Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Empire Outdoor Advertising, Inc., is the owner of a sign located on the westbound or north side of Northwest 54th Street approximately 20 feet east of Northwest 12th Avenue, in Dade County, Florida. Northwest 54th Street is also designated as State Road 25A. The Respondent's sign is a structure or billboard designed to advertise or inform, and its copy is visible from the main traveled way of the adjacent roadway of State Road 25A or Northwest 54th Street. At the site where the Respondent's sign is located, State Road 25A or Northwest 54th Street is a part of the federal- aid primary highway system, and this roadway is open to the public for vehicular traffic. The Respondent's sign is located within 660 feet from the nearest edge of the pavement of State Road 25A. The Respondent's sign is situated within 500 feet from another outdoor advertising structure on the same side of the highway. These two signs face in the same direction and are both visible to westbound traffic on the north side of State Road 25A or Northwest 54th Street. The Respondent's sign has affixed to it copy which advertises Kraft Barbecue Sauce. This structure does not fall within any of the exceptions to the statutory licensing requirements set forth in Section 479.16, Florida Statutes, and it must have a state sign permit. The Respondent has not applied for an outdoor advertising permit from the Department, and no such permit has been issued by the Department for the subject sign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its Final Order finding the Respondent's sign which is the subject of this proceeding to be in violation of the applicable statutes and rules, and ordering its removal. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 25th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2637 Palm Beach, Florida 33480
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Sections 479.07(1)(2)(4)(6) and 479.02, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact A notice of alleged violations was sent to Respondent dated October 27, 1975 stating that pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 479, Section 335.13 and Section 339.301, Florida Statutes, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, the Respondent was notified that the sign structures owned by him were in violation of provisions of Chapter 479, Sections 335.13 and 339.301, Florida Statutes. The subject signs were identified as follows: Copy: Aucilla Plaza Church - Gas Location: 2/10 miles north Junction I-10 Highway: State Road 257 Copy: Credit Cards Honored - Chevrolet 60 9/10, Supr. 65.0 Location: 2/10 miles north Junction I-10 Highway: State Road 257 Prior to the hearing a letter was received from an attorney for the Respondent, Ike Anderson, stating that the Respondent was willing to take down all of the signs and that a hearing was not needed. No Motion for Dismissal was made and no continuance or dismissal was ordered. By letter to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, the Hearing Officer advised of the receipt of such communications, but no response was received from Petitioner. The hearing was called to order and the witness for Petitioner testified that the signs have been removed except the copy of one of the signs is leaning in the approximate same location against the fence. The poles from which the signs were erected are left standing in the same location. The Hearing Officer further finds: That poles standing alone do not constitute a sign; That a facing of a sign leaning against a fence with the face away from a highway does not constitute a sign. It is the duty of the Department of Transportation under Chapter 479, F.S., Chapter 335, F.S., and Chapter 339, F.S., to enforce the outdoor advertising laws of the State of Florida and that the Respondent, John Taylor, has had a hearing, as provided in Chapter 120, F.S., and as provided in Section 479.17, F.S., and Section 335.13, F.S.
Recommendation Enter an order requiring the removal of outdoor advertising signs erected at this location. DONE and ORDERED this 13th 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 Mr. John Taylor Route 1, Box 142 Monticello, Florida 32344 Ike Anderson, Esquire P. O. Box 56 Monticello, Florida 32344
The Issue Whether Respondent was in violation of Subsection 479.07(1), Florida Statutes, providing for the permitting of outdoor advertising structures.
Findings Of Fact Respondent maintains an outdoor advertising sign adjacent to State Road 12 in the vicinity of the junction of State Road 157. The sign was not permitted in the years 1972, 1973 or 1974. No current permit tag was affixed to the sign as of May 12, 1975. Respondent has made no application to the Department of Transportation to obtain a current permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's sign situated on U.S. 441, .2 mile south of U.S. 27, in Marion County, Florida, be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDERED entered this 16th day of April, 1985. 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 16th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. R.S. Williams Vice President Caviness Motor Company P.O. Box 668 Ocala, Florida 32670 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg., Room 562 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the sign involved herein is erected on the right-of-way of a State maintained road. 1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received, the testimony adduced during the hearing, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, utilizes outdoor advertising inspectors to keep surveillance of state maintained roadways: to report infractions of the State right-of-way by outdoor advertising agencies and to assist such advertising agencies in the proper erection of signs. In so doing, these inspectors enforce and are guided by the provisions of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14-10, Florida Administrative Code. The subject sign involved herein is situated 16.36 miles north of State Road 26, in Gainesville, Florida. The sign in question is situated approximately 600 to 700 feet from the crossing of Interstate 75 and State Road 26. (Testimony of Thomas Wigham, Outdoor Advertising Inspector for Petitioner.) Petitioner utilized the services of one of its registered surveyors, Lloyd Register, a location engineer, to determine the exact placement of the sign in question. Messr. Register is a registered surveyor and is the holder of surveyor's certificate No. 1522 (Florida). Messr. Register staked the area where the subject sign is erected after completing a survey of the area in question. The survey reveals that the subject sign is located within the State owned right-of-way adjacent to State Road 26. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, and Testimony of Lloyd Register.) Respondent offered no evidence herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner enter an order authorizing it to remove the subject sign which is located 16.36 miles north of State Road 26, a State maintained road, in Gainesville, Florida. 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 25 day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issue is whether the Outdoor Advertising Permits AG820-2 and AG821-2 issued to Respondent, Headrick Outdoor Advertising, (Headrick) should be revoked because Headrick no longer has the permission of the property owner to maintain the subject sign at that location. The Department of Transportation (DOT) presented the testimony of Jack Culpepper and Phillip N. Brown, together with four exhibits admitted into evidence. Headrick presented the testimony of James K. Baughman and had one exhibit admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the parties agreed that their proposed orders would be filed ten (10) days following filing of the transcript. The transcript was filed on April 22, 1982. Both parties have failed to file proposed orders within ten days following filing of the transcript. Accordingly, this Recommended Order is entered without consideration of any proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law proposed by the parties.
Findings Of Fact Headrick Outdoor Advertising is the holder of permits AG820-2 and AG821-2 located on U.S. 29, three miles north of Alternate 90, in Escambia County, Florida. These permits were originally issued to Western Gate Sign Company in 1982. The permits were subsequently purchased by Headrick Outdoor Advertising. On November 20, 1985, DOT received a letter from Frances E. Hampton, the owner of the property on which the signs had been placed, indicating that the lease with Western Gate Sign Company was signed by an unauthorized person and that a subsequent lease dated October, 1984, had been entered into with Franklin Sign Company. Upon receipt of this letter, DOT wrote a letter to Headrick Outdoor Advertising, giving Headrick thirty days to show cause why its permits should not be revoked because they did not have the continuing permission of the owner. In response to that letter, Headrick requested this formal administrative hearing. Headrick did not present any evidence to DOT prior to this proceeding or in this proceeding which established any continuing permission of the owner. Headrick did introduce a document entitled Land Lease Agreement between Frances E. Hampton and Headrick to erect a sign in the subject location. However, this document contained no date and it therefore cannot be determined when the lease was entered into and the time periods covered by the lease. By Mr. Baughman's own admission, Headrick does not currently have permission of the landowner, having released the landowner from all leases during the pendency of this case. The lease agreement which Headrick introduced was admittedly not signed until some time in 1986.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits AG820-2 and AG821-2 be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 May, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 James K. Baughman, Sr. Headrick Outdoor, Inc. 808 Brainerd Street Pensacola, Florida 32503 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
