subject sign is visible to traffic on State Road 50, although it is perpendicular to Bennett Road and parallel to State Road 50. There is another permitted sign owned by National Advertising Company located on the north side of State Road 50, east of the Bennett Road intersection, approximately 114 feet from the subject sign. The National sign faces east and west, not north and south, and it is not on Bennett Road. Another permitted sign owned by Peterson Outdoor Advertising is located on the north side of State Road 50, approximately 475 feet west of the Bennett Road intersection. This sign faces east and west, not north and south as the subject sign does, and it is not on Bennett Road as the subject sign is.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent, Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation, 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 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1986. 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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The sign which is the subject of this proceeding is an outdoor advertising structure owned by the Respondent, which has been erected on the south side of Interstate 10, approximately 2.5 miles west of State Road 12 in Gadsden County, Florida, between 10 and 25 feet from the right-of-way fence. This sign does not have affixed to it a state sign permit, and none has been applied for. The subject sign has been erected a measured 814 feet from another sign which has been permitted by the Department of Transportation. The location where the subject sign has been erected is an unzoned area Qf Gadsden County. Gadsden County had no zoning at the time when the violation notice was issued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign adjacent to Interstate 10, approximately 2.5 miles west of State Road 12 in Gadsden County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 19th day of October, 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 19th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 W. A. Woddiam, President Beaver Lake Campground P. O. Box 331 Quincy, Florida 32351
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 Respondent was in violation of Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, providing for the permitting of outdoor advertising structures.
Findings Of Fact Respondent maintained two outdoor advertising signs adjacent to U.S. Highway 90 in Gadsden County, Florida. The first sign listed on the notice of outdoor advertising law violation dated August 5, 1974, has been removed. No further action is necessary in regards to this sign. The second sign listed on the August 5, 1974, Notice of Violation is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 90 1/2 mile West of the city limits of Quincy, Florida. The second sign was not permitted in the years 1973 or 1974. Respondent has not made application for a current permit as of the date of hearing.
Findings Of Fact State Road 51 is a federal-aid primary highway where it crosses County Road C-349 in Suwannee County. The signs were erected in the spring of 1982 and no application for permit was submitted and no permit has been issued for these signs. The signs are visible from SR 51 and are intended to give to the passing public the directions to Respondent's place of business. Without such directions, the business is difficult to locate. The signs are erected within 660 feet of SR 51 in an unzoned area outside the corporate limits of any town or city. The signs are located 58 feet from the edge of SR 51 and 50 feet from C-349.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by the Respondents situated on Interstate 95, 1.26 miles north of State Road 528, in Brevard County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 1st day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. Richard L. Schneible and Mrs. Mary Joan Schneible Post Office Box 727 Sharpes, Florida 32959 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building - Room 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
