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
Findings Of Fact On or about March 8, 1977, Henderson Signs filed applications for two permits to erect an outdoor advertising sign in Jackson County, Florida, on the south side of Interstate 10, approximately 1.3 miles west of U.S. 231. These applications were field inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, they were approved, and the Department issued permits numbered 9126-10 and 9127-10 for the requested location to Henderson Signs. On or about January 4, 1984, permits numbered 9126-10 and 9127-10 were reported lost, and the Department issued replacement tags numbered AL083-10 and AL084-10. Subsequent to the issuance of these permits, Henderson Signs transferred all of its interest in the subject permits to the Respondent, Tri- State Systems, Inc. When Henderson Signs submitted the applications for the subject permits it designated thereon that the proposed location was within 800 feet of a business known as Lee's or Dilmore's Packing Plant. These applications also certified that the signs to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The business known as Lee's or Dilmore's Packing Plant is located within 800 feet of the permitted site. The building in which this business is conducted appears from the interstate to be a barn, or a livestock shed, or an outbuilding. It is visible from I-10, but there is nothing about the building or the surrounding area to indicate that it is a business, or that any commercial activity is being conducted at this location. There is nothing to distinguish the Dilmore building from any other rural building in Jackson County, and from the photograph that was received in evidence the area appears to be agricultural or rural in nature, and not commercial. The Respondent contends that there is an on-premise sign on the Dilmore property and that this sign was visible from I-10 in 1977 and is visible now. The Department's witnesses testified that there was and is nothing to indicate to traffic on the interstate that any commercial activity existed at the subject location. The photograph in evidence shows the area to be rural and does not show a sign, thereby tending to corroborate the Department's witnesses. There is no evidence showing where the Dilmore sign is with reference to the interstate, what its size is, what its copy is, or how visible it is to traffic on I-10. As a result, the evidence is not of sufficient quality or quantity to support a finding of fact that the Dilmore sign exists now, or that it was ever there, or that such a sign would indicate to interstate traffic that a business activity exists at the subject location. During the summer of 1984 the site was inspected by the Department's Right-of-Way Administrator who determined that the permits had been issued in error because there was no visible commercial activity within 800 feet of the permitted location. In October of 1984, the Department issued Notices of Violation advising the Respondent that the subject permits were being revoked because they were not for a location in a zoned or unzoned commercial area. Prior to the transfer of the permits from Henderson Signs to the Respondent, representatives of the Respondent testified that they inquired at the Department's district office in Chipley whether the permits to be purchased from Henderson Signs were valid permits. They further testified that they received assurance from the Chipley district office that these permits were legal permits. This testimony, however, is totally self-serving without some form of corroboration, and is thus not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AL083-10 and AL084-10 held by the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., authorizing signs on the south side of I- 10, approximately 1.3 miles west of U.S. 231 in Jackson County, Florida, be revoked, and any signs erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8th day of October, 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 8th day of October, 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 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., was issued permits numbered AI625-10 and AI626-10 on or about February 15, 1983. These permits were for the erection of signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .65 mile west of SR 297, in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of a welding business noted on a sketch attached to the applications submitted by the Respondent. The Respondent submitted the applications and the attached sketch for these permits, and designated on the applications that the sign location would be in an unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. The sketch shows what is designated as a welding business to be within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. On each of these applications the Respondent certified that the signs would meet all requirements of Chapter 479 of the Florida Statutes. Prior to the issuance of these permits, the subject site was inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, who approved the applications because of the existence of what was believed to be a welding shop nearby the proposed sign location. This inspector was looking for a welding shop because one was indicated to be there by the sketch attached to the applications. What she saw was some welding being done on the property where the welding business was shown on the sketch to be. This could be seen from the interstate. Apparently because the inspector expected to find a welding business near the proposed sign site as represented on the Respondent's applications, it was concluded that such a business existed there, and the applications were approved. However, the occupant of the subject property has lived there all his life, and has never operated a welding business. He has only done welding on this site once, when he welded a bumper onto a truck. This took ten to fifteen minutes to complete. The photographs which were received in evidence show his property, and the area depicted was substantially the same in 1983 as when the photos were taken. The general appearance of this area is residential or rural in nature, and not commercial. It is visible to traffic on I-10. The adjacent property is leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising. This property has a building on it which bears a small sign reading "Pensacola Outdoor Adv." and the telephone number. This building was leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising in February of 1984, and was not used for any business purpose when the permit applications were submitted. This property is also visible from I-10. However, when the Respondent applied for the subject permits there was no business activity being conducted within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. Therefore, the Department's inspector made a mistake in approving the Respondent's applications for this site. In May of 1984 the Department issued its violation letter advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that permits numbered AI625-10 and AI626-10 held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc,, authorizing signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .65 mile west of SR 297 in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and any signs erected pursuant to these permits be removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 31st day of October, 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 31st day of October, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-4175T Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted Rejected. Accepted. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for the grant of field approval of the permits which is accepted. Accepted, except for cost of erection of the sign which is rejected as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for visibility which is accepted. Rejected, as irrelevant. Rejected, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, except for visibility which is accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Hayden Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Honorable Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
The Issue Whether Jack M. Wainwright d/b/a Dee-Tara Advertising has met the requirements of Section 479.111(2), and is eligible for a permit for outdoor advertising structures from the Florida Department of Transportation. (a) Whether there is effective control of outdoor advertising structures by any local authority in Leon County as required by Title 23, Section 131, United States Code, the implementing federal regulations and the contract entered into between the Governor and the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration on January 27, 1972, promulgated pursuant to Section 479.02, Florida Statutes. Whether the subject parcel of land can be zoned by the Leon County Commission so that outdoor advertising structures can be permitted by the Florida Department of Transportation and erected within 660 feet of an interstate highway.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Jack M. Wainwright conditionally leased 1.16 acres of land, approximately 113.88 feet on the south right-of-way line of Interstate 10 in Leon County, Florida. The effectiveness of the lease was on the condition that the land be rezoned by the Leon County Board of County Commissioners. If the parcel were so rezoned the lessee promised to pay the lessor $250.00 per year for each side of a billboard to be erected on the parcel and further, the lessee would pay to the lessor any increase in taxes attributable to rezoning. The leasing and application for rezoning was primarily for the purpose of placing outdoor advertising on the property to be rezoned along the interstate highway. The lessor owns a small automotive facility which he had been operating for years on his agricultural-zoned five (5) acres. The rezoning encompassed the portion of his acreage farthest from the highway. He hopes to gain more business from the rezoning effort although there is no access to Interstate-l0 less than a mile from his property. The leased land surrounded by land zoned agriculture-2 as is the remainder of the lessor's acreage. The closest business by way of the Interstate is a truck stop about a mile west of the property on State Road 59 near an interchange on 1-10. The interstate is mostly through agricultural lands in this area as well as through most of Leon County, Florida. The application for rezoning was denied upon the first application to the Leon County Board of County Commissioners. Upon second application to the Board the property was rezoned from "agriculture-2" to "rural-commercial" by ordinance 77-26. Neither the rezoning application or ordinance mentions outdoor advertising. After the rezoning of subject land in July, 1977, Respondent applied to Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation for a permit to erect two outdoor advertising signs on the subject property to be not less than 15 feet but within 660 feet of the right-of-way of Interstate-10. The authority for his claim that billboards could be permitted on the rezoned property was derived from the 3.977 rezoning ordinance together with a 1972 and a 1973 ordinance, infra. Leon County Ordinance 72-114, dated November 21, 1972 allows, inter alia, outdoor advertising signs in designated districts as follows: "1. CT Commercial Tourist District CR Commercial Rural District C-2 General Commercial C-4 Automobile Commercial M-2 General Industrial" There is no "Rural-Commercial" designation as subject property was rezoned by ordinance 77-26 and there are no definitions in the billboard ordinance to describe what type of development was intended to be allowed in such districts. A portion of a 1973 ordinance entitled "Section 6.19 CR Rural Commercial District" states in the "District Intent": "The provisions of the CR district are intended to apply to rural areas with direct access to a major street or roadway located within convenient travelling distance to rural residential and agricultural areas, wherein small groups of commercial establishments, cultural