The Issue The issue is which outdoor advertising signs should be permitted.
Findings Of Fact Escambia County, at all times material to these proceedings, had, in effect, a local ordinance that regulates the location and construction of outdoor advertising signs. The administrative agency of the county that handles enforcement of the ordinance is the county building inspection department. The policy adopted by that department is that an outdoor advertising company first submits to it a request for approval of a site location. The department inspects the location to see whether the location meets the spacing requirements of the ordinance. The building inspection department does not make an effort to determine at that time whether all other requirements for the issuance of a state permit are met. It issues a letter addressed to the Chipley office of the DOT stating whether it approves the proposed site and delivers that letter to the outdoor advertising company applying for the permit. Lamar submitted an application to the county for a site on the east side of Nine Mile Road (S.R. 297), 250 feet south of U.S. 90A, with a drawing showing the proposed sign location. (See, pg. 4; DOT Exhibit 4). The application was approved by the Escambia County building inspection department on January 6, 1989. On February 24, 1989, Outdoor submitted applications to the Escambia County building inspection department for sites on the east side of S.R. 297 (Nine Mile Road), south of U.S. 90A ("D" on DOT Exhibit 1), and on the south side of U.S. 90A east of S.R. 297 ("C" on DOT Exhibit 1). The locations were checked on February 27, 1989 by an employee of the Escambia County building inspections department, who found the sites to comply with spacing requirements and so indicated on the drawing submitted with the applications. However, that employee's supervisor, John Kimberl, found upon checking the records in the department's office that the application of Lamar for the site, 250 feet south of the intersection of S.R. 297 and U.S. 90A on the east side of S.R. 297, had been approved. This approval created a conflict with the site applied for by Outdoor on the east side of S.R. 297 ("D" on DOT Exhibit 1). Escambia County approved the application for the south side of U.S. 90A east of S.R. 297 ("C" on DOT Exhibit 1). Escambia County issued two letters, one of which stated that the application was approved and the other which stated that the application was denied because it would be in conflict with the spacing requirements because of a prior application. Both letters identified the sign in question using the same address. Outdoor applied for outdoor advertising permits for sites "C" and "D" to DOT by two separate applications on March 31, 1989. Outdoor attached sketches of both sites and a copy of the approval letter from Escambia County to its applications to the DOT representing to the DOT that the appropriate authorities of Escambia County had approved both sites. This may have been inadvertent and due to Outdoor's practice of proceeding only with letters of approval. The applications submitted by Outdoor were otherwise in order. A field inspection by Phillip Brown of the DOT showed that there would be a conflict between the two locations applied for by Outdoor because they were within 660 feet of each other and outdoor advertising signs would be visible to motorists on both highways. The DOT, therefore, offered Outdoor its choice of the two locations. Outdoor chose the location ("D") on the east side of S.R. 297. The DOT then issued Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 and gave Outdoor notice that it had denied its other application ("C"). Lamar applied to DOT for an outdoor advertising permit for its location 250 feet south of the intersection on the east side of S.R. 297 initially on January 27, 1989 and again on February 23, 1989. On one occasion, it was rejected because it had the wrong lease attached and on another occasion because the 250-foot distance placed it on property not subject to a valid lease. (See DOT Exhibit 4). After February 23, 1989, this application was amended to 144 feet south of the intersection of S.R. 297 and U.S. 90A and resubmitted with a proper lease. This site was not resubmitted to Escambia County for evaluation, and the original approval letter for the site 250 feet from the intersection was used. (See DOT Exhibit 3). After Lamar's application for permits for the east side of S.R. 297, 144 feet south of U.S. 90A, were rejected as being in conflict with Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 issued to Outdoor, Lamar requested an administrative hearing and alleged that Escambia County had not approved the application of Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297. It is the policy of both the Escambia County building inspection department and the DOT to approve applications for permits in the order in which they were received if the applications are in compliance with the requirements of the statutes, rules and ordinances. It is further the policy of