Findings Of Fact Respondent owns a sign within 660 feet of the I-4 erected alongside SR 424A (Fairbanks Avenue) outside the corporate limits of Orlando or Winter Park, Florida, on the east side of I-4, an interstate highway. The sign is visible from the I-4 and the face of the sign is nearly parallel to the I-4. The sign is located within the interchange of the I-4, i.e., it is located within two lines running easterly and perpendicular to the commencement of the off ramp and end of the on ramp of the I-4 at the Fairbanks Avenue intersection. The I-4, which is considered to be an east-west highway, runs in a northwesterly-southeasterly direction where it crosses over Fairbanks Avenue, which runs generally east and west at this point. Respondent's sign is located in the vicinity (within 200 to 500 feet) of several signs erected by Peterson Advertising Company before 1971 and which are now permitted as nonconforming signs. These signs are erected along the curve of the eastbound (which at this location moves in a northwesterly direction) off ramp and are at varying angles with the I-4, but all can be seen from the I-4. Respondent's sign can be seen by both east and westbound traffic on the I-4; however, it is closer to the eastbound lane of traffic. Before the construction of this sign was completed, Respondent was advised the sign would not be permitted because it was within 1,000 feet of another sign on the same side of the I-4 facing in the same direction and within 500 feet of the interchange.
Findings Of Fact On July 24, 1987, a DOT outdoor advertising sign inspector observed a portable sign in front of Respondent's business establishment along U.S. 19 just north of SR 696A. The right-of-way along the west side of U.S. 19 extends 54 feet from the western edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. The sign was located 42 feet from the western edge of the pavement of U.S. 19. Thus the sign was clearly within the right of way. Respondent presented testimony that the widening of U.S. 19 had already led to the taking of half its property including a large sign advertising the business, and the development of sink holes had caused the sign to be moved closer to the highway.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to an order, requiring the removal of two signs involved herein which are owned by Respondent, pursuant to the Highway Beautification Act or Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and if so, whether or not the Respondent is entitled to compensation from Petitioner for the value of such signs.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the Respondent, National Advertising Company, is the owner of certain outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. The parties also stipulated that Interstate 95 is part of the interstate highway system; that the two signs in question can be seen from Interstate 95 and the signs are located within 660 feet of the road's right-of-way. The parties also stipulated that only the poles which are used to erect the signs were in place prior to midnight on December 8, 1971. It appears that the poles were erected sometime during 1968, and that faces were added to the poles during the spring of 1972. The signs are located at .43 miles North of Pecan Park Road and .73 miles North of Pecan Park Road, respectively, adjacent to Interstate percent Highway 95. The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, takes the position that since the faces were not on the signs prior to midnight on December 8, 1981, pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, it is entitled to the entry of an order requiring removal of the signs by Respondent without any compensation for the signs whatsoever. Respondent, through counsel, moved that the hearing be dismissed on the ground that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to hear such matters, in that the signs may be removed only by proceeding under Florida's eminent domain law. 2/ It is undisputed that the signs involved are located within prohibited distances as provided in Chapter; 479.11, Florida Statutes. They are, therefore, a nonconforming structure as provided for within the terms of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. In view of the stipulated facts, the structures involved herein do not constitute signs within the meaning of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, since prior to midnight on December 8, 1971, all that existed of those structures were poles. See A. W. Lee, Jr. v. Reubin O'D. Askew, Case No.2-1798 (2nd DCA, 1979). Within the next year, however, Respondent erected advertising displays which had informative contents that were visible from the main traveled way. At that point, the structures herein became nonconforming outdoor advertising signs and were thereafter required to comply with pertinent State law in effect on that date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, upon removal of the signs, remit to the Respondent compensation in the amount of the actual replacement value of the materials used in the signs. It is further recommended that compensation be made pursuant to the State's eminent domain procedures. 3/ RECOMMENDED this, 25th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's application to erect an outdoor advertising sign along the east side of U.S. 41, four miles north of CR-54 (Exhibit 1) was disapproved by Respondent because it was within 1,000 feet of a sign on the same side of U.S. 41 and facing in the same direction. U.S. 41 is a federal aid primary highway. The site applied for in Exhibit 1 is 963 feet south of an existing sign on the east side of U.S. 41 owned by Cotee Outdoor Advertising for which permits AE 482-35 and AR 483-35 have been issued. Petitioner's primary objection to the denial is the cost involved in relocating the existing sign some 35 feet to the north which would be necessary to have at least 1000 feet between the proposed site and an existing sign.