and institutional activities and certain uses for processing or selling agricultural products are permitted. A large variety of commercial activities are permitted in recognition of the rural character and long travel distances from rural areas to urban commercial centers." The Zoning Director for the City of Tallahassee and County of Leon stated that a "commercial-rural" district is a broad commercial classification and is more closely associated with the Leon County Commercial Zone C-4, an Automotive-Commercial zoning of the most intensive of all units located along major thoroughfares in the urban areas. The Petitioner through its state administrator for outdoor advertising, disapproved and returned the application to Respondent stating, "it is felt that the rezoning classification does not meet the requirements imposed by State and Federal regulations for permitting of a sign" it cited various state and federal laws and warned that the lack of "effective control" of outdoor advertising signs, displays and devices subject any state to the loss of 10 percent of the amounts which would be otherwise apportioned to such state under Section 104 of Title 23, United States Code, until such time as such state shall provide "effective control". Respondent applied for an administrative hearing. Pursuant to its powers and duties under Section 125.01(g), the Board of County Commissioners adopted a comprehensive plan known as the "Interim Land Use Plan" in 1971, to be effective until 1995. The comprehensive master plan is basically a map of Leon County but it is also a plan or guideline of goals and policies adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. There is a separate planning commission in Leon County whose duties include public hearings and making recommendations as to land use to the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Commission recommended to the Board that the 200 feet from the southern boundary of Interstate-10, a part of the subject property, remain agriculture-2 so that outdoor advertising in the area along the interstate would be discouraged. Concern was indicated by the Planning Commission in its April 7, 1977 meeting that if the subject property were rezoned to rural-commercial that the planning commission might be asked to create spot commercial zones along the interstate to accommodate billboards. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan itself was not modified by the subject rezoning and the area remains agriculture-2 on the plan. The Board of County Commissioners itself has the authority to amend the plan but an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan requires a separate and different procedure than the procedure used to rezone property as was done in the subject rezoning. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Leon County Board of County Commissioners followed correct legal procedures in rezoning the subject parcel of land to "rural-commercial". The Respondent has a county permit for the construction of his proposed signs. The Board denied the rezoning of the property in 1974 but granted rezoning on July 12, 1977. The billboard ordinance of 1972 was considered by the Board at the time thee area was rezoned. The rezoning of the area is in fact "spot zoning" or "strip zoning". Respondent contends: That the only authority permitted to zone subject property is the Board of County Commissioners and once zoning is completed by the county it is final state action; That the Board followed the proper procedures when it rezoned the subject property; That once the property was rezoned "commercial" the previously existing ordinance allowing billboards in commercial zones could be used to permit billboards in that area; That "spot zoning" or "strip zoning" is within the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners; That the zoning of property by the Board of County Commissioners renders inapplicable the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, as amended as well as the State's control of outdoor advertising including the Governor's contract with the Federal Highway Administrator; That the Highway Beautification Act and Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, Outdoor Advertisers, allows billboards on any property zoned "Commercial" including lands along interstate and federal aid highways. Petitioner contends: That the Leon County Board of County Commissioners has authority to zone lands in Leon County but the subject zoning is "spot zoning" which is universally condemned and the acre plus of land was rezoned from agriculture in the midst of agriculture zoned land for the primary purpose of erecting billboards on the interstate highway. That the rezoning for the purpose of erecting outdoor advertising by the Board of County Commissioners was a usurpation of state government authority under Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. That the rezoning ordinance of 1977, no. 77-26, is silent on the subject of outdoor advertising and the "rural-commercial" zoning of the ordinance only allows "limited commercial or industrial activities. . . and is not considered to be commercial for outdoor advertising control. That the outdoor advertising ordinance of 1972, which allows billboards in "commercial-rural" is inapplicable to the subject rezoned land because it lies in an area zoned agriculture for at least one mile in any direction. That neither ordinance 72-114 or any comprehensive zoning plan has been submitted to or accepted by the Federal Highway Administrator as " effective control" of outdoor advertising as required by federal law and the Contract of the Governor and the Federal Highway Administrator dated January 27, 1972. The main contention of the Respondent is that the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to regulate outdoor advertising through its zoning powers under Chapter 125, County Government. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the State Department of Transportation is required to regulate the outdoor advertising under Chapter 479, Outdoor Advertisers.
