The Issue Whether a sign owned by D & H Oil Company located along Interstate 10 approximately 1.1 miles East of State Road 81 bearing the copy "Spur" is in violation of the setback requirements set out in Section 479.11(1), Florida Statutes, and in violation of the permit requirements set out in Section 479.07(1) and (6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent D & H Oil Company's sign is located forty- three (43) feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of Interstate 10 (I-10) and no permit is affixed to the subject sign. The sign in question is located within the extension of the city boundaries of Ponce de Leon, Florida as extended by ordinance drawn in 1970 and duly filed in 1975. The Town of Ponce de Leon adopted the comprehensive zoning ordinance which authorized use of business signs in commercial areas. An area north of I-10, Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 17 West was designated a commercial area. The Respondent D & H Oil Company constructed their sign in this zoned area which was within forty-three (43) feet of the nearest edge of the right-of- way of I-10, and applied to the Petitioner Florida Department of Transportation for a permit for the subject sign. The Petitioner denied the request for the reason that the sign was erected in violation of the setback requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The Respondent D & H Oil Company did not obtain a permit before erecting the sign and it is within the area presently described as the Town of Ponce de Leon, Florida. The Ordinance filed with the Secretary of State in December of 1975 authorized use of business signs in commercial areas. The area north of I-10 in Section 27, Township 4 North, Range 17 West was designated as a commercial area, together with other areas along the highway, and the sign of Respondent is erected within that area. The areas zoned commercially by the Town of Ponce de Leon stretches several miles along both sides of the right-of-way of I-10 and contains no commercial or industrial structures other than outdoor advertising signs. The Town of Ponce de Leon has not submitted to the Administrator of Outdoor Advertising, State of Florida Department of Transportation, its zoning regulations which control outdoor advertising, and the State of Florida Department of Transportation has not notified the Federal Highway Administrator that there has been established within such area regulations which are enforced with respect to the size, lighting and spacing of outdoor advertising signs consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and customary use. Customary use is use consistent with that use regulated statewide by Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Require the Respondent D & H Oil Company to remove the subject sign unless it can show within thirty (30) days from date hereof that the area in which the sign is located is in a zoned commercial and industrial area certified by the Florida Department of Transportation to the Federal Highway Administrator that there has been established with such area regulations which are enforced wish respect to the size, lighting and spacing of outdoor advertising signs consistent with the intent of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and with customary use. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Office of Legal Operations Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James E. Moore, Esquire Post Office Box 746 Niceville, Florida Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Florida Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. J. E. Jordan District Sign Coordinator Post Office Box 607 Chipley, Florida 32428
Findings Of Fact On October 13, 1981, Henderson Signs filed applications for four permits to erect two outdoor advertising signs in Jackson County, Florida, on the south side of Interstate 10, one approximately 2.65 miles and the other approximately 2.85 miles east of SR 276. These applications were field inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector and by his supervisor, they were approved on or about November 2, 1981, and the Department issued permits for the requested locations to Henderson Signs. Subsequent to the issuance of these permits, Henderson Signs transferred to the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., all of its interest in the permits which authorized the subject signs to be erected. On or about March 23, 1983, the Respondent filed outdoor advertising permit affidavit forms requesting that the Department issue replacement tags for the subject signs because the tags previously issued had been lost. The Department replaced the older permit tags with new tags numbered AI998-10, AI999-10, AJ001-10 and AJ002-10. A business known as Brooks Construction Company is located within 800 feet of each of the subject sign locations. At various times some construction equipment can be seen parked in the vicinity of Brooks Construction Company. Although the view from 1-10 is partially obstructed by trees, this equipment might be seen from the interstate if one were looking at the right spot. Also, a small on-premise sign is located at this site, but the view of this sign is no better from 1-10 than the equipment is. The business known as Brooks Construction Company is located in a structure that resembles a brick residential building, which is used as a residence. A portion of this residential building is visible from 1-10, but is as obscured from view as the equipment and the sign are. The area where the subject signs are located is rural in nature. There is nothing about the building used by Brooks Construction Company that would indicate to a traveler on 1-10 that anything other than a residence was located at this site, even if the traveler were able to see this building from the interstate. Prior to the transfer of the permits from Henderson Signs to the Respondent, a representative of the Respondent testified that he inquired at the Department's district office in Chipley whether the permits to be purchased from Henderson Signs were valid permits. He further testified that he received assurance from the Chipley district office that these permits were legal permits. This testimony, however, is self-serving and uncorroborated, and thus is not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact. Henderson Signs submitted the applications for the subject permits, and designated thereon that the proposed locations were in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. These applications also certified that the signs to be erected met all of the requirements of chapter 479, Florida Statutes. During the summer of 1984, the sites were inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because of the absence of visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the signs. As a result, the Department issued notices of violation advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permit numbers AI998-10, AI999-10, AJ001-10 and AJ002-10, held by the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., authorizing two signs on the south side of I-10, 2.65 miles and 2.85 miles east of SR 276 in Jackson County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject signs removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 6th 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 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Honorable Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Holmes County Commission zoned the area around the intersection of I-10 and State Road 79 primarily for the purpose of permitting outdoor advertising structures? Whether the DOT may deviate with explanation from the plain meaning of its rule as set forth in Best Western I, or must adhere to the legislative mandate in Chapter 84-173, Laws of Florida to follow its rules?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the following findings of fact are made: The advertising structures at issue are outdoor advertising signs. (T. 25.) Said signs are located within 600 feet of Interstate Highway 10 (I-10) in Holmes County, Florida. (T. 25.) Said signs are located as follow: On I-10 1.0 mile east of State Road 79, facing east (Case No. 82-391T) On I-10 0.51 mile west of State Road 79, facing west (Case No. 82-392T) On I-10 0.83 mile east of State Road 79, facing east (Case No. 82-393T) On I-10 0.75 mile west of State Road 79, facing west (Case No. 82-394T) Said signs are located outside the limits of any incorporated cities. (T. 25.) I-10 is an interstate highway. (T. 25.) At the site of the signs, I-10 was opened and designated an interstate highway prior to the time the subject signs were constructed. (T. 25.) The signs do not have an outdoor advertising permit. (T. 25.) Petitioners have made application for permits for each sign. (T. 25.) The copy on each sign can be read from the main traveled way of I-10. (T. 25.) Holmes County has duly adopted a comprehensive land use plan and by ordinance zoned the areas where the subject signs are located as a commercial area. (T. 26, 13.) The zoning action by Holmes County was part of comprehensive zoning. The Department of Transportation (Department) disapproved the applications because it determined initially that the zoning of the area was unacceptable to the Department for permitting signs. Best Western Tivoli Inn belongs to Bonifay Tivoli, Limited, a partnership of Jack Hirschon and Joseph Beatty, who are the actual Petitioners in Cases No. 82-391T and 82-392T. (T. 26.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation approve the applications of the Petitioners for outdoor advertising permits for the subject signs. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 12th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald Holley, Esquire Post Office Box 268 Chipley, Florida 32428 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has erected two signs advertising a service station business, one of which lies 1.4 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side of Interstate Highway 10, and one of which is located nine-tenths of a mile west of State Road 81 on the south side of Interstate 10. The Petitioner seeks a permit authorizing the erection and maintenance of those two signs. Both signs lie within the corporate limits of the City. of Ponce de Leon. A previous application by the Petitioner was rejected apparently because the subject sign locations were not properly zoned to comply with the exception contained in Section 479.111, Florida Statutes. That is, they were not commercially or industrially zoned and were not in on zoned areas of commercial and industrial character. In denying the instant application, the Respondent has taken the position that the signs, which are within 660 feet of Interstate Highway 10, occupy areas which are located in areas which are "strip zoned" and are therefore improperly zoned. Interstate Highway 10 is part of the interstate system defined in Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The interstate highway was opened at the time that the signs wore erected, and they can be seen from the main traveled way of Interstate 10. The Respondent contends that strip zoning is prohibited by Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter H, Part 750, "Highway Beautification." The testimony of the Petitioner, as well as the zoning map of the City of Ponce de Leon, Florida, embodied in Petitioner's Exhibit 3, establishes that both of the subject signs are in an area zoned commercial, which official zoning map or plan was adopted by the Commission of the City of Ponce de Leon on January 29, 1976. The Petitioner's testimony also, as corroborated by Petitioner's Exhibit 4, establishes that the Ponce de Leon zoning pattern is not unique or unusual, and that strip zoning is analogous to the term "spot zoning" which is used to imply zoning which is improper or aberrational in its relation to the overall character, use and zoning of the property which surrounds or adjoins a "strip" or "spot zoned" tract. There was no showing that the commercially zoned area in which the signs are located is out of context with the proper use of property adjoining it along Interstate 10 and around the subject intersection, nor was it shown to be detrimental to the adjoining properties or the proper enjoyment and use of the adjoining properties. No evidence was adduced by the Respondent which would establish that the zoning map and the zoning plan it represents by the City of Ponce de Leon, insofar as it relates to the subject commercially zoned area, is unique, unusual or improper. The subject zoning ordinances and the map were demonstrated to be duly and properly adopted by the City Commission. Finally, The Respondent's own witness conceded that the area in which the signs are located is not strip zoned in a deleterious sense.