Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. HI-WAY ADVERTISING, 88-000884 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-000884 Latest Update: May 09, 1988

Findings Of Fact During an inspection of signs along U. S. 19, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's signs 1/2 and 3/4 mile south of C. R. 582 which appeared to be on the right-of-way of U. S. 19. U. S. 19 is a Federal Aid Primary Highway and a part of the State Highway System. The right-of-way of U. S. 19 at this location extends 100 feet east and west of the centerline of U. S. 19 and 50 feet from the edge of the pavement of U. S. 19. Measurements taken from the edge of the pavement of U. S. 19 to the sign 3/4 mile south of C. R. 582 revealed the sign to be 42 feet from the edge of the pavement. The other sign measured 43 feet from the edge of U. S. 19. Accordingly, both signs were on the right-of-way of U. S. 19. Generally, the telephone poles and power line poles are erected along the DOT right-of-way of roads in the State Highway System, and the line of these poles is usually believed to mark the right-of-way boundary. Photographs of Respondent's signs showed those signs to be erected just touching this pole line, but outside that line. Photographs submitted by Respondent also showed other signs clearly on the right-of-way which were not cited as being in violation. One of these signs advertised Job Services of Florida, a state agency. The DOT inspector testified this sign was not cited because he understood state owned signs were exempt from the-no sign on right- of-way statute.

Florida Laws (2) 479.107479.11
# 2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ART, INC., 77-001745 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-001745 Latest Update: Feb. 20, 1978

Findings Of Fact Outdoor Advertising Art, Inc. is the owner of a 12 x 40 foot sign located on State Road 540 in Polk County. The records of the Department of Transportation show the last valid permit for this sign was issued in 1973. The Respondent forgot to renew the permit for 1974 due to clerical error of its staff although it received notice as required by statute from the Department of Transportation. On October 2, 1975, Outdoor Advertising Art, Inc. attempted to obtain a permit for this sign for the year 1974 and 1975, and tendered a check to Department of Transportation in the amount of $20. In doing so, the Respondent relied upon what it stated the policy of the Department had been regarding renewal of delinquent permits; however, it did not fail to renew in reliance on this policy but through its own oversight. The Department of Transportation denied the permit on the sign which did not conform to the existing rules and regulations adopted by the State of Florida as part of the federal highways beautification program. Testimony was received that delinquent applications have been allowed to be filed by the Department of Transportation, but not in District I of the Department of Transportation.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Hearing Officer recommends that the sign be removed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 539 Winter Park, Florida 32789

Florida Laws (1) 479.07
# 4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. JIM DAVENPORT, 87-005190 (1987)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-005190 Latest Update: May 20, 1988

The Issue Whether Respondent's sign is in violation of the applicable Florida Statutes?

Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner of a sign located 3.138 miles south of State Road 5A on the southbound side of Highway U.S. 1. The sign is visible form the U.S. 1, and is attached to another sign. The other sign is owned by Lamar Advertising, was erected in 1964, and was issued permit no. 746-08 by Petitioner. The annual renewal fees for the permit have been paid. Respondent's sign has never been issued a permit by Petitioner. U.S. 1 is a federal-aid primary highway. Respondent's sign advertises his telephone number and business, which is at a different location than the sign. Respondent's sign is located within 1,000 feet of Lamar Advertising's sign.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order requiring that Respondent's sign be removed. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of May 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 20th day of May 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Attorney Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Jim Davenport 1005 North Dixie Highway New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069 Kaye N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Florida Laws (5) 120.57479.015479.02479.07479.105
# 5
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. MCDONALD`S CORPORATION, 87-001629 (1987)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-001629 Latest Update: Jul. 23, 1987

Findings Of Fact A McDonald's sign visible to automobile traffic on the I-75 is located .08 miles north of CR-54 along the I-75, 934 feet into the interchange between the I-75 and CR-54 in Pasco County, Florida. The I-75 at this location is part of the federal interstate highway system and is outside an incorporated town or city. The sign has no permit tags attached and no permit tags have ever been approved for the site. The property on which this sign is erected is approximately 77' by 52' with the southeast corner cut off owned by McDonald's Corporation. The site is connected to the restaurant site by a 15 foot strip of land which intersects a proposed road 275 feet north of the restaurant site. The sign is 1122 feet from the restaurant as measured along the paved surface between the sign and restaurant. Between this sign and the restaurant along CR-54 is a Standard station, an Amoco station, a Circle K shop and a Days Inn. The closest businesses to the sign are Abe Chevron station and the Days Inn Motel. Respondent presented proposed plans evidencing an intent to construct a McDonald's playland on the property on which the sign is located, presumably as an integral part of the restaurant. However, at the time of the hearing the property served only as a site for the sign. McDonald's playlands have been developed as a selling tool for families traveling over interstate highways and are generally located adjacent to the restaurant so children occupying the playland can be monitored by the parents from inside the restaurant. Respondent's witnesses were aware of no McDonald's playland located other than immediately adjacent to the restaurant building. Construction of the playland at the site of the existing sign has never-been started due to construction, drainage and sewage disposal problems at the restaurant site.

Florida Laws (7) 120.6835.22479.01479.02479.07479.105479.16
# 9
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. PATRICK MEDIA GROUP, 88-004933 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-004933 Latest Update: Feb. 10, 1989

Findings Of Fact The sign in issue is owned by the Petitioner, is in existence and is located as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2 along SR 580, 100 feet north of Nebraska Avenue. The sign is located within the city limits of Tampa and is outside the DOT right of way. There is only one face on this sign which faces southwest and can be seen by eastbound traffic on Busch Boulevard (SR 580). SR 580 is a noncontrolled highway and the spacing requirements are not applicable to signs along Busch Boulevard which are otherwise not controlled. Nebraska Avenue (U.S. 41) is a federal-aide primary highway. A sign was originally erected in the same location as the existing sign in 1979 and remained until 1987 when the property on which the sign was erected changed hands. The new owners requested the sign be dismantled and re-erected on property being developed. This was done and the sign was re-erected in 1988 on its original location and of the same size as the original sign. The original sign was exempt from the spacing requirements by virtue of its grandfather status as a nonconforming sign. The sign can readily be seen by motorists traveling north on U.S. 41 (Exhibits 8-10). When the sign was rebuilt it lost its grandfather status and a new sign permit is required. Petitioner presented the only witness who testified that the angle of the sign is intended to give maximum visibility on Busch Boulevard and that the exposure time to a motorist is substantially longer on Busch Boulevard than on Nebraska Avenue. However, the exhibits submitted into evidence show the sign to be at an approximate 45 degree angle to both Busch Boulevard and Nebraska Avenue, that the sign is seen to the left side of a vehicle traveling east on Busch Boulevard and to the right side of a vehicle traveling north on Nebraska Avenue, and that there are more obstructions to the sign's visibility from Busch Boulevard than from Nebraska Avenue. This latter factor would indicate the sign's exposure time from Nebraska Avenue is at least equal to the sign's exposure time from a vehicle traveling along Busch Boulevard.

Florida Laws (2) 479.01479.07 Florida Administrative Code (1) 14-10.007
# 10

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer