The Issue Whether the outdoor advertising signs of Respondent are in violation of Florida Statute 479.07(1), sign being erected without a State permit. Whether the subject signs are in violation of the setback requirements of Section 479.11, Florida Statutes. Whether subject signs are new and different signs inasmuch as they have new copy, are materially elevated from the location of the previous signs and have catwalks and lights added, thus requiring a new application and permit. Whether subject signs are in violation of federal and State laws, rules and regulations and should be removed. Whether the federal regulations adopted in Section 479.02, F.S., would have to be adopted as a rule under Chapter 120, F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent sign company has a sign located approximately 12.81 miles north of Dunn Avenue on the east side of I-95 facing south containing the following copy: "Ramada Inn Exit 7 Miles U.S. 17" The sign was increased in height from under ten (10) feet to twenty feet from the ground to the bottom of the sign, lights were added, and the catwalk was added to accommodate the change in advertisers. This extensive alteration was done in June of 1975 and copy was changed. The original sign was erected in May of 1968 and advertised "Shell Oil." Respondent sign company has a sign located approximately 8.81 miles south of Bowden Road on the west side of I-95 facing north and containing the following copy: "Family Inn of St. Augustine" The revised sign is located in an area zoned open rural, has been elevated and has had lights and catwalk added. The original sign had different copy and was erected and permitted in October of 1968. Permits had been issued for the two subject signs in the approximate location with different copy on them in October of 1968 or shortly thereafter. The new advertisers wanted the signs lighted and pay approximately $30 more per month for the lighted signs. The new signs now are much more visible. Both signs were elevated approximately ten (10) feet, new copy put on them and lights and catwalks added in April of 1976. Permits were applied for but the Petitioner Department of Transportation refused to issue permits stating that they were new signs, no new applications had been made and were obviously ineligible for permits inasmuch as the signs violated the setback requirements of Chapter 479 and the federal laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the Florida Legislature.
Recommendation Remove subject signs if said signs have not been removed by the owner within ten (10) days after entry of the final order herein, as no applications for permits were made or granted. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of December, 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 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 W. D. Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 539 Winter Park , Florida 32789 George E. Hollis Branch Manager National Advertising Company Post Office Box 23208 Tampa, Florida 33622 Mr. Frank Whitesell Post Office Box 1089 Lake City, Florida 32055 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the Outdoor Advertising Sign owned by the Petitioner qualifies for permitting as a non-conforming sign.
Findings Of Fact On August 5, 1996, the Department issued a notice of Violation of an illegally erected sign to Clarence E. Adams. The sign in question was located 9.240 miles south of the line between Georgia and Florida on real property that is now and always has been zoned agricultural. The property upon which the sign is located was purchased by Clarence Adams and his brother, Dennis C. Adams, in 1976. The sign was on the property when they purchased the property; and, although they did not own the sign, they have derived continually revenue from the rental of the property upon which the sign is located since 1976. The sign has been maintained in it present form since 1976 by its owner(s). The subject sign had never been cited previously by the Department for violation of the outdoor advertising statutes. The subject sign is located at mile post 9.240. The sign is not in the Department’s right of way. The sign is not a danger to the traveling public. The sign is located adjacent to and can be seen from the main traveled way of Interstate 75 which is a federal highway that is open to the public. The current owner, Ray Sheffield, testified and did not claim to have a valid permit. Clarence Adams admitted that he had never applied for such a permit. The Department proved by testimony and evidence that the subject sign does not have a valid outdoor advertising permit, and there is no record by the Department that it ever had a valid permit. Clarence Adams proved that the sign was at its current location in 1976 when Adams and his brother purchased the property. Adams proved that a sign was in that location as early as 1975. The Department and the Federal Highway Administration entered into an agreement in 1972 that prohibited the erection of outdoor advertising signs along federal highways in areas zoned agricultural. The Petitioner did not prove that the sign was erected prior to the agreement between the Department and the Federal Highway Administration in 1972.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding: That the outdoor advertising sign, which is the subject of the notice of violation and which is located at mile post 9.240, does not have a permit, is in violation of the law, and is not qualified to be grand-fathered in and permitted; and That the owners of the real property upon which the subject sign is located and putative owner of the sign, Ray Sheffield, be directed to remove the sign within 30 days; and That the owners of the real property be advised that, if the subject sign is not removed, the Department will seek an order of a court of competent jurisdiction directing the removal of the sign and assessing costs for obtaining the court’s order and the costs of removing the sign. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 22nd day of May, 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Scaff, Jr., Esquire Post Office Drawer O Jasper, Florida 32052 Andrea V. Nelson, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Petitioner issued a violation notice on the 29th day of June, 1977, alleging that a sign owned by Respondent located at the northwest corner of Seminole and Pratt-Whitney Road on State Road 80, Palm Beach County, Florida, violated permit, zoning and spacing laws. No application was made for the erection of this sign and none secured from the Florida Department of Transportation. The sign is approximately 12-15 feet west of an existing sign and is approximately 60 feet from the edge of the right of way of the Federal Aid Primary Road 80. The area in which the sign was erected is zoned agricultural. Petitioner contends that the sign violates the set back and spacing requirements of Section 479 and that it was erected in an agricultural zoned area without a permit. Respondent contends that the area is agricultural and is in a remote part of Palm Beach County and that he should be allowed a variance inasmuch as the sign is necessary for the advertising of his business in the rural section of the county.
Recommendation Remove subject sign for failure to obtain a permit and for violation of zoning and spacing laws. There are no provisions for a variance under the facts of this case. DONE and ENTERED this 19th 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 Mr. O. E. Black, Administrator Outdoor Advertising Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Allan Black, President Allan Black Construction Corporation Box 5-73 - Wellington West Palm Beach, Florida 33411
The Issue Whether the sign of Respondent violates Section 479.07 and Section 479.02, Florida Statutes by violation of the permit and spacing requirements of the Outdoor Advertising Act.
Findings Of Fact An application was made for a permit for the subject sign and the application was denied on the basis that the sign was within the 500 foot spacing requirement, the sign being erected approximately in the middle of the distance between two outdoor advertising sign which are approximately 500 feet apart. The sign advertises Oaks Trading Post. The sign has been erected for many years and has carried messages such as "Elect Askew for Governor" and "Vote Democratic" or other political advertisements. The sign now advertises a commercial establishment and has since, at least, December of 1976. This sign does not bear a permit although the Respondent admitted that it is a commercial sign. 3.. The Respondent has paid the required license fees for the subject sign for more than the last 20 years to the City of Rockledge, Florida.
Recommendation Remove the subject sign. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 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 Mr. Anthony Ninos 112 Riverside Drive Cocoa, Florida 32922
Findings Of Fact The Steakery and the Sugarloaf Leisure Club are businesses in Summerland Key, Monroe County, Florida, that are owned by William A. Hare. For the past four years, Mr. Hare has, on behalf of his respective businesses, leased two outdoor advertising signs that are located on the same support structure with one sign being directly above the other. On one sign there appears an advertisement for The Steakery while on the other there appears an advertisement for the Sugarloaf Leisure Club. These two signs face are located in Monroe County, Florida, on the northbound side of U.S. 1, a federal-aid primary highway. The support structure for the signs is approximately 10 feet from the highway. No permit has been issued by the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) for either sign. The signs are located in a part of Monroe County which is zoned "Native Area". This area is not zoned commercial or industrial and is not an unzoned commercial or industrial area. The signs are not located on the business premises of the sign owner. The signs were inspected by the DOT's Outdoor Advertising Inspector and found to have no state sign permits attached them. On October 5, 1989, DOT caused to be filed against the two signs notices that neither sign had the permit required by law and that the zoning for the location of the signs did not permit outdoor advertising signs. Respondents have not contested the method by which the notices were posted. Mr. Hare, on behalf of his businesses, filed a timely demand for formal hearing following his receipt of the notices of violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a final order which finds that permits required by law have not been issued for the subject signs, that the signs are in a location that is ineligible for permitting because of its zoning, and which orders the immediate removal of the subject signs. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division f Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES 89-6103T AND 89-61O4T The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Department of Transportation: 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 1 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 2 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in material part by paragraph 6 of the Recommended Order. 4. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 4 are adopted in material part by paragraph 3 of the Recommended Order. 5. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 5 are adopted in material part by paragraph 5 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Rivers Buford, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mr. William Hare Owner, The Steakery Owner, Sugarloaf Leisure Club Post Office Box 723 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bulding 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
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 July 6 and 13, 1983, the Department resolved in its district office in Chipley, Florida, the Respondent's applications for permits to erect two stacked, back-to-back, outdoor advertising signs in Jackson County, Florida, on the south side of 1-10, one approximately 2.9 miles and the other approximately 3.1 miles west of SR 69. These permit applications stated that the locations requested were in an unzoned commercial or industrial area within 800 feet of a business. The Department's outdoor advertising inspector visited the sites twice after having reviewed the Respondent's applications and being told that he would find a business known as Dave's Garage there. The first time he visited he did not see the business. On the second visit he saw the top of a tin building and the top of a house from the interstate. There was an antenna visible on the housetop, but he could not see any commercial activity. After driving off the interstate to the site of the buildings, he found a car, a bus, a shed, some grease and oil cans, but no one was there. The front of the building had a sign on it which said Dave's Garage. Nothing could be seen from I-10 to identify this site as the location of a business, however. Based upon his inspection of the site, coupled with the Respondent's representation that a business existed there, the inspector approved the Respondent's applications. They were also approved by his supervisor, and permits for the requested locations were issued because of the proximity of the business known as Dave's Garage to the subject sites. Subsequently, after the permits had been issued, the Respondent erected its signs which are the subject of this proceeding. From January to March, 1985, there was still no business activity at the subject site that was visible from I-10. On March 12, 1985, two days before the hearing, an on-premise sign bearing the words Dave's Garage, was erected which is visible from I-10. Otherwise, the area is rural in nature. The Respondent, through its agents Ron Gay and Terry Davis, 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 AJ725-10, AJ726-10, AJ723 10, AJ724-10, AJ720-10, AJ721-10, AJ719-10 and AJ722-10, held by the Respondent, Tri-State Systems, Inc., authorizing two signs on the south side of I-10, 2.9 miles and 3.1 miles west of SR 69 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 P. O. Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Hon. Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent maintains an outdoor advertising structure on the I-95 southbound lane facing north, 13.94 miles north of the Brevard-Volusia County line. Sometime between August 6, 1975 and January 12, 1976, the face of this advertising structure was raised six to eight feet in height. This was done by extensions being placed on the original poles upon which the structure sits. The structure retained its same face size and lighting. The face of this structure was raised at the request of Respondent's client in order to retain that client's business. No evidence was presented to show when this sign was originally erected. No evidence was presented by Petitioner, Department of Transportation, which would establish that the subject sign is or is not located at a "commercial or industrial zone" or an "unzoned commercial or industrial area" as those terms are defined in Section 479.01, Florida Statutes. The subject sign is located approximately 15 feet outside the right-of-way of I-95.
Findings Of Fact 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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, National Advertising Company, submitted applications for outdoor advertising sign permits to construct three (3) back-to-back outdoor advertising structures displaying six (6) outdoor advertising faces. One structure was to be located on the west side of 1-95, one mile south of State Road 76; the next structure was to be located on the west side of I- 95, 2300 feet south of State Road 76; and, the third structure was to be located on the west side of 1-95, 3800 feet south of State Road 76, all in Martin County, Florida. The applications submitted to the Department of Transportation by National Advertising Company had attached to them appropriate land leases and copies of appropriate Martin County Building Permits. The applications submitted to the Department by National Advertising Company were received by the Department on September 24, 1986. On October 27, 1986, the Department, acting by and through its District Administrator for Outdoor Advertising for District IV, Mr. Fred J. Harper, issued its Memorandum of Returned Application rejecting the applications submitted by National Advertising Company for the permits in question, based on Section 479.11(10), Florida Statutes. The first two sites in question are located on a segment of the Interstate Highway System in Martin County which was recently completed. The remaining site, one mile south, is slated to be open to the motoring public during December, 1987. Current urban area Boundaries are based on the 1980 U.S. Census designations, recommendations of the Metropolitan Planning Agency and approval by the Department and the Federal Highway Administration. Urban area boundaries can be inside or outside of the city limit, depending on population density. The current urban area designation for Martin County shows the area south of SR76, adjacent to the west side of 1-95, (the proposed site locations) to be outside the urban boundary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's permit applications. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire 200 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