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, pleadings and arguments of counsel, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation granting the petition of Nugget Oil Company, Inc., and permitting the erection and location of the signs described hereinabove located respectively 1.4 miles east of State Road 81 on the north side of Interstate Highway 10, and nine-tenths of a mile west of State Road 81 on the south side of Interstate Highway 10. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 20th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Paul H. J. Mosier Post Office Box 1297 Crestview, Florida 32536 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Jacob D. Varn, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
Findings Of Fact State outdoor advertising permits numbered 108 60-10 and 10861-10 were issued in February of 1979, and are now held by Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc. These permits authorize a sign on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 300 feet west of SR 95A, in Escambia County, Florida. In July of 1985, Lamar Advertising Company applied for state outdoor advertising permits to erect a sign facing east and west on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 400 feet east of U.S. 29, in Escambia County, Florida. The location proposed by Lamar in its application is in conflict with the location where Headrick holds permits, in that the two sites are less than 1,000 feet apart. The land where the Headrick signs had been located, and the site where the Headrick permits authorize a sign, has been graded and paved, and is being used as a shopping center. In the course of the construction of this shopping center, the Headrick signs were removed, and Headrick no longer has a lease for its permitted site or permission of the property owner to locate a sign there. Lamar has a lease to the site where it applied for permits. This lease is from the owner of the land, and it grants Lamar permission to locate a sign at the location sought to be permitted, through February, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the state sign permits numbered 10860-10 and 10861-10 held by Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing a sign on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 300 feet west of SR 95A, in Escambia County, Florida be revoked. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the application of Lamar Advertising Company for permits to erect a sign facing east and west on the south side of U.S. 90A, approximately 400 feet east of U.S. 29, in Escambia County, Florida, be granted. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 15th day of January, 1987, 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 15th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Gaines, Esquire P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mr. Jim Baughman Vice President Headrick Outdoor Advertising, Inc. 404 Jenks Avenue, Suite "B" Panama City, Florida 32401 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 A. J. Spalla General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
The Issue Whether the sign is in violation of 479.07 and 479.01 Florida Statutes for the reason that it has no permit tag attached thereto and has been enlarged.
Findings Of Fact A violation notice was issued to A. W. Lee, Respondent, on June 29, 1977, alleging that a sign owned by Respondent located at 12.85 miles north U.S. 441-Ellisville, Florida Highway I-75 with copy "Jiffy Junction" was in violation of 479.07 and 479.01 Florida Statutes and Rule 14-10.05(m) Florida Administrative Code. A request for administrative hearing was made by the Respondent and thereafter the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to hold an administrative hearing. A sign in the same location as subject sign was tagged in 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 for an 8 x 12 sign. The permit was issued to Harvey Campbell. The sign was approximately 15 feet back from the right of way of I-75. A fee of $2.00 was paid for the permit. Prior to June of 1977 ownership was transferred from Harvey Campbell to the Respondent, A. W. Lee. The Respondent filed an application for a permit on June 20, 1977, for a sign 14 X 12 indicating a fee of $2.00 A sign at the location was existing, had no permit and measured 8 x 20. The sign as it stands at date of hearing is a sign 8 x 20, it advertises "Burger King this exit, turn right 300 feet right." It has no permit. The Hearing Officer further finds a sign that had been repermitted through 1977 was a sign 8 x 10 and the permit was issued to Harvey Campbell. The sign that stands there in the approximate location is a sign 8 x 20 and has additional poles to hold the panels. It has no permit. The sign is located on property owned by A. L. Lee, the Respondent, and the smaller original sign was transferred by Mr. Campbell to Respondent prior to April, 1976.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James J. Richardson, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1857 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On January 27, 1982, the department of Transportation notified the Petitioner, Vortex Springs, Inc., that its applications for the outdoor advertising sign permits which are the subject of these proceedings were denied because the zoning had been determined to be unacceptable. These applications seek permits authorizing two signs on I-10 in Holmes County, Florida, one approximately 1.38 miles west of SR 81 facing west, and the other approximately 1.1 miles east of SR 81 facing east. Both of these locations are inside the city limits of the municipality of Ponce de Leon, Florida. The signs for which the Petitioner seeks permits were already erected when the subject applications were submitted to the department. There was no other evidence presented that was relevant or would support additional findings of fact.