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 the sign of Petitioner should be removed for having been erected without a permit from the Respondent, the Department of Transportation.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice was issued by the Respondent against the Petitioner on August 18, 1977, alleging that Petitioner was in violation of Chapter 479.07(2) and Rule 14-10.04, inasmuch as Petitioner maintained a sign with no current tag visible, located .3 miles north of State Road 516 e/s on US Highway #1 (308 north, Mile Post 13.62) with copy "Fish Camp". Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. There was no dispute between the parties as to the location of the sign as cited in the violation notice but the parties stipulated that the copy of the subject sign advertised "Castaway Point, Scenic, Secluded, Relaxing, Enjoyable". It was undisputed that the sign carried no visible permit tag. There was no dispute that the sign was erected without a permit from the Respondent, Department of Transportation. The sign is a two faced sign, one faces north and one faces south. There is a permitted sign less than 500 feet from the subject sign facing the same way on the same side of the street, both for the north face and for the south face. There has been a sign located in the approximate position of the Petitioner's sign for many years advertising the business of the Petitioner over 100 feet away. The sign was lighted in 1975. The Petitioner contends: (a) that the first time he knew of the law was at the time he received the subject violation notice (b) that there are many other signs in the vicinity of his sign which are not 500 feet apart and which advertise businesses 100 miles away (c) that the Respondent, Department of Transportation, notified the large sign companies before the private individuals were notified and therefore gave the large sign companies the opportunity to permit their signs whereas the individuals had no opportunity to secure permits for their signs (d) that the public would have no way of finding Petitioner's business unless the sign is allowed to stand. The Respondent contends: (a) that the sign cannot be permitted inasmuch as it can not comply with the statutory spacing requirement in its present location and that it now stands without a current tag visible.
Recommendation Remove the Peittioner's sign, unless said sign is removed by Petitioner or is satisfactorily relocated within 10 days of the issuance of this order. DONE AND ENTERED 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: Mr. Gary Dotson 315 Bay Boulevard Palm Bay, Florida 32905 Philip Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs of Respondent are in violation of Florida Statute 479.07(1), sign being erected without a State permit. Whether the subject signs are in violation of the setback requirements of Section 479.11, Florida Statutes. Whether subject signs are new and different signs inasmuch as they have new copy, are materially elevated from the location of the previous signs and have catwalks and lights added, thus requiring a new application and permit. Whether subject signs are in violation of federal and State laws, rules and regulations and should be removed. Whether the federal regulations adopted in Section 479.02, F.S., would have to be adopted as a rule under Chapter 120, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent sign company has a sign located approximately 12.81 miles north of Dunn Avenue on the east side of I-95 facing south containing the following copy: "Ramada Inn Exit 7 Miles U.S. 17" The sign was increased in height from under ten (10) feet to twenty feet from the ground to the bottom of the sign, lights were added, and the catwalk was added to accommodate the change in advertisers. This extensive alteration was done in June of 1975 and copy was changed. The original sign was erected in May of 1968 and advertised "Shell Oil." Respondent sign company has a sign located approximately 8.81 miles south of Bowden Road on the west side of I-95 facing north and containing the following copy: "Family Inn of St. Augustine" The revised sign is located in an area zoned open rural, has been elevated and has had lights and catwalk added. The original sign had different copy and was erected and permitted in October of 1968. Permits had been issued for the two subject signs in the approximate location with different copy on them in October of 1968 or shortly thereafter. The new advertisers wanted the signs lighted and pay approximately $30 more per month for the lighted signs. The new signs now are much more visible. Both signs were elevated approximately ten (10) feet, new copy put on them and lights and catwalks added in April of 1976. Permits were applied for but the Petitioner Department of Transportation refused to issue permits stating that they were new signs, no new applications had been made and were obviously ineligible for permits inasmuch as the signs violated the setback requirements of Chapter 479 and the federal laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the Florida Legislature.
Recommendation Remove subject signs if said signs have not been removed by the owner within ten (10) days after entry of the final order herein, as no applications for permits were made or granted. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December, 1976 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 W. D. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 539 Winter Park , Florida 32789 George E. Hollis Branch Manager National Advertising Company Post Office Box 23208 Tampa, Florida 33622 Mr. Frank Whitesell Post Office Box 1089 Lake City, Florida 32055 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner Lamar Advertising Company-Lakeland (Lamar) rebuilt a billboard that it owns on the Florida Turnpike in violation of the law that limits the rebuilding of nonconforming signs.