Recommendation Deny the application for permit to erect outdoor advertising on subject rezoned property. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 W. Kirk Brown, Esquire Post Office Box 4075 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On or about August 16, 1982, the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., filed applications for two permits to erect an outdoor advertising sign in Escambia County, Florida on the west side of I-110, .95 mile north of SR 296. This sign would have one face for northbound traffic and one face for southbound traffic, and would be located outside the city limits of Pensacola. These applications were field inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, and they were approved by the Department's district supervisor in Chipley. On or about September 20, 1982, the Department issued permits for the requested location to the Respondent. On these applications the Respondent designated that the proposed sign location was in an unzoned commercial area within 800 feet of a business. These applications also certified that the sign to be erected would meet all of the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. A sketch attached to the applications showed that the proposed sign location would be adjacent to a business that was designated as Coleman Roofing. When the field inspector visited the site she was aware that an antique business was supposed to be located in the area because it was designated on another outdoor advertising company's application as a business that qualified another sign location as unzoned commercial. This inspector found Hazel's Antiques because there was a sign which said "antiques" and a nearby shed which was visible from the interstate. In continuing to look for Coleman Roofing, she walked up the embankment between I-110 and the subject location until she could see what she determined to be some roofing material stored at one end of the property. She approved the Respondent's applications more on the proximity of the antique business than on the basis of Coleman Roofing. The owner of the property where the antique business was supposed to be is not in the antique business and has never conducted any business activities from this property. She lives there in a mobile home, and no one else has ever been in business on her property. Another outdoor advertising company obtained her permission to place a sign on her property saying "antiques", and there are some antiques in her mother's home, but these are not for sale. A representative from this sign company also took out a county occupational license in the name of this property owner, but she did not apply for this license. The shed seen by the Department's inspector is used for cookouts, and while there is some old furniture outside, it is junk waiting to be carried away. The owner of the property where Coleman Roofing was supposed to be is a self-employed roofer operating out of a trailer in which he lives. He has also worked from his home as a carpenter. He has no business telephone in his home, only a residential listing, and he only does bookkeeping from the dining room of his home. Outside there is a shed where he has kept his boat and an outbuilding with junk and old furniture in it. When he is working on roofing jobs he orders roofing material delivered to the job site. His property is in a residential area, and any leftover roofing material that may be there is awaiting a trip to the dump. As viewed from I-110, there is no indication that any commercial activity is being conducted at the subject location. The nature of the area within 660 feet of the interstate right of-way and within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign is residential. Sometime prior to November of 1984, the site was 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 its notice 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 AH820-10 and AH821-10, held by the Respondent, Bill Salter Outdoor Advertising, Inc., authorizing a sign on the west side of I-110, .95 mile north of SR 295, in Escambia County, Florida, be revoked, and the subject sign removed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 12th day of September, 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 12th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxine F. Ferguson, Esquire Haydon Burns Bldg., M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Mark J. Proctor, Esquire P. O. Box 12308 Pensacola, Florida 32581 Hon. Thomas E. Drawdy Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The sign which is the subject of this proceeding was cited for violations of the Florida statutes and rules regulating outdoor advertising structures by notice of violation dated November 3, 1983, and served on the Respondent as owner of this sign. The subject sign is located on the north side of Interstate 10, 1.6 miles east of State Road 267, in Gadsden County, Florida. This structure is an outdoor sign, or display, or device, or figure, or painting, or drawing, or message, or placard, or poster, or billboard, or other thing, designed, intended or used to advertise or inform with all or part of its advertising or informative content visible from the main traveled