Findings Of Fact This proceeding was initiated when the Department notified the Respondent, Headrick Outdoor Advertising, that its permits numbered AD089-10 and AD090-10 were being revoked because the Respondent no longer had permission of the property owner to maintain a sign there, as required by Section 479.07(7), Florida Statutes. Permits numbered AD089-10 and AD090-10 authorized an outdoor advertising sign on U.S. 98, 100 feet west of Hickory Avenue in Bay county, Florida. The record owner of the property where the above permits authorized the Respondent to locate a sign is E. Clay Lewis III, Trustee, who took title by deed in 1977. By letter dated August 9, 1985, the property owner notified the Respondent that the subject property was being sold, and that the Respondent had 30 days to remove the sign from the property and cancel the outdoor advertising permits for this sign. By letter dated October 17, 1985, the property owner advised the Department that the Respondent no longer had a valid lease for the site where the subject permits authorized a sign, and that the signs had been removed. Documents marked Exhibits 1-3 reflect the foregoing, as does the testimony of the Department's outdoor advertising inspector. This evidence was received without objection from the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AD089-10 and Ad090-10 held by the Respondent, Headrick Outdoor Advertising, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 31st day of July, 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 31st day of July, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 William G. Warner, Esquire P. O. Box 335 Panama City, Florida 32402 Bobbie Palmer, Esquire P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. 8palla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, J. B. Davis, Jr., owns an outdoor advertising sign which is situated on the south side of I-10, 1.23 miles east of U.S. 211, in Madison County, Florida. This sign faces westbound traffic. I-10 is a part of the interstate highway system, and it is open to traffic. The subject sign is visible from the main traveled way of I-10. There is no zoning in Madison County, Florida. The subject sign has been erected and is situated beyond 800 feet from any existing business, and it is within 660 feet from the right-of-way of I-10. The subject sign does not have a permit issued by the Department of Transporation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign situated on the south side of I-10, 1.23 miles east of U.S. 211, facing westbound traffic, in Madison County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 3rd day of April, 1985, 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 3rd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. B. Davis President J. B. Davis, Inc. Base and Duval Streets Madison, Florida 32340 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether subject sign is in violation of state and federal law for the reason that no permit was secured at time of erection of subject sign.
Findings Of Fact Respondent proceeded to erect subject sign prior to January 29, 1975, and continued such erection after January 29, 1975, the date a Notice of Outdoor Advertising Violation was served on Respondent Corporation by the District Sign Inspector. Said notice of violation notified Respondent that Respondent Corporation was in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes or Section 335.13, Florida statutes for the reason that no permit had been secured and that the erection of said sign was in violation of the specific requirement of Chapter 479, Florida statutes inasmuch as subject sign was approximately 250' from an existing sign. Respondent continued to erect subject sign despite objections from the Florida Department of Transportation. On the date of the hearing the Respondent testified that as of that date an application had been made and permit had been approved. The sign coordinator testified that the sign which had been permitted and which was so spaced to prohibit the building of Respondent's sign had been removed after the Notice of Hearing had been set. The complainant contended that Respondent erected subject sign without first applying for a permit; that after Notice of Violation Respondent disregarded the notice and the law and continued to build subject sign; that not until notice of this hearing was received did Respondent "buy out" the offending sign which prohibited the issuance of permits. The Respondent did not deny that no permit was issued before erection of subject sign but contends that permits have now been issued.
The Issue Whether the sign of Petitioner is in violation of the Florida Statutes, Outdoor Advertising Law, Chapter 479 and particularly Chapter 479.07 for having erected this sign in violation of the zoning regulations and without a permit from the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact An alleged violation notice was sent to Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation, Petitioner, by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, on July 27, 1977. The notice indicated that the sign owned by Petitioner located 300 feet north of 5-227, U.S. Highway 301 in Bradford County, Florida, with a blank copy was in violation of Ch. 479, Florida Statutes, Rule 14-10-05 (1)(a), Not zone for conforming sign - sign erected in a zoned agricultural area. Ch. 479.07(1) Florida Statutes, Rule 14-10.04 Sign erected without first [sic] obtaining a permit. A violation notice was received by Michael S. Nelson, lease representative for the Respondent, and a letter was sent to the District Administrator for Outdoor Advertising, Florida Department of Transportation, acknowledging receipt of the violation notice and requesting the Department of Transportation to set the cause for hearing. This administrative hearing is the result of such request. The Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corporation made an application for permit for a sign to be located at the location the subject sign now stands. The application for a permit was not approved for the stated reason that the requested location was in a zoned open rural area and outdoor advertising could not be permitted in such a location. Petitioner was so notified. Nevertheless a sign was erected by Petitioner and Respondent's inspectors found said sign at the location with no copy on it at the first inspection. Subsequent to that inspection, the sign was finished by Petitioner to advertise McDonalds, with the large golden "M", further stating: "Campers/ Buses 3 Miles Ahead on the Right, Open at 7:00 for Breakfast." The sign was erected without a permit in a zoned open rural area in Bradford County. The sign is approximately 15 feet off the right of way of Highway 301 in open rural country at least 3 miles from any industrial or commercial areas. Petitioner contends that he applied for a permit to erect the sign at the subject location but that his application was denied. Regardless, he erected the sign and has been endeavoring to have the rural area rezoned. Respondent, Department of Transportation, contends that the erection of the subject sign is in violation of the law inasmuch as it is the duty of the Department of Transportation to grant a permit before a sign is erected. Respondent further contends that the area in which the sign is located is in open rural country and the proposed sign location, even if it were rezoned to allow outdoor advertising, could not be permitted by the Department inasmuch as such rezoning would be "spot zoning" and contrary to the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, Title 1 of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and Title 23, U.S. Code and contrary to the concept of "effective control" by the Florida Department of Transportation which has the duty to control outdoor advertising for the State of Florida. In response to a request to the Bradford County Zoning Commission, the following letter was received: Pursuant to our conversation on November 7, relating to the zoning classification of the C. M. Ritch property located approximately 2 miles South of Starke on Hwy. 301, the property is zoned Open Rural and under Bradford County Zoning Ordinances does allow outdoor advertising signs. The area in which the sign was erected is the area indicated in the letter. The Petitioner intentionally erected its sign in the open rural area of Bradford County and continues to allow it to stand although the Bradford County Zoning Ordinances show that no outdoor advertising is to be allowed.
Recommendation Remove the sign of Respondent for intentionally erecting a sign in an unzoned rural area without a permit from the Department of Transportation. Invoke the penalties provided in Section 479.18, Florida Statutes, for both the Petitioner and for the McDonald Corporation whose goods and services are advertised. Section 479.13, Penalties, provides: Any person, violating any provision of this chapter whether as principal, agent or employee for which violation no other penalty is prescribed, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in Section 775.083: and such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each month during any portion of which any violation off this chapter is committed, continued or permitted. The existence of any advertising copy on any outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign or advertisement outside incorporated towns and cities shall constitute prima facie evidence that the said outdoor advertising sign or advertisement was constructed, erected, operated, used, maintained or displayed with the consent and approval and under the authority of the person whose goods or services are advertised thereon. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 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 Rick Hurst, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Michael S. Nelson Lease Representative Peterson Outdoor Advertising Corp. P. O. Box 301 Ocala, Florida 32670 L. M. Gaines, Director Bradford County Zoning Commission P. O. Drawer B Starke, Florida 32091 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN RE: PETERSON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE FOR JUDICIAL Petitioner, REVIEW AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Respondent. / CASE NO. 77-1432T
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 On January 18, 1984, Ms. Vana Kinchen, Petitioner's inspector, examined Respondent's billboard in question, located somewhat North of 8th Street (Glendale Road) on the northbound side of U.S. Highway 1 in Indian River County, Florida, and discovered that the permit tag which was supposed to be affixed to the billboard was not there. DOT records reflect the permit in force for that billboard at the time was number 3515-10. Ms. Kinchen immediately contacted the Respondent's representative, Mr. Gustinelli, and told him there was a billboard owned by Respondent at that location without a tag. She requested he check it out and get back to her. When he did so the same day, Mr. Gustinelli told her that Respondent's records showed the billboard had been taken down because they had lost the lease on the property where it had been situated. Ms. Kinchen again told him that the billboard was in fact still there and for him to again check and see what was going to be done with it. When Respondent took no action to rectify the