Findings Of Fact Linda Duvon, an outdoor advertising inspector, identified as Petitioner's Exhibit 1 a photograph of the signs which were the subject of the Notice of Violation. Ms. Duvon inspected these signs, and they appeared to be in the right-of-way owned by the State of Florida. She inquired of Mr. Jim Chaplin if he owned these signs, and he claimed ownership of the signs. Harvey Walker, a surveyor for the Department of Transportation, testified that he surveyed the subject signs, having identified them by reference to the photograph, Exhibit 1, and determined that the signs were 38 feet within the State-owned right-of-way and 61 feet from the center line of U.S. 1, a State-maintained highway.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head give the Respondent 90 days to remove said sign and at the end of which time, if said sign has not been removed, directs its removal pursuant to Section 479.17, Florida Statutes, by Department of Transportation personnel. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Gardner, Esquire Richard C. Hurst, Administrator Department of Transportation Outdoor Advertising Section Haydon Burns Building Department of Transportation Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James F. Chaplin c/o Chaplin Real Estate 5190 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050
Findings Of Fact On or about June 18, 1981, the Department issued permit numbers AE654-10 and AE655-10 to the Respondent, Bill Salter Advertising, Inc., authorizing the erection of a sign on the north side of I-10, 1.2 miles west of U.S. 29 in Escambia County, Florida. Prior to the issuance of the permits in 1981, the site was field inspected and approved by a Department inspector. The Respondent's representative who submitted the permit applications designated on these applications that the sign location was in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. This representative also certified on the applications that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Attached to these applications was a sketch prepared by the Respondent depicting the proposed sign location, and designating the business that was within 800 feet of this location to be a junkyard. This junkyard as it was characterized on the sketch accompanying the Respondent's applications was a business activity that was in operation in 1981. It was within 660 feet of the right-of-way of I-10, and the sign site proposed by the Respondent was within 800 feet of the business activities. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector who approved the applications found the site where the business was located, as well as the activities being conducted there, to have been visible from the main-traveled way of I-10 in 1981. The Respondent and one of its representatives, who viewed the site in 1981, also found that the business activities were visible from I-10 in 1981. Two Department witnesses who viewed this location in 1985 testified that they could not see either the business or the business activities from the main-traveled way of I- However, neither of these Department representatives testified that they viewed the site in 1981, and their testimony has thus been rejected as less persuasive than the testimony of those who viewed the site in 1981. The more substantial competent evidence in this record supports a finding of fact that the business activities were visible from the main-traveled way of I-10 in 1981 when the applications were submitted and approved, and it is so found. Although the sketch accompanying the Respondent's applications designated the business that was in proximity to the proposed sign location as a junkyard, the evidence is inconclusive relative to what the nature of the business activities actually were at this site. The Department contends that the sign was permitted solely on the basis of the junkyard depicted on the Respondent's sketch, but the inspector who approved the permits testified that there may have been something else within 800 feet of the sign site other than the junkyard. He was tentative and indefinite when asked if his approval of the permits was based on anything other than what the sketch depicted. There was "a bunch of automobiles" on the business grounds in 1981 according to the Department inspector who visited the site in 1981. The Respondent's representative who submitted the applications and who prepared the sketch saw some tools, old cars and parts on the site. He called it a junkyard, but it could have been an auto parts business. Another Respondent witness characterized the business being conducted there as an auto repair business, and he has seen autos being repaired there. He has also seen a customer making payment for a repaired vehicle. He has seen the occupational license of the business operator, and it shows a retail business being conducted. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of fact that a junkyard was being operated in the area where the Respondent's sign was permitted. In addition, Section 339.241(3), Florida Statutes, requires that junkyards located within 1,000 feet of interstate highways be screened from view from the highway. The business being conducted at the site where the subject sign was permitted is not so screened now, and was not screened in 1981. In summary, the weight of the evidence detailed above supports a finding that the business activity which the Respondent indicated on its applications qualified the proposed sign site as an unzoned commercial area, was within 660 feet of the Interstate and within 800 feet of the proposed sign site, and that the business activities were visible from the main-traveled way of I-10 in 1981. The weight of the evidence further supports a finding that in 1981 the business being conducted at this site was not a junkyard. Prior to February of 1985, the site was inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because he could see no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the sign. He testified that a junkyard would not qualify a site as an unzoned commercial area because of the requirement in Section 339.241(3), Florida Statutes, that a junkyard be screened from view from the interstate. However, there is no evidence that this witness viewed the area in 1981. Thus, his testimony has less persuasive force than that of the Department inspector who viewed the site in 1981, and who could see the commercial activity from I-10. The Right-of-Way Administrator also testified that the requirement that a junkyard be screened from the interstate is part of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. However, this requirement is not a part of the Florida Outdoor Advertising Act, Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. Although the Respondent certified on the applications that the sign to be erected would meet all the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, the Respondent did not certify that the proposed sign would meet the requirements of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, or that it would meet the requirements of any of the other statutes of Florida. This is not required. In February of 1985, the Department issued a Notice of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permits were being revoked because the sign had not been erected in a zoned or unzoned commercial area due to the lack of any business activity that was visible from the roadway.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department's violation notice seeking revocation of the Respondent's permits and removal of the Respondent's sign on the north side of I-10, 1.2 miles west of U.S. 29 in Escambia County, Florida, be dismissed, and that permit numbers AE654-10 and AE655-10 remain in effect. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 21st day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. Bill Salter, President Bill Salter Advertising, Inc. Post Office Box 422 Milton, Florida 32570 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Post Office Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32031
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Sections 479.07(1) and 479.11(1) and (2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Fred C. Glass, Outdoor Advertising Inspector, testified that he had inspected an outdoor advertising sign located on State Road 8 (I-10) 3.48 miles south of State Road 53 which was not located within a municipality. Said sign was located 31 feet from the right of way of I-10. His inspection revealed that said sign did not have a permit tag affixed. Located near the sign was a small building without windows and a gas pump. There was no one present on the site when inspected. The building and pump wore locked up. Glass testified that the pump and building did not look as if it had ever been used. Glass identified Composite Exhibit 1, as polaroid pictures he had taken on October 3, 1975 at 3:00 p.m. and they were received into evidence. From his duties Glass would have been aware of any application received for such a sign, and he stated he had never received an application. Glass said he had not talked with Davis about the sign, but concluded it was Davis' sign from the nature of the sign's advertisement, and the fact that the J. B. Davis' service station was located at the next exit. J. B. Davis testified that the sign was not his but was located on the site of a service station belonging to L. H. Thurman, Route 2, Lee, Florida. J. B. Davis identified Exhibit 2A as a copy of Thurman's Sales Tax Certificate and Exhibit 2B as Thurman's gasoline Dealers License which David had obtained from Thurman. Davis testified that as the gasoline distributor for the counties in the area he supplied gasoline to Thurman who operated the station. He supplied a couple of hundred gallons to Thurman per month. The property where the station is located is leased by Thurman from a Mr. Woods. Davis further testified that one would take the "next exit" to go to Thurman's station.
Recommendation Having failed to show J. B. Davis' ownership of the sign, the Hearing Officer recommends the charges be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Hendrickson, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 J. B. Davis, President J. B. Davis, Inc. Base and Duval Street Madison, Florida 32340
Findings Of Fact Outdoor Display is a licensed outdoor advertiser holding License No. 18191 from Polk County. The two signs which are referenced in the charges are located on U.S. 92 respectively 2.59 miles and 2.67 miles west of U.S. 27. These signs were inspected in 1975 and the first sign bore 1971 permit issued to Outdoor Display. The signs each had a value of more than $100. Both signs belonged to Outdoor Display, and neither sign bore a current permit. Boger receives application from Outdoor Display as the outdoor advertising administrator but had not received any application with regard to these two signs prior to the hearing.
