The Issue Should certain outdoor advertising signs owned by Respondent, Lamar East Florida (Lamar) be removed as a result of notices of violations brought by Petitioner, Department of Transportation (the Department) against Lamar?
Findings Of Fact Lamar is licensed pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, to conduct the business of outdoor advertising. The Department regulates the outdoor advertising business in accordance with that law. In 1964, outdoor advertising signs that are the subject of the proceeding were constructed along US Highway 1 in Volusia County, Florida. Subsequently, in 1971, outdoor advertising signs which are the subject of the proceeding were constructed along Interstate 95 in Volusia County, Florida. The signs in both places are subject to permits issued by the Department to Lamar. The signs were legally erected but became nonconforming based upon their spacing in relation to other permitted outdoor advertising signs. The Lamar signs and their spacing are described as follows: Permit No. BN674-55, East of Interstate 95, 3.183 miles north of NEB790079 Hull Road is 881 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BJ689-55, East of Interstate 95, 2.588 miles north of NEB790079 Hull Road is 343 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BN681-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.088 miles north of Pine Tree Drive is 216 feet from a sign under Permit No. BU855. Permit No. BN682-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.027 miles north of Hull Road is within 332 feet of a permitted sign to the north. Permit No. BV232-55, East of US Highway 1, 0.0129 miles north of Pine Tree Drive is 216 feet from a permitted sign to the north. Each of the Lamar signs is within 660 feet of the first named highway or interstate, within Volusia County, Florida. Lamar owns and maintains the outdoor advertising signs that have been identified. On June 19, 1998, under dry weather conditions, a series of lightening strikes started a wildfire in a remote swampy area. Before the fire ended in July of 1998 its dimensions were extensive. The wildfire burned in Volusia and Flagler counties, Florida, west of Daytona Beach and Ormond Beach, Florida, and extending into the city of Ormond Beach. Eventually, it consumed the Lamar signs that have been described to the extent that the up-right wooden supports of each of the signs were substantially burned. This destruction took place on July 1, 1998. The degree of destruction was within the definition of "destroyed" set out in Rule 14- 10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Before their destruction the signs had been lawfully permitted by the Department. Interstate 95 and US Highway 1 had been closed to the public before the Lamar signs were "destroyed." The attempt by Lamar to gain access to the outdoor advertising signs was not successful because of the road closures by government authorities. Following their destruction, Lamar re-erected the structures by reinstalling the signs at the same locations using substantially the same type of materials as had been previously found in the structures being replaced. None of the materials used to re-erect the signs were part of the sign structures immediately before the destruction of the original signs by the wildfire. When re-erected the signs were the same size, shape, and height of the destroyed signs. Lamar does not own the property where the signs are located. Lamar operates pursuant to agreements with property owners by which Lamar has the right to maintain the signs. Upon the expiration or termination of the agreements with the property owners, Lamar may remove all of its sign materials from the properties and absent an agreement no longer maintain the signs. Lamar has no other business interest in the properties where the signs are located. The purpose of the outdoor advertising signs is to lease advertising space to third parties for advertising purposes which generates income to Lamar. Each outdoor advertising sign in question provides that income. The suppression effort directed to the fire was limited due to the remoteness of the swampy area in which the fire originated and a paucity of manpower and equipment. As a consequence, the firefighting effort did not begin in earnest until June 20 or 21, 1998. The fire was combated through efforts of the Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry and other national, state, and local firefighting organizations. The fuel for the fire, that is, bushes and trees, was dry. The weather conditions were highlighted by low relative humidity and a very high dispersion index. The smoke from the fire rose in the atmosphere and carried its embers from the west to the east. The fire came out of the Hull Cypress Swamp and the embers picked up by the wind crossed fire control lines and continued to spread to the east. Eventually, the two main fingers of the fire burned together on July 2, 1998. Before it was suppressed the fire, known as the Rodeo Road Fire, would consume 61,500 acres. The progress of the fire is depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, a map of the area in question, to include the area in which the subject signs were located. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 portrays the location of the signs more precisely. More specifically, the conditions in the swamp were extremely dry at the time the fire commenced as evidenced by the available dry fuel load in the swamp, which fuel load would normally be wet. Under wet conditions the fire would either not have burned or would have meandered. Given the dry conditions in the swamp in June 1998, there was a lot more fuel available to burn. East of the swamp the land that was burned was constituted of pastures, range land, and forest lands. Some areas had been subjected to prescribed burning to control available fuel loads in an incidence of wildfire but other areas had not been subjected to prescribed burning before the wildfire. Had property owners in the area affected by the wildfire conducted prescribed burning before that event it would have reduced the fuel load available for incineration. In some places in the advance of the wildfire the fuel loads were heavy, in other places less so, in that the property was constituted of pastures. In addressing the fire, the firefighters' priorities, in turn, included their safety; the safety of the public; the protection of property, to include structures; and finally the protection of resources such as timberland. By their efforts in addressing this incident the firefighters managed to save homes and businesses by creating defensible space around those structures against the on-set of the fire. The area of defensible space necessary is at least 30 feet, which reduces the chance of direct flame impact on the structure. Another technique that was employed to address the consequences of the wildfire was backfiring or imposition of the "black line concept." This is a nationally recognized firefighting technique. It is used when a fire is burning in an area that is inaccessible or has a potential to overrun a fire control line in a setting in which unburned fuel exists between the main fire and the control line. The unburned material is then deliberately burned before the main fire reaches that area to protect the control line from the main fire. The backfire is best employed when the weather conditions are conducive to its use, including wind direction and levels of humidity. During the time that the Rodeo Road Fire took place the use of backfires was not especially successful due to the dryness of the fuels. In the course of the Rodeo Road Fire, Georgia Pacific now known as the Timber Company, used a backfire to protect its property against the northward and eastward progress of the wildfire. The backfire was lit on June 28, 1999. The backfire by the Timber Company did not control the wildfire. It was successful on the west flank of the wildfire but unavailing on the east flank where the backfire by the Timber Company intersected the wildfire and the wildfire continued its eastward progress which had already begun. The setting of the backfire by the Temper Company was an appropriate tactic. Its outcome was inconsequential when considering the progress of the wildfire and its eventual destruction of the signs. Nor is the decision of a California fire crew to use a backfire to protect itself and its equipment found to have meaningful significance in promoting the forward progress of the wildfire to the east where the wildfire would destroy the signs. The backfire lit by the fire crew occurred on July 1, 1998. Backfiring to secure safety is an approved tactic for firefighters in making an independent judgment to protect their lives.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which revokes the sign permits that have been described and requires the removal of those signs within 30 days of the entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 21st day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Aileen M. Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attention: James C. Myers, Clerk Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Respondent's outdoor sign permit should be revoked because the original sign has been destroyed by an Act of God, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this controversy, Petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), seeks to revoke a permit (No. BP844) for an off-premise outdoor advertising sign owned by Respondent, National Advertising Company (Respondent), an entity now known as "Infinity Outdoor," on the grounds that the original sign was destroyed by a hurricane in October 1999, the sign has lost its nonconforming status, and Respondent cannot lawfully rebuild the structure. In response to these charges, Respondent contends that after the sign was damaged, unknown persons stole the damaged structural pieces that were going to be used in part to rebuild the sign. Under a theory first disclosed at hearing, Respondent went on to contend that if those materials were still available, it could qualify for a seldom, if ever, used exception found in Rule 14-10.007(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which would otherwise allow it to reconstruct the sign. That rule provides in part that a sign will not be considered destroyed if the owner can demonstrate that "the replacement material costs to reerect the sign would not exceed [fifty percent] of the value of the structural materials in the sign, immediately prior to destruction." Using that provision, Respondent argues that much of the sign's structure could have been rebuilt with the now- stolen materials, and the remaining "replacement material costs" would not exceed the threshold in the rule. The sign was erected in 1968 before spacing requirements for signs were first adopted in 1972; therefore, unless it is destroyed, the sign can continue to qualify for nonconforming status as long as it remains substantially the same as it was as of the date it became nonconforming. Because the sign is situated on U.S. Highway 1 in Brevard County, a federal-aid primary highway, and another permitted sign lies approximately 200 feet away, under current spacing requirements, a sign cannot be rebuilt on the same site. This is because current spacing requirements prohibit two signs from being closer than 1,000 feet apart on a federal-aid primary roadway. The sign in question is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 1, 0.341 miles north of Florida Memorial Gardens in Brevard County, Florida. In October 1999, Hurricane Irene tracked northward along the eastern coast of Florida causing extensive wind damage, including substantial damage to Respondent's sign. Photographs received in evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3 show the condition of the sign on October 26, 1999, or shortly after it was damaged by the hurricane. Among other things, two of the five support poles (which were buried to a depth of eight feet) were "splintered" approximately two to three feet above ground level, while the other three were "knocked over" and "broken" at ground level. The wooden facing of the sign "had been knocked up against a pine tree" and the wooden plywood "panels [on which the sign message is printed] were split." The "stringers," whose numbers were variously described in the record as nine and sixteen, and which measure 2 x 4 x 20 feet and support the backside of the structure between the poles, were also damaged. The condition of the sign is corroborated by similar photographs taken on October 18 and 22, 1999, by a code enforcement officer of Brevard County. In the judgment of the DOT inspector who visited the site shortly after the hurricane, none of the damaged structural materials (poles and stringers) could be reused due to the amount of damage caused by the hurricane's winds. However, the inspector was unable to assign a replacement cost for any of those structural materials, or the replacement value of the sign immediately prior to its destruction. On an unknown date, but after the photographs were taken by DOT on October 26, 1999, Respondent's operations manager, Billy Nichols (Nichols), instructed a subcontracting crew to inspect each of the company's signs and to drop off at each sign location "what they thought we may have needed" to repair the signs. After inspecting the sign in question, the crew deposited five brand new poles at the site. Respondent takes the position that it always intended to use a combination of old and new materials, rather than all new materials, to repair the damaged sign. The date on which this decision was made by Respondent is not apparent in the record. In addition, despite a lack of clarity in the record, in its post-hearing filing, Respondent represents that the new poles were deposited at the site before the damaged materials were removed. However, it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that based on the subcontractor's actions, Respondent originally intended to replace virtually the entire structure since five new poles were dropped off at the site of the sign; after a Citation was issued, Respondent apparently decided to reerect the sign under the theory proposed at hearing. Sometime after November 8, 1999, when DOT issued its Citation, Respondent maintains that much of the debris from the site, including the damaged poles and stringers, was unlawfully removed by unknown persons, resulting in Respondent being forced to rebuild the sign with all new materials. The new poles, however, were not removed and remained at the site. Because of the Citation, no work has occurred pending the outcome of this proceeding. In applying the terms of the rule relied upon by Respondent, DOT ascertains the cost of the sign and the replacement materials by utilizing cost data from retail stores, such as Home Depot or Lowe's, on a date as close to the date of destruction as is possible. In this case, that date would fall in September or October 1999. In addition, even if a sign owner decides to repair his sign with used or recycled materials, those materials would still be valued as if they were new. Further, only items such as supporting braces (stringers) or members of the sign structure (support poles) qualify as structural materials. This means that the sign facing would not be considered a structural component within the meaning of the rule. Finally, any old materials from the original sign that were reused would not be a part of the overall cost. Apart from the cost issue, in reconstructing the sign, the owner must return the sign to substantially the same configuration as before the damage. Thus, any change in the height or width of the sign facing, the number of feet that the sign sits above the ground, the structural safety of the sign, or the size of the replacement materials, might constitute a substantial change and prohibit reerection. In the case at bar, the testimony establishes that if Respondent proposes to change the height of the sign, the type of structural materials used, or the number of support poles, this would constitute a substantial change in the sign and disqualify Respondent from utilizing the exception in the rule. Although the rule does not specifically require such information, to prove that materials were stolen by unknown persons, historically DOT has required that the owner submit a police report confirming that materials were stolen. In this case, no police report was ever filed by Respondent, nor did it file a claim with its insurance company for the value of the materials allegedly stolen. Respondent submitted cost data from three local "supplier[s]" confirming that the value of the structural components of the sign just prior to its being damaged was not greater than $1202.00. This figure was derived by taking the cost of five new poles at $202.00 per pole, or $1010.00, and sixteen new stringers at a cost of $12.00 per stringer, or $192.00. Respondent's suggestion that the cost of plywood for the new sign facing ($636.00) should also be counted as a structural material has been rejected since that component does not qualify as such a material under the rule. Respondent's operation supervisor (Nichols) offered two alternatives for repairing the sign. First, he suggested that by lowering the structure below its previous height, he could reerect the sign using only two new poles. This alternative, however, would substantially change the sign's configuration and violate the terms of the rule. Second, in order to keep the sign at its original height, Nichols stated that he would purchase three new poles and "stub" two of the damaged poles by adding two more stringers. The second option would cost only $630.00, but under this alternative, the value of the replacement materials would exceed fifty percent of the cost of the structure ($1202.00) just prior to the sign being damaged. Then, too, the record shows that by making this type of repair, the sign facing would be weaker, making it less safe; its wind load would be changed; and the sign height would be lower. Thus, these modifications would constitute a substantial change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order confirming that the outdoor advertising sign maintained by National Advertising Company under Permit No. BP844 has been destroyed, is nonconforming, and cannot be reerected. The permit should also be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 day 12th of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Attn: James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Aileen M. Reilly, Esquire Livingston & Reilly, P.A. Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Jodi B. Jennings, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-10.007(6)(b), which provides for revocation of outdoor advertising permits for nonconforming signs that are abandoned or discontinued, is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" as alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Transportation is the state agency responsible for administering and enforcing the outdoor advertising program in accordance with chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Department adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-10, which provides for the permitting and control of outdoor advertising signs visible to and within controlled areas of interstates and federal-aid highways. Rule 14-10.007 provides regulations for nonconforming signs. Section 479.01(17), Florida Statutes, defines nonconforming signs as signs that were lawfully erected but which do not comply with later enacted laws, regulations, or ordinances on the land use, setback, size, spacing and lighting provisions of state or local law, or fail to comply with current regulations due to changed conditions. Rule 14-10.007 provides in part that: (6) A nonconforming sign may continue to exist so long as it is not destroyed, abandoned, or discontinued. "Destroyed," "abandoned," and "discontinued" have the following meanings: * * * (b) A nonconforming sign is "abandoned" or "discontinued" when a sign structure no longer exists at the permitted location or the sign owner fails to operate and maintain the sign, for a period of 12 months or longer. Signs displaying bona fide public interest messages are not "abandoned" or "discontinued" within the meaning of this section. The following conditions shall be considered failure to operate and maintain the sign: Signs displaying only an "available for lease" or similar message, Signs displaying advertising for a product or service which is no longer available, Signs which are blank or do not identify a particular product, service, or facility. Carter is licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising in Florida and holds an outdoor advertising permit for a nonconforming outdoor advertising sign bearing Tag No. AS 228. The outdoor advertising sign for the referenced tag number is located in Lee County, Florida ("Carter Sign"). On February 22, 2010, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke Sign Permit to Carter for sign bearing Tag No. AS 228. The notice advises that "this nonconforming sign has not displayed advertising copy for 12 months or more, and is deemed abandoned, pursuant to s. 14-10.007(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code." Petitioner Nissi is licensed to engage in the business of outdoor advertising in Florida and holds outdoor advertising signs bearing Tag Nos. BK 731 and BK 732, which signs are located in Pasco County, and BN 604, BN 605, AR 261, AR 262, AT 485 and AT 486, which signs are located in Hernando County ("Nissi Signs"). In June and July 2013, the Department issued notices of intent to revoke sign permits, pursuant to rule 14-10.007(6)(b), based on the signs not displaying advertising for 12 months or longer. The notice issued to Nissi advised that the Department deemed the signs as having been abandoned. Carter and Nissi, as owners of nonconforming signs receiving violations under rule 14-10.007(6)(b), have standing and timely challenged the rule in dispute herein.
The Issue Whether Respondent has violated Section 479.07(1)(4)(6) and 479.11(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a corporation and did not have counsel present at the hearing. In the light of Rule 14-6.03, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that all entities created by law shall be represented by counsels Mr. Miller was not permitted to represent the corporation at this hearings however, he was advised that if he so desired he could testify as a witness. He elected to do so during the proceedings. At the hearing Petitioner's representative moved to withdraw the allegation of a violation with regard to Respondent's sign on Interstate Highway I-10 located 1.8 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side. The amendment of the petition was granted.
Findings Of Fact The sign in question is on Interstate Highway I-10, .9 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side, and 18 feet from the I-10 right-of-way fence which in turn is located within 6 inches of the right-of-way. The text of the sign provides directions to a Fina gasoline station. The outdoor advertising inspector of District III has observed Mr. Miller at this station in the past. The inspector established the precise location of the sign and took a photograph thereof on December 10, 1975. The sign is not in a zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial area as evidenced by observation of the inspector and a sketch of the area prepared by him together with a general highway map of the Florida State Road Department establishes that the sign is not located within the city limits of Ponce de Leon, Florida, or any other incorporated city or town. No state permit tag issued by the Department of Transportation was affixed to the sign at the time of its inspection on December 10, 1975. Although Respondent has previously submitted an application for a permit it was not issued because the sign was in violation of existing law and regulations as determined by the Department (Testimony of Williams, Jordan; Exhibits 1, 2 & 3) Respondent's service station is south of Interstate Highway I-10 and at the time it was leased the land owner informed the Respondent's representative that its location was within the city limits of Ponce de Leon. In like manner, Respondent learned by hearsay that the area that he leased for his sign was also in the city limits. Respondent was under the impression that the problem was that his sign was located in an unzoned area. Mr. Miller testified that Exhibit 1 accurately depicted his sign and that Exhibit 2, its location and conceded that he had applied for a permit which was denied and that he presently did not have a permit for the sign which was built in the spring of 1975 (Testimony of Mr. Miller).
