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 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 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 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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether DOT should void outdoor advertising permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35?
Findings Of Fact On March 20, 1987, (T. 12) DOT issued advertising sign permits to respondent, Nos. AT 402-35 and AT 403-35, authorizing construction of a metal outdoor advertising sign "monopole" 43 feet high with sign boards facing north and south, less than a tenth of a mile south of Alternate U.S. Highway 90, a "federal aid primary road" (T. 11), immediately west of State Road 297 in Escambia County. DOT's Exhibit No. 1. In May of 1988, Outdoor Media, Inc., applied for a permit to construct an outdoor advertising sign at a site five or six hundred feet east of the intersection of State Road 297 and Alternate U.S. Highway 90. Because the site proposed by Outdoor Media, Inc., is visible from and lies within 660 feet of the main traveled way of Alternate U.S. Highway 90 and because it lies within 1,000 feet of the site on which DOT had authorized Salter to erect signs, DOT denied Outdoor Media, Inc.'s, application. When Philip N. Brown, who works in DOT's outdoor advertising section, reported that no sign had ever been built at the site for which Salter had obtained permits Nos. AT402-35 and AT403-35, DOT notified Salter of its intent to void and revoke the permits. DOT's Exhibit No. 2. Some time after June 19, 1988, more than 18 days after DOT sent Salter notice of its intent to void the sign permits, Salter erected a wooden sign on the site. On March 10, 1988, Salter had obtained a building permit from Escambia County for the metal monopole structure, but, because more than 180 days had elapsed without any call for inspection, Escambia County declared the building permit null and void on September 23, 1988.
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to an order, requiring the removal of two signs involved herein which are owned by Respondent, pursuant to the Highway Beautification Act or Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and if so, whether or not the Respondent is entitled to compensation from Petitioner for the value of such signs.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the Respondent, National Advertising Company, is the owner of certain outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Jacksonville, Florida. The parties also stipulated that Interstate 95 is part of the interstate highway system; that the two signs in question can be seen from Interstate 95 and the signs are located within 660 feet of the road's right-of-way. The parties also stipulated that only the poles which are used to erect the signs were in place prior to midnight on December 8, 1971. It appears that the poles were erected sometime during 1968, and that faces were added to the poles during the spring of 1972. The signs are located at .43 miles North of Pecan Park Road and .73 miles North of Pecan Park Road, respectively, adjacent to Interstate percent Highway 95. The Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, takes the position that since the faces were not on the signs prior to midnight on December 8, 1981, pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, it is entitled to the entry of an order requiring removal of the signs by Respondent without any compensation for the signs whatsoever. Respondent, through counsel, moved that the hearing be dismissed on the ground that the Division of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to hear such matters, in that the signs may be removed only by proceeding under Florida's eminent domain law. 2/ It is undisputed that the signs involved are located within prohibited distances as provided in Chapter; 479.11, Florida Statutes. They are, therefore, a nonconforming structure as provided for within the terms of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. In view of the stipulated facts, the structures involved herein do not constitute signs within the meaning of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, since prior to midnight on December 8, 1971, all that existed of those structures were poles. See A. W. Lee, Jr. v. Reubin O'D. Askew, Case No.2-1798 (2nd DCA, 1979). Within the next year, however, Respondent erected advertising displays which had informative contents that were visible from the main traveled way. At that point, the structures herein became nonconforming outdoor advertising signs and were thereafter required to comply with pertinent State law in effect on that date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, upon removal of the signs, remit to the Respondent compensation in the amount of the actual replacement value of the materials used in the signs. It is further recommended that compensation be made pursuant to the State's eminent domain procedures. 3/ RECOMMENDED this, 25th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent's sign permits should be revoked on the basis that the permit location is not within an unzoned commercial or industrial area as required by the foregoing provisions of the statutes and rules.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 8, 1982, Branch's Outdoor Advertising filed applications for two sign permits to allow erection of an outdoor advertising sign in Jackson County, Florida. The sign is located on the north side of I-10 approximately 1.92 miles east of State Road 69. The sites applied for were field-inspected by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, were approved and the Department issued the permits numbered AI33-10 and AI34-10 for the requested location. When the entity known as Branch's Outdoor Advertising submitted the application for the permits, it designated thereon that the proposed location was in a commercial or industrial unzoned area within 800 feet of a business and that the signs to be erected would meet the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. The business which is located within 800 feet of the Respondent's sign is known as "Branch's Garage" Branch's Garage is located in a large tin shed which is used as a storage shed for farm equipment by Mr. Branch. Mr. Branch is a farmer as well as the operator of the welding and automotive repair business which is located in that same tin building. A portion of that building is visible from the main traveled way of Interstate 10. Branch's Garage is the only business located within 800 feet of the Respondent's-sign. Mr. Branch maintains two signs on or in the vicinity of his building advertising Branch's Garage and Welding Shop. The signs and the parked cars and vehicles associated with the business are, in part, visible from I-10. Mr. Jack Culpepper, the Petitioner's "Right-of-Way Administrator", was given the specific assignment of attempting to "reestablish effective control of outdoor advertising in the third district" in approximately the Summer of 1983. Mr. Culpepper had no direct knowledge of and had not inspected the vicinity of the sign in question prior to that time. In 1984, shortly before the Notice to Show Cause in question was issued, Mr. Culpepper did inspect the area and arrived at the belief that no commercial activity was occurring at the site known as Branch's Garage. Mr. Culpepper acknowledged that during his inspection, while driving down Interstate 10 in the vicinity, might not have noticed commercial activity which might have been going on at Branch's Garage. Mr. Culpepper acknowledged that, outdoor advertising regulatory personnel in the third district had adopted a more strict enforcement policy and interpretation. of the foregoing legal authority at issue in 1984 than had been the case in 1982 when the sign was permitted. In essence, that change in interpretation embodied a policy of not permitting, or seeking to revoke, permits for signs for unzoned commercial activity areas or locations when the commercial activity upon which the permits were predicated was not visible from the main traveled way of I-10, as opposed to the situation in 1982 whereby permits were issued if a commercial activity was present within 800 feet of a sign, without consideration of whether the commercial activity was visible from I-10. Mr. Branch conducted his welding and auto repair business known as Branch's Garage during the time in question in 1982 when the permits were issued at the site in question (the tin building). He also was conducting that activity during 1984 including the time when the Notice to Show Cause was issued. Mr. Branch is a farmer and uses the tin building in question for both businesses. Mr. Branch derives a part of his livelihood from the automobile repair and welding business. The on-premise signs located at Branch's Garage are visible from I-10. The applications for the outdoor advertising permit submitted by Branch's Outdoor Advertising were subjected to a field inspection as to the proposed site by the Department's outdoor advertising inspector on October 13, 1982. That inspector had been employed by the Department for some twelve years at the time. In connection with his duties involving enforcement of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, and Rule 14.10, Florida Administrative Code, he had adopted a basic procedure for inspection of sign sites applied-for, which included actual inspection of the proposed site and, if the proposed site was in an unzoned area, ascertaining that there was an unzoned commercial activity present within 800 feet of the sign site. The inspector had made prior inspections of the site. As a result of those prior inspections he had already issued permits to another sign company authorizing the erection of a sign within the same vicinity based upon the unzoned commercial activity known as Branch's Welding and Garage. Based upon his field inspection in connection with the Branch's Outdoor Advertising applications in question, this inspector approved the applications, resulting in the issuance of the permits in question. The inspector had not been provided with rules or guidelines which would assist him in identifying and determining whether a commercial activity was present at the time of his inspection. He was required to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis, given the relevant statutory provisions, his experience, and instructions by his superiors, as to what would qualify as a commercial activity. Based upon the activities he observed being conducted at Branch's Welding and Garage, he concluded that there was sufficient legal basis for issuance of the permits. Upon issuance of the outdoor advertising sign permits to Branch's Outdoor Advertising, Mr. Branch erected a sign on his property which was improperly located and violated the spacing requirements between it and a sign known as the "Fuqua sign" which had previously been erected within the vicinity of his business. The incorrect location of Branch's sign created an enforcement problem for the Department's outdoor advertising personnel. In order to resolve that conflict with Mr. Branch, the owner of Branch's Outdoor Advertising, the inspector took an agent and representative from Tri-State Systems, Inc., Mr. Matt Fellows, to the site and identified the permits for Mr. Branch's sign as being legal permits. The inspector advised Matt Fellows that the sign was improperly located and suggested that Tri-State purchase Mr. Branch's permits and build a properly located sign at that vicinity location for which the permits had originally been issued. Based upon the information and suggestion from the Department's outdoor advertising inspector, the Respondent contacted Mr. Branch and made arrangements to purchase the sign permits in question. After consummating the purchase, it constructed a sign in question at the location authorized by the permits. The purchase of the permits and the subsequent erection of the sign was done in reliance upon the directions, information and suggestions from the Department's outdoor advertising inspector. The Notice of violation issued October 3, 1984, to Respondent's assignor, Branch~s Outdoor Advertising, was issued at the behest of Mr. Jack Culpepper, the Right-of-Way Administrator for the Department's Third District on or about September 27, 1984. Mr. Culpepper determined to issue the notice of violation based upon his formal inspection of the area immediately prior to that date, whereupon he concluded that the permits had been issued in error in 1982. Mr. Culpepper had no personal knowledge of whether any commercial activity was being conducted at the subject location in 1982, but relied on what had been reported to him by other third district personnel. The inspector who had personally inspected the property in 1982 had been satisfied that an unzoned commercial activity was occurring a proper distance from the sign site and his immediate supervisor had agreed with that interpretation which resulted in the permits being issued. Because of the change in interpretation of the foregoing statutory authority concerning sign permits in the Department's third district to a more strict interpretation, as delineated above, the Notice to Show Cause was issued against Respondent's assignor on October 3, 1984.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the petition by the Department of Transportation against Tri-State Systems, Inc. should be dismissed and that Tri-State Systems, Inc. should be permitted to retain the permits referenced above. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of October, 1986 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 28th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not comporting in its entirety with the competent substantial evidence of record. Rejected for the same reason except for the last sentence which is accepted in so far as it demonstrates the reason for issuance of the Notice of Violation. Accepted, although this proposed finding of fact is not material, relevant nor dispositive of the material issues involved in this case. Accepted, although, as to its last sentence this proposed finding of fact is not material or relevant to a disposition of the material issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of the material issues presented in that it is immaterial to disposition of those issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Copies furnished: Maxine P. Ferguson, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire Post Office Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802-2151 Thomas Drawdy, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 A. J. Spalla, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building ============================================================ =====
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 Larry Brummitt owned a sign on U.S. 90 in Greenville, Florida advertising Country Corner for which he held a permit for seven or eight years. U.S. 90 is a federal-aid primary highway. Mr. Brummitt desired to rebuild and relocate this sign a short distance from its authorized location and, to insure he did things properly, sought advice both from the advertising sign inspectors at Lake City and from the State Administrator of the Outdoor Advertising Section in Tallahassee. At both places he was told that be could not get an application for a new sign approved until his existing sign was removed because the new sign would violate the spacing requirements of Rule 14D-10.06(b)3, Florida Administrative Code while the existing sign was up; that an application would not be accepted while the former sign was standing; that the policy of the Department, when conflicting interests desired to erect signs where only one could be erected, was the person whose application was first received would be approved. The Department's long-standing policy, which was memorialized in a memorandum to all District Outdoor Advertising Sign Administrators in 1978, is that where conflicting applications for signs are received, the first submitted will be approved. Relying upon this information, Petitioner prepared his application, removed the old sign, and at 10:00 a.m. on 2 June 1980 presented his application to Respondent for a permit to erect his replacement sign. On 24 March 1980 American Sign and Indicator Company first approached Respondent's sign inspector to inquire about erecting a time and temperature sign for the Bank of Greenville. They were told that a permit for such a sign could not be issued because it would be within 500 feet of the Country Corner sign and would violate the spacing requirements unless Brummit's sign was first moved. At 1400 hours on 2 June 1980 American Sign and Indicator Company presented an application at the Lake City Headquarters of Respondent for a permit to erect a time and temperature sign at approximately the same location earlier requested by Brummitt. In his letter of 11 June 1980 the District Administrator, Outdoor Advertising, in Lake City advised Mr. Brummitt that his application was being disapproved and of his right to petition for an administrative hearing within 14 days or the denial would become final. As reasons for denying the application the letter stated: The application indicates the proposed location would be within 500 feet if a proposed time and temperature display to be erected by the Bank of Greenville in the County of Madison. The Bank of Greenville has been dealing in good faith with the Department to erect this display since January 5th, 1980. After obtaining the necessary criteria and additional expenses accrued, the Department feels the bank should be allowed to erect the display, because we feel they were the first applicant. When questioned by the Hearing Officer how Respondent "reasoned" the bank's application was received prior to Petitioner's application, the District Sign Inspector acknowledged that he had discussed these applications with the Chief Right-of-Way Agent in District 2, Mr. Bielling, under whose supervision the Outdoor Advertising Section comes, that Mr. Bielling is his boss and tells him what to do (Tr. p. 24-25) and that as far as the sign inspector is concerned, Mr. Bielling has the prerogative to change DOT policy.
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