way of Interstate 10. The structure is located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the pavement of Interstate 10, as alleged in the violation notice dated November 3, 1983. The structure was located outside any incorporated city or town on the date it was built. The structure was not located in a commercial or industrial zoned or unzoned area on the date it was built. The structure was constructed, or erected, without a currently valid permit issued by the Department of Transportation; it was operated, used, or maintained without such a permit; and a Department of Transportation outdoor advertising permit has never been issued for the subject structure. The structure does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in Section 479.16, Florida Statutes. The structure was located adjacent to and visible from the main traveled way of a roadway open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic in the State of Florida at the time it was built. The structure had affixed the copy or message as shown on the notice of violation when it was issued; namely, Texaco Next Exit Turn Left - Food Store. Hinson Oil Company is the owner of the sign or structure which is the subject of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the sign owned by the Respondent, Hinson Oil Company, located on the north side of Interstate 10, 1.6 miles east of State Road 267, in Gadsden County, Florida, be removed. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Haydon Horns Building, MS-58 Tallahassee, Fl. 32301-8064 Mr. E. W. Hinson, Jr. Hinson Oil Company P O. Box 448 Quincy, Florida 32351 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 31st day of August, 1984. Paul Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, T & L Management, Inc., was issued permits numbered AK081-12 and AK082-12 on or about August 30, 1983. These permits were for the erection of signs on the north side of I-10, approximately .4 mile west of SR 297, in Escambia County, Florida. They were issued because of the proximity of a welding business adjacent to the proposed sign location. The Respondent submitted the applications for these permits, and designated on the applications that the sign location would be in a commercial or industrial unzoned area within 800 feet of a business. On each of these applications the Respondent certified that the signs to be erected would meet all requirements of Chapter 479 of the Florida Statutes. Prior to the issuance of these permits, the subject site was inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, who approved the applications because of the existence of what she believed to be a welding shop nearby the proposed sign location. This inspector was looking for a welding shop because she had been informed that a welding shop was located there. What she saw was some welding being done on the property where the welding business was supposed to be. This could be seen from the interstate. Apparently because the inspector expected to find a welding business near the proposed sign site, she concluded that such a business existed there, and the applications were approved. However, the occupant of the subject property has lived there for 37 years, and he has never operated a welding business. He has only done welding on this site once since 1980, when he welded a bumper onto a truck in his barn. The photographs which were received in evidence show his property, and the general appearance of this area is residential or rural in nature, and not commercial. It is visible to traffic on I-10. The Department's inspector testified that she used a pair of binoculars to enable her to see a small sign reading "welding" on the property where she saw welding being done. However, the property owner denied that any such sign was on his property. Other witnesses presented by the Respondent also testified that they saw welding being done, but this issue has been resolved by accepting the testimony of the witness who lived on the property and who did the welding on the one occasion, as being the more credible and trustworthy evidence. The adjacent property is leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising. This property has a building on it which bears a small sign reading "Pensacola Outdoor Adv." and the telephone number. This building was leased by Pensacola Outdoor Advertising in 1984, and was not used for any business purpose when the permit applications were submitted. This property is also visible from I-10. When the Respondent applied for the subject permits there was no business activity being conducted within 800 feet of the proposed sign location. Therefore, the Department's inspector made a mistake in approving the Respondent's applications for this site. In October of 1984 the Department issued its violation notices advising the Respondent that the subject sign permits were being revoked.
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.
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 U.S. Highway 27 in Gadsden County, Florida. The sign is located approximately 1/2 mile South of the city limits of Havana. This sign has not been permitted in the years 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 for a current permit.