situation, Ms. Kinchen wrote a report of violation on this billboard on March 20, 1984, which reflected it was sited 100 feet north of Glendale Road on the northbound side of U.S. 1, and sent it in to her headquarters. On May 14, 19841 she received a notice from DOT headquarters directing her to remove the offending billboard. She immediately contacted Mr. Gustinelli and asked him again to check on the status of the sign. When she again contacted him on May 29, 1984, he again advised her that Respondent's records showed that the sign at the location described by Ms. Kinchen had been taken down previously. On June 18, 1984, Ms. Kinchen was told by Mr. Fred Harper, Petitioner's District Administrator, to give Respondent 30 more days to get the sign down. Upon the expiration of this period, the sign was removed by Ms. Kinchen and a crew from DOT. In early September, 1984, after she had taken the sign down, she discovered that Respondent had erected a new sign within inches of the site of the previous one. When she checked this new sign on October 4, 1984, she discovered that it had no permit tag affixed to it. At the same time, Ms. Kinchen noticed that the sign in question was located 250 feet south of another signboard along the same side of the highway. To get this figure, she measured the distance along the edge of the pavement with a tape-measure. The sign to the north does not face the same way as the sign in issue here, however. Ms. Kinchen admits that prior to the change in the law in July, 1984, the sign in question here, if bearing a proper permit tag, would have been a legal, conforming signboard under the old statute and Respondent could have removed it and replaced it with another as it wished. When Ms. Kinchen wrote the citation for the replacement signboard in October, 1984, she described its location as 25 feet north of 8th Street on the northbound side of U.S. 1 (as opposed to 100 feet north of Glendale Road on the northbound side of U.S. 1). This is different from the location listed on the earlier citation which was given to Mr. Gustinelli. Though Ms. Kinchen insists the original sign which she cut down and its replacement were in the same place, and that the two citations refer to the same sign, the information provided to Respondent was different. There was no explanation by either party as to how close these described locations actually were though there is no doubt the citations do refer to the same sign. This lack of certainty may have been confusing to Respondent and have contributed to its failure to take appropriate corrective action. In fact, Mr. Richard Solamine, Respondent's District Manager, so contends, indicating that when given the first location by Ms. Kinchen, they determined they had no sign at that location and so decided to do nothing about it. This does not, however, excuse their failure to insure that the new sign, which they erected on the site of the old one, had a proper permit tag affixed. The fact remains that they knew it did not, (they applied for a replacement in July, 1984), but did not follow up to insure that the replacement was issued and affixed to the new sign. When the "take down" notice for the sign covered by permit 3515.10 was issued by DOT, that permit was canceled and Respondent has not been billed for it since then in the annual bill DOT sends out. Once the sign is removed, and a certificate to that effect is received from the field, the permit number for that sign is removed from the inventory of the local district and sent to DOT headquarters with the certificate of removal. This effectively cancels the permit and it is no longer billed to the permittee. Even though this was done here, Respondent re-erected the sign. Mr. Harper admits that under the law which existed prior to July, 1984, DOT may not have had the authority to extinguish Respondent's permit. If Respondent had voluntarily taken the sign down at that time, while the permit was valid, and had continued to pay the yearly renewal fee for the permit, it would still be good even if the sign were not replaced. Also, if the permit was valid when the sign was taken down, and was renewed each year, a new sign could still be erected legally using that permit. Any permit issued prior to July, 1984 which was legal and conforming, remained legal and conforming if renewed. Respondent has not been billed for permit 3515.10 since 1984. Respondent showed that it applied for replacement for a lost tag on July 31, 1984, forwarding a check for the $3.00 replacement fee. Respondent could not show, however, that a replacement was issued at that time or that it had paid renewal fees in 1985 or 1986. The evidence offered by Respondent to establish this was rejected as incompetent. It is found, therefore, that Respondent has not renewed permit number 3515.10 and did not affix a permit tag to the reconstructed offending sign subsequent to July, 1984. Though the citation issued by Ms. Kinchen on October 4, 1984 show improper citations of statute and rule in some instances, the lists of violations are properly described in words and Respondent could not have been misled thereby.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order in this case directing that the sign in question herein be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of December, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 11th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4171T The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Incorporated in Findings of Fact 1, 3, and 4. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Incorporated in Findings of Fact 8-10. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1 & 2. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Accepted but not incorporated due to irrelevance except for the fact that Ms. Kinchen issued the notice of violation which is incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 2. 5-7. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 3. 8. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4. 9. Accepted. 10. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 11. Incorporated in Finding of Fact 4 except for the second sentence which is misleading. 12. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Proposed Finding of Fact implies the removed signboard was conforming. It was not since the permit tag was missing. 13. Not a Finding of Fact, but a recitation of the testimony of a witness. 14. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. 15. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151
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's initial proposal to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it occurred or was otherwise substantially justified; or, if not, whether special circumstances would make an award of costs and fees unjust?