Escambia County not to permit anyone to erect a sign unless they have state permits. In this case, neither Lamar nor Outdoor fully complied with the Escambia County requirements. Outdoor's application for site "D" was not approved by the county and Lamar changed the location of its sign from 250 feet to 144 feet south of the intersection. This new location was not resubmitted for site evaluation. The DOT should have been alerted to the problems of both applications because Outdoor's sketch said the approval was void and the date of the county's letter of approval to Lamar did not change when Lamar's site sketch was changed. Lamar received the approval of Escambia County; but by the time its otherwise valid application was submitted to the DOT, the DOT had issued the permits to Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297 and denied Lamar because of spacing problems. The DOT would have rejected the application of Outdoor for the location on the east side of S.R. 297 if Outdoor had submitted to it the proper letter from Escambia County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the DOT revoke the issued Permit Nos. AY436-35 and AY437-35 because the site upon which the signs were to be erected was not properly approved by the county. The DOT properly rejected Lamar's application because its amended site was not approved by the county. DOT's denial of Outdoor's application for signs at site "C" is not at issue in this case and no recommendation is made regarding it. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Officer Hearings 1550 STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Hearings 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Ben C. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III, Esq. General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Robert P. Gaines, Esq. Beggs and Lane P.O. Box 12950 Pensacola, FL 32576-2950 J. Arby Van Slyke, Esq. P.O. Box 13244 Pensacola, FL 32591 Charles G. Gardner, Esq. 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 31st day of January,
The Issue Whether the Respondent has violated Section 479.02, Florida Statutes, and Section 479.07, Florida Statutes, for failure to display a visible permit tag and for a multiplicity of advertisers on one side of Board No. 0399B.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice was issued on October 18, 1976, Respondent sign company citing an advertising sign located 10.14 miles south of U.S. 1; 528 north of 520 with copy thereon advertising the businesses of 13 restaurants. At the hearing testimony was heard and evidence was received showing that a permit tag was affixed to a pole of the outdoor advertising structure. The tag was not clearly visible and is difficult to be seen inasmuch as the copy of the board has been nailed on the pole immediately above the permit tag. Testimony was received and an exhibit entered which shows that the entire face of the sign is covered with outdoor advertising. Lettering at the top of the sign states "EAT OUT ENJOY THE INFORMAL FAMILY ATMOSPHERE OF MERRITT ISLAND". The lettering on the bottom board of the sign which is a separate board attached to the main board has the lettering, "TURN RIGHT ON 520". The remainder of the board shows individual advertisements of 13 different places to eat. The Petitioner contends: (1) that the permit tag is not clearly visible as required by the law; (2) that the sign is in violation of Section 479.02(1) and the Governor's Agreement promulgated thereto inasmuch as it displays more than two (2) signs. Respondent contends: (1) that the permit tag is clearly visible; (2) that one advertiser bought the copy and the sign displays but one advertisement.
Recommendation Have the Respondent move the permit tag into a more visible position as required by the statutes. Dismiss the charge as to a violation of the Governor'S Agreement. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 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 William Rowland, Esquire 115 East Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Sections 479.07(1)(2)(3)(4) and (6), Florida Statutes; Sections 479.11(1)(2), Florida Statutes; and Section 479.02, Florida Statutes, which require a person to submit am application for a permit, pay permit fees, secure a permit before erecting any outdoor advertising sign. Such permit will not be granted if it is within the prohibited areas of Section 479.11, F.S., and are subject to removal under Section 479.02, F.S.; Section 479.17, F.S.; and Section 479.20, F.S.
Findings Of Fact No permit was applied for or secured for the following described signs: Copy: Chipley Motel Location: .15 miles east of State Road 273 (Orange Hill Highway) Highway: I-10 Copy: Chipley Motel Location: 3-9/10 miles east of State Road 77 Highway: U.S. 90 Copy: Chipley Motel Restaurant Location: 1-4/10 miles west of State Road 77, South side Highway: I-10 No permit was applied for before subject signs were erected and subject signs are nearer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of an interstate highway.