Findings Of Fact Lamar is the owner of a billboard which displays outdoor advertising and is located on the Florida Turnpike near State Road 91 in Martin County. It is a "back-to-back" billboard with both north-facing and south-facing advertising. The advertising is permitted by DOT Outdoor Advertising Sign Permits 13882 and 13883, and the billboard bears tag numbers CC087 and CC088. The billboard was first built in 1972 and was acquired by Lamar in 1998. The billboard is 549 feet from the nearest sign to the south and 570 feet from the nearest sign to the north. When the sign was built, there were no minimum spacing requirements applicable to signs on the Florida Turnpike, which was classified by DOT as a secondary roadway. Before 1984, the minimum spacing requirement for "federal-aid primary highways" (primary roadways) was 500 feet. In 1984, Subsection 479.07(9), Florida Statutes, was amended to require a minimum spacing between signs on primary roadways of 1,000 feet. Subsection 479.07(9), Florida Statutes (1984), included a provision that not only grandfathered existing signs on primary roadways that were less than 1,000 feet from other signs, but went further to state that such signs, if conforming before the spacing requirement was changed, would not be construed thereafter as nonconforming. The significance of this provision is that signs on primary roadways that were more than 500 feet, but less than 1,000 feet from other signs in 1984, are not subject to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2), which limits the rebuilding of damaged nonconforming signs. In November 1995, the Florida Turnpike was added to the National Highway System. Thereafter, DOT treated the Florida Turnpike as a primary roadway. The reclassification of the Florida Turnpike from a secondary roadway to a primary roadway was not accomplished through a statute or DOT rule. DOT interprets the grandfathering provision in Subsection 479.07(9), Florida Statutes, to apply only to signs that were on primary roadways in 1984 when the 1,000-foot spacing requirement was established. Because the Florida Turnpike was not a primary roadway in 1984, DOT contends that signs on the Florida Turnpike less than 1,000 feet from other signs are nonconforming signs and are subject to the rebuilding limitations in Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(2). Hurricane Wilma struck Florida in October 2005. Mark Johnson, DOT's outdoor advertising inspector for the area that includes Martin County, testified that in late October or early November 2005, he saw that Lamar's billboard had been seriously damaged. He testified that he saw "everything down" and "poles splintered." He took photographs and made notes about his inspection of the damage. Mr. Johnson said he sent the photographs and notes from his October 2005 inspection to DOT headquarters in Tallahassee. Without explanation, they were not offered into evidence at the final hearing. Mr. Johnson testified that on December 7, 2007, he saw that the billboard was rebuilt. He inspected the billboard on that date, and he believes that the six poles that support the billboard are new poles. He saw and photographed old sign materials, including at least one pole, on the ground next to the billboard. It cannot be determined from the photograph whether the pole on the ground is splintered. Lamar denies that the billboard was destroyed and then reconstructed between October and December 2005. It presented the testimony of its real estate/leasing manager, David Henry, who stated that the billboard was not destroyed by the hurricane, and none of its six support poles were replaced. Mr. Henry showed that none of the leasing or maintenance records of Lamar indicate that the billboard was rebuilt. Neither party seemed to recognize the significance to this dispute of photographs of the billboard taken in August and November 2005. Petitioner's Exhibit 3I is a September 2, 2005, letter from DOT to Lamar, informing Lamar that the billboard had been without advertising for 10 months and was about to be deemed abandoned. One of the photographs attached to the letter and admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 3J was taken on August 31, 2005, two months before Mr. Johnson's first inspection. Petitioner's Exhibit 2, which is some general information about Lamar's sign permits that is accessible from DOT's internet website, includes photographs of the billboard taken on November 19, 2005, just after Mr. Johnson's first inspection. To reconcile Mr. Johnson's testimony with the November 19, 2005, photographs, it would be necessary to find that the photographs depict the billboard very soon after it was rebuilt. However, there are no discernible changes in the main structural elements of the billboard as they appear in the November 2005 photographs from how they appear in the August 2005 photographs. The November photographs do not appear to show a billboard that was just constructed. The old sign materials on the ground that appear in photographs taken by Mr. Johnson on December 7, 2005, would not have been visible to him in October 2005 because of the dense vegetation around the billboard that existed in October 2005. Lamar removed much of that vegetation before Mr. Johnson's December 2005 inspection.1/ The old sign materials could have been there long before October 2005. Lamar removed the advertising sign facings from the billboard when Hurricane Wilma was approaching to avoid damage to the sign facings and billboard and replaced the sign facings before Mr. Johnson's December 2005 inspection. Mr. Johnson appeared to be a credible witness, but he might have been confused by Lamar's temporary removal of the sign facings from the billboard and the clearing of vegetation that exposed old sign materials on the ground next to the billboard. On this record and without Mr. Johnson's October 2005 photographs that purport to show Lamar's billboard to be substantially destroyed, DOT failed to prove that more than 50 percent of the structural materials in the billboard was replaced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a final order rescinding its Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit regarding Outdoor Advertising Sign Permits 13882 and 13883. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 8th day of June, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has applied for a permit, and proposes to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the east side of Interstate 110, 1.5 miles north of Fairfield Drive in Escambia County, Florida. This sign would face east and west, with the copy on the face which is the subject of this proceeding facing west. Interstate 110 is a north-south highway at the point where the Petitioner's sign is proposed to be erected. The Department of Transportation has issued two permits to Lamar Advertising for an outdoor advertising sign located on the east side of I-110, approximately 320 feet north of the site of the Petitioner's proposed sign. These Lamar Advertising permits are for the north face and the south face of the Lamar sign which can be read by traffic traveling both north and south on I-110. Although the Petitioner's proposed sign would face west, the copy would be visible to northbound traffic on I-110 and to some extent to southbound traffic there. The Petitioner's sign as proposed could be seen by the same traffic as can see the Lamar Advertising sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of A. Barry Shuck, d/b/a Designs Custom Signs, for a permit to erect an outdoor advertising sign on Interstate 110, 1.5 miles north of Fairfield Drive in Escambia County, Florida, be DENIED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 16th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 132301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. A. Barry Shuck Designs Custom Signs 102 Pine Court Pace, Florida 32570 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg. M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Billboard Consultants for permits to erect outdoor advertising signs on Prudential Drive (U.S. 1), 90 feet south of Flagler Avenue, facing south, in Jacksonville (Duval County), Florida, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 22nd 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 22nd day of April, 1985.