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1988, petitioner proposed to erect a sign facing east, within 15 feet of an existing outdoor advertising sign, on the north side of State Road 200, approximately .6 miles west of the intersection of State Road 200 and I-75. He planned to place a single face at such an angle to the existing, single-faced sign that a V configuration would result. Another outdoor advertising company held a permit for the existing sign, which faced west. It stood on property belonging to a land owner who did not own the property to the east on which Ray proposed to raise its sign. On November 10, 1988, the Department of Transportation issued a notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a permit to construct the outdoor advertising sign. Petitioner reasonably incurred attorneys' fees of $787.50 and costs of $28.00 before Department of Transportation decided, well after the evidentiary hearing held April 5, 1989, to issue the permit, after all. As far as the record reveals, the Department has faced only one other situation in which an applicant for a permit to construct a sign, within 15 feet of an existing sign, proposed to build on property not owned by the land owner who had leased to the company which had built the existing sign, viz., Ad-Con Outdoor Advertising v. Department of Transportation, No. 89- 0087T. In that case, too, the Department issued a permit for the second sign. In an internal memorandum dated February 17, 1989, respondent's Rivers Buford wrote Dallas Gray, while the Ad-Con application was pending, the following: Inasmuch as the proposed sign would be within fifteen feet of another sign it would, by virtue of the provisions of Rule Chapter 14-10.1006(1)(b)3, be considered a part of a V-type sign and thus its two faces would be exempt from the minimum spacing requirements of Section 479.07, F.S. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. The memorandum antedated the final hearing in Case No. 88-6107 by more than six weeks. Presumably, the intended rule reference was to Rule 14-10.006(1)(b)3., Florida Administrative Code. At the hearing in the present case, the Department of Transportation produced two witnesses to explain why the Department initially turned down petitioner's application. In their view, the Department of Transportation should never have granted petitioner's application, in order to protect rights vested in the other company, particularly a purported, preemptive right the other company had, by virtue of the location of its existing sign, to build another sign where Ray proposed to build, even though the other company did not own and had not leased the site Ray applied to build on. They asserted not only that the Department was substantially justified in turning down petitioner's application when it was originally considered, but also that any other similar application should be turned down. In their opinion, the Department erred in issuing permits in both cases in which the question has arisen. They attributed the eventual issuance of permits to petitioner and in the Ad-Con case to misinformed and misguided departmental employees. As authority for this view, Mr. Kissinger, respondent's Motorist Information Services Coordinator, cited Sections 479.07(9)(a) and 479.01(14), Florida Statutes (1989) and Rule 14-10.006(b)(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code.
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 The Respondent, J. B. Davis, Inc., owns an outdoor advertising sign which is situated on the south side of I-10, .14 mile west of C-255, in Madison County, Florida. The sign faces eastbound traffic. I-10 is a part of the interstate highway system, and it is open to traffic. The subject sign is visible from the main traveled way of I-10. There is no zoning in Madison County, Florida. The subject sign has been erected and is situated beyond 800 feet from any existing business, and it is within 660 feet from the right-of-way of I-10. The subject sign does not have a permit issued by the Department of Transportation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign situated on the south side of I-10, .14 mile west of C-255, facing eastbound traffic, in Madison County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 3rd day of April, 1985, 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 3rd day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. J. B. Davis President J. B. Davis, Inc. Base and Duval Streets Madison, Florida 32340 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