Recommendation Remove subject signs if they are not removed by the Respondent within ten days after the entry of a final order. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of May, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Bob Deal, Esquire Cole and Deal 204-A South Third Street Chipley, Florida 32428
Findings Of Fact Following a routine inspection if outdoor advertising signs along SR 80 in Lee County numerous signs, including the sign here involved, were cited for not having permits. Upon receipt of the notice of violations Petitioner applied for permits for the signs owned by him that were found without permits. Some of these permits were granted; however, the application for the sign on SR 80 one mile west of I-75 was denied. The site on which this sign is located is zoned agricultural. Petitioner purchased five signs in 1977 from Martel Signs. All of these signs advertise Petitioner's honey factory which is open for visits by tourists to whom merchandise is sold. The factory is located a sufficient distance from SR 80 that it cannot be seen from SR 80 and the signs are needed by petitioner to attract and direct customers to his place of business. In an affidavit from the owner of the property on which the sign is located, submitted by Petitioner subsequent to the hearing, it is stated that a sign, presumably in the same location as Petitioner's sign, was erected on or before 1968. Upon purchasing the signs from Martel petitioner obtained permits from Lee County (Exhibit 1) but was unaware of, and made no effort to comply with, the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, requiring annual permits from DOT for all outdoor advertising signs. Respondent's records do not show the sign in question was ever permitted; however, Respondent's records are very incomplete in this regard for the period prior to 1975.
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 sign which is the subject of this proceeding is the north-facing sign of back-to-back signs owned by the Respondent, located on the west side of Interstate 95, approximately 0.95 miles south of State Road 84, outside the city limits of Fort Lauderdale, in Broward County, Florida. On June 30, 1977, the Respondent entered into a land lease for the site where it proposed to erect an outdoor advertising sign. Thereafter, on July 14, 1977, the Respondent applied for a permit to erect a south-facing sign on the leased property. This application was approved by the Department on July 26, 1977, and the south-facing sign was erected. This sign is not involved in this proceeding. Subsequently, on December 5, 1977, the Respondent filed an application to permit a north-facing sign on the same leased site where its south-facing sign had been erected, the sign to become a back-to-back structure. After a field inspection of the site, the Department approved the Respondent's application, and on February 1, 1978, it issued a permit for the north-facing sign back-to-back with the sign which had been permitted in July of 1977. The north-face sign was constructed and in place by the end of February, 1978, and it is the north face of this sign that is the subject of this proceeding. Subsequent to the construction of the north face of the subject sign, title to the land on which the structure was erected changed hands, and in April of 1979 the Respondent entered into another land lease with the new property owner. This lease runs for a period of ten years from April, 1979, and rental payments are due from the Respondent for the entire term of this lease. Back in the year 1974, the Department had issued to Tropical Acres Steakhouse a permit to erect a sign on Ravenswood Road, west of Interstate 95, approximately 750 feet north of the site where the Respondent's sign was erected. This Tropical Acres sign was permitted as a north-facing sign and was erected. However, it faces more eastward than to the north, its face being angled slightly northward to within a few degrees from due east. Ravenswood Road at the site which is involved in this proceeding runs approximately north and south, and is approximately parallel with Interstate 95. The Tropical Acres sign is on the east side of Ravenswood Road, its face almost perpendicular to Ravenswood Road. The location of this sign is west of the railroad tracks which are also west of and parallel with Interstate 95. The application filed by the Respondent for its north face shows that the site is 1,100 feet from the nearest existing sign. The Respondent's application for the south-facing sign also showed the distance from the nearest existing sign to be 1,100 feet. The Tropical Acres sign is approximately 750 feet from the Respondent's sign, but on Ravenswood Road west of Interstate 95 and not on Interstate 95 because the railroad tracks intervene. Its copy cannot be clearly seen from Ravenswood Road, but the copy is clearly visible from Interstate 95 by traffic traveling south. The permit for this sign has been renewed each year since 1974, and is valid now. On January 15, 1982, the Department served its notice of violation on the Respondent, contending that the north face of its sign at the subject location is illegal because it violates the spacing requirements of Section 14- 10.06, Florida Administrative Code. No violation notice was issued for the south face of this sign.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the notice of violation issued by the Department, alleging that the Respondent's north-facing sign on the west side of Interstate 95 at a point approximately 0.95 mile south of State Road 84, in Broward County, Florida, be DISMISSED. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 27 day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S.58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Respondent maintains an outdoor advertising structure on the I-95 southbound lane facing north, 13.94 miles north of the Brevard-Volusia County line. Sometime between August 6, 1975 and January 12, 1976, the face of this advertising structure was raised six to eight feet in height. This was done by extensions being placed on the original poles upon which the structure sits. The structure retained its same face size and lighting. The face of this structure was raised at the request of Respondent's client in order to retain that client's business. No evidence was presented to show when this sign was originally erected. No evidence was presented by Petitioner, Department of Transportation, which would establish that the subject sign is or is not located at a "commercial or industrial zone" or an "unzoned commercial or industrial area" as those terms are defined in Section 479.01, Florida Statutes. The subject sign is located approximately 15 feet outside the right-of-way of I-95.