The Issue Petitioner, Republic Media, Inc., seeks an outdoor advertising sign permit for a two-sided sign to be located on Interstate 4 in Orlando, Florida. The permit was denied because the proposed sign would conflict with (violate spacing requirements) a previously permitted sign. The issue for disposition is whether Petitioner’s permit should be granted. More specifically, disposition requires a determination of whether the previously permitted sign is “on” Interstate 4.
Findings Of Fact Republic Media, Inc. (then known as Maxmedia, Inc.) applied for an outdoor advertising permit on April 30, 1996, for a proposed sign site located on Interstate 4 (I-4), 199 feet east of Princeton Street, on the south side of I-4 in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. I-4 is an interstate highway. The proposed sign site is within 660 feet of I-4 and is intended to be visible from I-4. The proposed structure is a rectangular shaped bulletin, 10’6” by 36’, set on a monopole with east and west faces at a V-angle, to facilitate an effective viewing by motorists on I-4. Republic Media has a lease for the proposed site from the landowner, Shell Oil Company. The proposed sign was approved by the City of Orlando and a building permit was issued. POA’s is the nearest DOT-permitted outdoor advertising sign and is located 90 feet east of Princeton Street. The POA sign is on the same side of the interstate and the same side of Princeton Street as Republic Media’s proposed sign, and is less than 1,500 feet from Republie Media’s proposed sign. The POA sign consists of two back-to-back billboards mounted on a monopole facing north and south. The north face, facing I-4 and running parallel to the interstate, bears a Department of Transportation permit tag numbered BG003-35. POA applied for and obtained this permit in 1992. The permitted sign face measures 12’ by 25’ and is located within 660 feet of I-4. The POA sign is visible while traveling in both directions on I-4. It is visible, however, only if the viewer turns his or her head to look down Princeton Street while traveling I-4 on the Princeton Street overpass. Visibility is limited to a few seconds and is impeded by oleander bushes which are maintained and trimmed by the City of Orlando. The POA sign, which advertises Universal Studios, was intended and designed for viewing by traffic on Princeton Street. Republic Media has a sign located within 660 feet of State Road 408 (East-West Expressway) which is positioned similar to the POA sign at issue here. The Republic Media sign also runs parallel to State Road 408 and is actually farther from State Road 408 than the POA sign is from I-4. When State Road 408 became subject to state regulation of outdoor advertising, the Department of Transportation required Republic Media to obtain a permit for the sign face visible from State Road 408. This regulatory action is consistent with the permitting of POA’s Princeton Street/I-4 sign.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Republic Media’s application for sign permit at I-4 and Princeton Street be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David H. Simmons, Esquire Julie Walbroel, Esquire Drage DeBeaubian Knight Simmons Romano & Neal Post Office Box 87 Orlando, Florida 32802-0087 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue Whether at least one of three signs located in the area of subject sign is in violation of state and federal law. Which signs, if any, are in violation. Whether the subject sign is in violation of the spacing regulation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact There are three signs standing on a strip of land adjoining U.S. 19, a Federal Aid Primary Road approximately six (6) miles North of S.R. 60. The spacing requirement is that there must be at least 500 feet between signs. Copy on the sign advertising "Parkview Terrace by U.S. Home" is a two-faced sign with one side blank and is located between two signs which have a permit to advertise although the spacing between the three signs standing is not the required 500 feet. The cited sign presently advertising "Parkview Terrace by U.S. Home" was formerly in a location owned by Artcraft which company did not apply for a permit and which Artcraft informed Complainant was going to be removed. The Complainant did not prosecute for permit violation inasmuch as the inspector was told the sign would be removed and when removed the other to signs involved herein would be eligible for permits. The site was abandoned but Respondent erected another sign in approximately the same location without a permit.