The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising structures of the Petitioner, National Advertising Company, are in violation of F.S.A. 479.13 and 479.05.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, National Advertising Company, is the owner of two signs located on U.S. Highway 41, east of SR 840A which is known as the Turner River Road. The face on one side bears the copy of "Holiday Inn;" the face on the other side bears the copy of "African Safari." The Petitioner was cited on September 22, 1977, by the Department of Transportation for violation of Chapter 479.13 of the F.S.A. The real property upon which these structures are located was formerly owned by the Collier Company of Naples, Florida, who by letter dated November 17, 1976, notified the Petitioner that it expected to conclude negotiations for sale of its property leased by Petitioner sign company on November 1976 and therefore would not renew any sign space leases beyond their expiration date of December 31, 1976. The leases were not renewed and the structures stand upon the property without authorization from the present owner of the property, the State of Florida, which has leased it to the National Park Service. By letter dated April 14, 1977, the National Park Service, requested the Respondent DOT which has the responsibility to administer and enforce the outdoor advertising law, Chapter 479, F.S., to remove subject signs. As a reason for the request, it cited: Title 23 CRF - Highways, Part 131(h) states that "All public lands or reservations of the United States which are adjacent to any portion of . . . the primary system shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of this section and the national standards promulgated by the Secretary," and Part 138 Preservation of parklands states: "It is hereby declared to be the national policy that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands."
Recommendation Remove the Petitioner's signs. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William D. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 539 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the subject outdoor advertising signs are illegal because they were erected without state permits from Petitioner. Whether the subject signs should be removed. Whether Petitioner is equitably estopped to assert that the signs are illegal and should be removed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 95 on Northwest 6th Court, which is between Northwest 75th Street and Northwest 76th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 95 sign. The Interstate 95 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 95. The Interstate 95 sign is located within 147 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate 95. Respondent owns and maintains an outdoor advertising sign located adjacent to Interstate 395 at the corner of Northwest 14th Street and Northwest 1st Court, Miami, Dade County, Florida. For ease of reference, this sign will be referred to as the Interstate 395 sign. The Interstate 395 sign has two facings, each of which is visible from Interstate 395. The Interstate 395 sign is located within 240 feet of the right- of-way of Interstate 395. Eugene A. (Andy) Hancock, Jr., is the President of the corporate Respondent and, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, controlled the activities of Respondent. Mr. Hancock caused the corporate Respondent to lease the respective properties on which the subject signs are located in November 1998. He thereafter caused the corporate Respondent to erect the two double-faced signs at issue in this proceeding. The subject signs were constructed during September and October 1999. Each sign was constructed without a state permit from Petitioner. Each sign is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that his company did not apply for permits from Petitioner because of a conversation he had with Bernard Davis, a former outdoor advertising administrator for Petitioner. Mr. Hancock testified that Mr. Davis represented to him that his company would not need permits from Petitioner if it had permits from the City of Miami. This testimony is rejected. 3/ Respondent has applied for state sign permits for the subject signs. Permits for these signs have not been issued because of their proximity to existing, permitted signs. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that the subject signs are illegal and must be removed pursuant to Section 479.105, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 6th day of February, 2001.