Findings Of Fact In 1974 Tag No. 8670-10 was issued to Peterson Outdoor Advertising for a sign located on US 98 one-half mile north of SR 60 in Bartow, Florida. At the time the permit was issued, Peterson had a sublease to erect the sign from the operator of a garage located on this site who leased the property from the owner. In 1980 Lamar bought out Peterson and acquired its assets including the permit for a sign on the garage property. At this time Peterson held a lease from Garfield Jones to occupy the site with one advertising structure. This lease was for a five year period ending December 31, 1984 (Exhibit 6). The lease contained the usual provisions for cancellation by the parties and for extensions beyond the expiration date. In 1985, the garage tenant surrendered his lease, and the building was modified to operate as a feed store. Lamar's sign was removed to make way for the building modification as provided for by the lease. On July 22, 1986, Quality executed a lease with Milton W. Bryan, Jr. (Exhibit 3) for a site for an advertising sign at premises located at 1710 N. Broadway in Bartow, Florida. This is the site for which both of these Petitioners seek permits. As compensation therefor the lessee agrees to pay $1200 a year upon erection of the sign. Subsequent thereto on August 6, 1986, Lamar obtained a lease from Bryan to erect a sign on this same property. As compensation therefor, Lamar provided Bryan with a sign along U.S. 17 south of Bartow at no cost. Lamar also presented Exhibit 4 which was admitted without objection. This is an affidavit of Bryan that upon removal of Lamar's sign during construction of the Feed Depot building Lamar had right of first refusal to rebuild an outdoor advertising structure. No evidence was submitted that Bryan offered or failed to offer Lamar right of first refusal before he executed the lease to Quality.
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising sign of Respondent should be removed for lack of an outdoor advertising permit and for being erected without a permit within the prohibited distance of an interstate highway.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice and Notice to Show Cause dated August 3, 1978, was served upon the Respondent charging him with violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, Sections 335.13 and 339.301, Florida Statutes, and Rules 14-10.04 and 14-10.05, Florida Administrative Code. The sign in question carries the copy "Arrowhead Campsites" and is located 0.5 mile west of U.S. Highway 231 on Interstate Highway 10. An administrative hearing was requested on the charges. A billboard advertising Arrowhead Campsites has been erected within the past three years in Jackson County, Florida, about one-half mile west of U.S. 231 on the south side of Interstate 10. The sign is approximately fifteen (15) feet south of a fence located within the right-of-way of Interstate 10. The outdoor advertising is approximately one hundred (100) feet from the edge of the interstate highway and is clearly visible to the public traveling on the interstate. It obviously was erected to advertise the campsites to those traveling on the federal highway. The sign is located on private property in a rural area along the interstate highway. No outdoor advertising permit is attached to the subject sign, and no application has been made to the Florida Department of Transportation for a permit for subject sign. It was stipulated that the Respondent, Bill Reddick, is the husband of the owner of Arrowhead Campsites, and that Mr. Reddick accepted service of the notice and the notice has not been questioned.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign without compensation therefor and assess penalties as provided in Section 479.18, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 355 Marianna, Florida 32446 Richard C. Hurst, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
